Theism. Is it by default anti-evolution?

[Clara Tea]

Covid mutates, just like other viruses. Now there are two strains of it. The reason that we have to get a flu shot every year is because of this mutation.

Clearly, viruses show us that evolution is real.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Why do some of the atheists and theists believe that theism is by default against evolution? There are some atheists that insist a theist must be anti-evolution. Its almost blasphemous for a theist to speak about evolution. Sometimes it is almost a religious, dogmatic, 'this is mine, not yours" kind of argument. Why is that?

In the past there have been many theists who propagated and taught evolution. There have also been many who didnt know about the evolutionary thoughts. So they are not against evolution but are theists themselves. Thus, is it an educated assumption or just a dismissal? Or is it something else?

Even some theists think that theists by default are against evolution. Whats strange is that they dont seem to know or believe there were any theists in the past who even spoke of evolution. Well, that's wrong.

Why?

Believing in divinity is not in contradiction with evolution or whatever science discovers. But theism in my opinion is in contradictions with overall science. Believing in divinity and theism are not necessarily the same. Theism is a specific form of belief in divinity.

 

[firedragon]

Modern life/diversification of life brought about through controlled change (Design) by an intelligent entity.

Okay. Thats one.

So I would be interested to hear how you or anyone for that matter would disprove intelligent or unintelligent design with manifest evidence.

 

[firedragon]

Believing in divinity is not in contradiction with evolution or whatever science discovers. But theism in my opinion is in contradictions with overall science. Believing in divinity and theism are not necessarily the same. Theism is a specific form of belief in divinity.

If theism is not "believing in a divinity" what else is it?

 

[firedragon]

Pope Bolsters Church's Support For Scientific View of Evolution (Published 1996)

Year 1996, Pope John Paul II pushed the idea that humans evolved based on "fresh knowledge."

Churches aren't supposed to lie to support God. DNA is used for court proof. DNA proves evolution.

Pope John Paul II also said that God guided evolution.

Notice that one side of the debate uses solid proof, while the other takes advantage of an absence of information to insert biblical views.

Pope is not "THE OTHER SIDE". Pope is is just one part, there are others.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We're talking about the evolution of less complex life forms into more complex lifeforms over time. Atheists believe that it is a natural process. Most theists believe that it is a process guided by the hand of god. YE creationists do not believe that this process occurs at all and that the creator god being created every lifeform exactly as it currently is.

I'm aware. I'm just pointing out that, to those atheists who are materialists, guided evolution isn't any more evolution than breeding dog breeds. You can call it evolution in the sense that there's a change happening from one form to another, and there's even diversification happening. But you wouldn't hear materialists call that 'evolution' in the context of an evolution v creation style debate.

The conflict doesn't come from those theists who subscribe to intelligent design saying that they do, but that it's equivalent to natural selection in the sciences.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If theism is not "believing in a divinity" what else is it?

Good question.

A theist believes in a God, because he thinks, this world could not have come to existence purely through laws of physics. Therefore the theist believes there must have been a God who created this world.
If the theist agrees that this world just evolved through laws of physics, he has admitted, this world did not need a God to have created it.
Believing in divinity is not necessarily the same as theism. I as a Bahai believe in God and evolution. But I dont consider this universe the proof of God. I believe the appearance of Manifestation of God in this world on earth, is the foremost proof.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Okay. Thats one.

So I would be interested to hear how you or anyone for that matter would disprove intelligent or unintelligent design manifest evidence.

I'm not really interested in getting into creationism v evolution since it's something that's been covered to death. But if you want some keywords to hunt for you could start by 'argument from bad design' (As in, evolutionary pathways that make sense via environmentally selecting random mutations does not make sense with a designer. Such as the pathway of the optic nerve causing a blind spot when a designer could have easily avoided such malfunction.)
Or occam's razor. The process of evolution doesn't require a third party, and a third party is a needless assumption.

You could also look into the Kitzmiller v Dover court case, since it had a plethora of scientists making arguments about the separation of evolution and intelligent design. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pope Bolsters Church's Support For Scientific View of Evolution (Published 1996)

Year 1996, Pope John Paul II pushed the idea that humans evolved based on "fresh knowledge."

Churches aren't supposed to lie to support God. DNA is used for court proof. DNA proves evolution.

Pope John Paul II also said that God guided evolution.

Notice that one side of the debate uses solid proof, while the other takes advantage of an absence of information to insert biblical views.

If JP2 ever repudiated Humani Generis, I didn't hear about it.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not really interested in getting into creationism v evolution since it's something that's been covered to death.

Well, that's not the subject you brought into this discussion. So that's a strawman.

Nevertheless, thanks for engaging. Cheers.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well, that's not the subject you brought into this discussion. So that's a strawman.

Nevertheless, thanks for engaging. Cheers.

Creationism includes intelligent design, which is distinguished from evolution in a scientific sense by the atheists and some theists you described in your OP. Who wouldn't call ID evolution. That's my point. If you think that's a strawman than *shrug*.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Good question.

A theist believes in a God, because he thinks, this world could not have come to existence purely through laws of physics. Therefore the theist believes there must have been a God who created this world.
If the theist agrees that this world just evolved through laws of physics, he has admitted, this world did not need a God to have created it.
Believing in divinity is not necessarily the same as theism. I as a Bahai believe in God and evolution. But I dont consider this universe the proof of God. I believe the appearance of Manifestation of God in this world on earth, is the foremost proof.

You have given your personal belief and faith statement.

Theism comes from the word Theos. It means divinity.

Salam.

 

[firedragon]

Creationism includes intelligent design, which is distinguished from evolution in a scientific sense by the atheists and some theists you described in your OP. Who wouldn't call ID evolution. That's my point. If you think that's a strawman than *shrug*.

Cheers.

Maybe. But that's not what I was talking about, so it was a strawman. Its just not relevant to what you were talking about.I dont mean to offend you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe. But that's not what I was talking about, so it was a strawman. Its just not relevant to what you were talking about.I dont mean to offend you.

In that case it would be a red herring and not a strawman.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You have given your personal belief and faith statement.

Theism comes from the word Theos. It means divinity.

Salam.

Yes, for me believing in God is based on the belief in manifestation of God. Because, I see supernatural signs from Bahaullah or other Manifestations. When I investigated Them, I could see supernatural power in them. This is my conclusion.
I think Everyone needs to make their own personal conclusions.
But the theists have their own personal conclusion as well. They believe this world could not have come into existence only by science. A God must have created it. However, the current science has shown how everything scientifically happened without a need for a God, from big bang till now. Science will find out one day, what was before big bang as well, so, again, no evidence for God.

 

[firedragon]

Such as the pathway of the optic nerve causing a blind spot when a designer could have easily avoided such malfunction.

How do you predict another 1000 years of evolution would not recognise the existence of nerve fibres in the blind spot is a stage in evolution or is a remnant that is also part of the evolutionary process?

 

[firedragon]

Yes, for me believing in God is based on the belief in manifestation of God. Because, I see supernatural signs from Bahaullah or other Manifestations. When I investigated Them, I could see supernatural power in them. This is my conclusion.
I think Everyone needs to make their own personal conclusions.
But the theists have their own personal conclusion as well. They believe this world could not have come into existence only by science. A God must have created it. However, the current science has shown how everything scientifically happened without a need for a God, from big bang till now. Science will find out one day, what was before big bang as well, so, again, no evidence for God.

No. Science does not show anything with any manifest evidence that everything happened without God. Not true. The scientific approach of the modern academia is to take the natural approach, that is not evidence to non-existence of God. Because there is no manifest evidence for that.

In fact you made a grave error in your Big Bang till now statement.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. Science does not show anything with any manifest evidence that everything happened without God. Not true. The scientific approach of the modern academia is to take the natural approach, that is not evidence to non-existence of God. Because there is no manifest evidence for that.

In fact you made a grave error in your Big Bang till now statement.

Is there anything that from big bang till now, happened, that required supernatural power to do it? Something that could not have happened by just the natural process and laws of physics?
If yes, what was it, and please provide a reference to this finding, accepted by scientists. I am very interested to see it.

If there is nothing you can provide to show this, then, believing in a God is just on faith. It could be a true or could be a false belief.

 

[firedragon]

Is there anything that from big bang till now, happened, that required supernatural power to do it? Something that could not have happened by just the natural process and laws of physics?
If yes, what was it, and please provide a reference to this finding, accepted by scientists. I am very interested to see it.

If there is nothing you can provide to show this, then, believing in a God is just on faith. It could be a true or could be a false belief.

I never claimed that from the Big Bang to today something happened which required a miracle. So you are asking me to prove something you are making up for yourself as an argument that needs to be proven otherwise. Then you add "accepted by scientists" as well in order to create some kind of bait with a definite trap around it. Not a very valid argument.

The error you made is that "However, the current science has shown how everything scientifically happened without a need for a God, from big bang till now."

You have this idea that when something is going its course, if there is a God he has to come like a greek god and throw a spear and change its course. Thats a very greek God type of interpretation of things. Also, you should know that Roger Penrose applied the Turing test to the course of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe from high/low entropy to perfect expansion of the "r" in the universe to such perfection that any kind of change of any decimal point would create a Big Crunch and its all over. And that's Roger Penrose and Steven Hawkins. Roger Penrose calculated the Turing test probability to a division of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 which is not a number conceivable by man.

Also, I never said that believing in a God is not a faith matter. I cannot understand why you would make an argument for yourself and expect someone else to refute it.

Peace.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

You are mixing evolution and Darwins evolution by natural selection.

Nevertheless, there were theists who also proposed natural selection in the past but it is a matter of causality. They believed there was an initial "causer" if one could use that word.

Cool new evolved picture!