Let's Discuss it..what side are you on? I personally am on the intelligent design side.

I am undecided but leaning towards Theistic Evolution. Maybe this thread will have some impact on me if there's some good debate. So here's your chance to sway my mind.

I'm not sure, but I don't believe that these views are necessarily counterposed to one another--that is, theistic evolution can be a form of intelligent design. I often hear people contrast ID with evolution, but all ID is really rejecting is the idea of metaphysically random evolution. If the revolution is "guided," then it is designed (at least if it is guided with certain results in mind). This, to me, would make theistic evolution a form of intelligent design. Creationism would also be a form of ID.

Although I don't know much of the scientific technicalities of this debate,
I am convinced that this subject is extremely layered, and from what I have seen, its opponents generally have a rather caricatured view of it. There are many fundamental questions which can be interpreted in various ways; for example, is "randomness" a metaphysical concept, or simply a statistical one? What my view at this point is that ID doesn't fit neatly into the categories of science (so there is something to the idea that it can't be science), BUT it is something which has an unusually high degree of points in line with science. It is not unscientific exactly either. For example, sicence requires the ability to hypothesize, predict, and verify (or fallsify) prediction trhoguh experiment. ID doesn't allow for this--so, it's not scientific. HOWEVER, it does try to base its findings (whether legitimately or not, I'm not sure) on models from information theory, which have established standards for determining when intelligence must be concluded in explaining various patterns of information, etc. So, it does resemble science. There is also the fact that social sciences seem to presuppose something like ID--though ID places itself in the realm of "hard science," it may actually have more of the features of social science. But, social science also allows for hypothesis and verification, which once again ID doesn't. And, social science presupposes human agents. If "God" is the cause,. presumalby God would be beyond study, and thus could not be the subject of social science. Technically, ID does not prove God--it only proves "some intelligence." As they say, this could be aliens, etc. I personally find this admission a bit disingenuous, however, as clearly ascrbing our order to aliens would still prompt the metaphysical question of where did the order for the aliens to exist come from, etc.


I lean toward saying ID is somewhat less scientific than scientific--this does not make it false, however, as one still has to distinguish "metaphysics" and "science." Something can be metaphyskcally true without operating within the strictures of science--the view that all truth must be scientifically provable--a view known as scientism--is itself a metaphysical, and not a scientific, view, IMO. There is even the question of whether ID constitutes bad theoogy more than "bad science." If "GOd" is the conclusion of
a scientific (or quasi, or pseudo) scientific investigation, are people REALLY willing to change their mind on the existnece of God if the data in their favor later turns out to go against this conclusion? It would seem to me that they would not--so that the whole attempt to act as though they are proceeding scientifically is a bit of a rouse. On the other hand, the current evidence for the ID conclusions may be fairly compelling for "scientistic" types than the latter will admit, even if scientism itself is in a sense self-contradictory.

As you can see, this is complicated, and this just scratches the surface. I'll try to get into more details abvout my thoughts later.

graybeardheadbanger

I'm a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolution.

I lean towards theistic evolution but it's not something i worry about much.

i think all the intelligent design people arent gonna come over here

It still seems to me this thread is more about creationism vs. theistic evolution than about ID vs. TE.

One distinction one MIGHT make between ID and TE is that ID might take itself to be a specifically scientific view, while TE might take itself to be strictly metaphysical. Beyond that, however, it needs to be emphasized that ID and TE are not per se at odds with one another--the question may need some re-framing, perhaps.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

It still seems to me this thread is more about creationism vs. theistic evolution than about ID vs. TE.

One distinction one MIGHT make between ID and TE is that ID might take itself to be a specifically scientific view, while TE might take itself to be strictly metaphysical. Beyond that, however, it needs to be emphasized that ID and TE are not per se at odds with one another--the question may need some re-framing, perhaps.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

I think that's really it. With ID, you have attempts to find where the designer did the work (irreducible complexity, etc), whereas TE is pretty much metaphysical.

So with those differences in mind, I prefer TE. It seems like ID could be too susceptible to god-of-the-gaps problems.

Literary Framework view FTW.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

I'm not sure, but I don't believe that these views are necessarily counterposed to one another--that is, theistic evolution can be a form of intelligent design. I often hear people contrast ID with evolution, but all ID is really rejecting is the idea of metaphysically random evolution. If the revolution is "guided," then it is designed (at least if it is guided with certain results in mind). This, to me, would make theistic evolution a form of intelligent design. Creationism would also be a form of ID.

Although I don't know much of the scientific technicalities of this debate,
I am convinced that this subject is extremely layered, and from what I have seen, its opponents generally have a rather caricatured view of it. There are many fundamental questions which can be interpreted in various ways; for example, is "randomness" a metaphysical concept, or simply a statistical one? What my view at this point is that ID doesn't fit neatly into the categories of science (so there is something to the idea that it can't be science), BUT it is something which has an unusually high degree of points in line with science. It is not unscientific exactly either. For example, sicence requires the ability to hypothesize, predict, and verify (or fallsify) prediction trhoguh experiment. ID doesn't allow for this--so, it's not scientific. HOWEVER, it does try to base its findings (whether legitimately or not, I'm not sure) on models from information theory, which have established standards for determining when intelligence must be concluded in explaining various patterns of information, etc. So, it does resemble science. There is also the fact that social sciences seem to presuppose something like ID--though ID places itself in the realm of "hard science," it may actually have more of the features of social science. But, social science also allows for hypothesis and verification, which once again ID doesn't. And, social science presupposes human agents. If "God" is the cause,. presumalby God would be beyond study, and thus could not be the subject of social science. Technically, ID does not prove God--it only proves "some intelligence." As they say, this could be aliens, etc. I personally find this admission a bit disingenuous, however, as clearly ascrbing our order to aliens would still prompt the metaphysical question of where did the order for the aliens to exist come from, etc.


I lean toward saying ID is somewhat less scientific than scientific--this does not make it false, however, as one still has to distinguish "metaphysics" and "science." Something can be metaphyskcally true without operating within the strictures of science--the view that all truth must be scientifically provable--a view known as scientism--is itself a metaphysical, and not a scientific, view, IMO. There is even the question of whether ID constitutes bad theoogy more than "bad science." If "GOd" is the conclusion of
a scientific (or quasi, or pseudo) scientific investigation, are people REALLY willing to change their mind on the existnece of God if the data in their favor later turns out to go against this conclusion? It would seem to me that they would not--so that the whole attempt to act as though they are proceeding scientifically is a bit of a rouse. On the other hand, the current evidence for the ID conclusions may be fairly compelling for "scientistic" types than the latter will admit, even if scientism itself is in a sense self-contradictory.

As you can see, this is complicated, and this just scratches the surface. I'll try to get into more details abvout my thoughts later.

graybeardheadbanger

Yet another quality post!

I'd lean more towards theistic evolution.

I kinda made this as a debate thread...but so far.....no 1 has given me soemthing to debate....its been more of a..state what die you are in thread

Are you upset over these opinions?

I mean, because greybeard made a good post for you to analyze and discuss.

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

Are you upset over these opinions?

no not at all

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

I mean, because greybeard made a good post for you to analyze and discuss.

i know..but he used a whole lot of bifg words...and i jsut dotrn uderstand it what he said

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

I mean, because greybeard made a good post for you to analyze and discuss.

i know..but he used a whole lot of bifg words...and i jsut dotrn uderstand it what he said

And you used a whole lot of misspelled words

I'm a theistic evolutionist but like DJ said it doesn't matter that much. The fact is that we're... here. It doesn't matter much how we got here to me.

I'd like to add a somewhat different angle to this emerging discussion, if I may.

I too am an evolutionist, but I have often found that the main disagreements between Christians on this subject is not so much a matter of the science involved, but rather a matter of what the Bible itself states, and particularly the first two chapters of Genesis.

Now, I have often maintained that the Bible was written to reveal spiritual truths, not necessarily scientific truths, and so for me I do not see any contradiction between faith and science. However, this would then lead us to have to decide whether to take the Genesis creation account as literal or metaphorical. And which is more spiritually beneficial?

I personally think it's important to understand the context in which Genesis was written. Contemporary scholarship has theorised that the text was not composed by Moses as commonly believed, but rather in the 5th century BC, as a means for the Hebrew people to make sense of their origins and form a coherent spiritual heritage which spoke to their culture.

Now, there are particular themes shared between Genesis and an ancient Mesopatamian narrative known as The Epic of Gilgamesh. Within this narrative, the gods are portrayed as self-centred arrogant beings who bring humanity into existence to serve them as slaves. Moreover, the world is born from chaos and warfare, and this tends to set the standard for the image of both the gods and human beings that follows.

Genesis deliberately contrasts this with the vision of a God who creates a good world, and does so through peace rather than warfare: He stands over the formless void and brings order to it, and creates light where there is only darkness. Then, far from wanting to create a slave race for the sole purpose of doing His bidding, humanity is created to share in this good world together with God, and He seals them with His divine image as a sign of inherent dignity. Both male and female are created in this Image, as the account tells us, underpinning a fundamental equality existing between the genders prior to the narrative of the fall. Humanity's purpose is to willingly serve God's good creation in the sense of being its caretakers, not its slaves. Genesis, in short, is a liberating text which demonstrates God's abundant love for humanity and for creation itself, in the original vision of things. The "fall" is presented as a device which explains, in spiritual terms, humanity's divergence from this grand vision.

I don't think we as Christians should be frightened of the word "myth." If a narrative is mythical, that does not necessarily make it untrue. In the past ancient civilisations have employed mythical devices to express what the held to be true, and to convey them through great stories which would convey in human terms something of the unseen divine. It's not unreasonable to feel that the Hebrews, having emerged from a time of great tribulation (The Babylonian Exile) would want to weave a mythological history which would in some way articulate a much more hopeful future. As it stands, the creation myth would have been highly counter-cultural, and I believe it still is even today. It's extremely relevant, in a world where people try to exercise power and domination over one another, and where some are thoughtlessly oppressed, to say that each human being is made in the Image of God. Likewise, it's very relevant in a world where we abuse our natural resources and give little to no thought to the consequences of abusing our earth, to say that creation is good and that part of the original vision was humanity's servitude to it.

So, to me, to say that Genesis should be taken literally or metaphorically as a creation account is missing the point somewhat. It's spiritually important for us to know what truths this account conveys to us about who God is, and who we are before God. I feel that this mythical account conveys great truths to us which we need to take heed of, instead of debating about whether Adam and Eve were real, or how Genesis reads in the context of theistic evolution.

Nether, i really dont cear, im more concerd with the lessons like love you're neahbour, no adultry, Jesus died for us, stuff like that

When we make something like even lunch we create something so I also believe by looking around that something had to create all of this. Evolution never seemed to add up because it's like saying a broken watch in a pail just got back together after shaking around the pail quite a bit....just doesn't make sense does it.

^^^

exactly!

hahahahahhaha
but yea
evolution is obviously real, there really is no excuse not to believe in it if you are the least bit educated. except of course, extreme bias.

ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη wrote:

I'm a theistic evolutionist but like DJ said it doesn't matter that much. The fact is that we're... here. It doesn't matter much how we got here to me.

yeah, my opinion as well, although I don't call myself a theistic evolutionist really.
I call me a no-carer

The way I look at it:
I don't care in what way we got here, God could've done it in whatever way He wanted to do it, this is about believing that God is possible to do everything and not has to limit himself to a specific way.
It doesn't change anything to my faith, it just makes me believe even stronger in how Almighty God is, for he is not bound to any rules when it comes to creation.

Well... I just think it's pretty obvious that evolution happens. Bacteria reproduces and dies extremely fast and scientists watch it evolve with stimuli through generations to adapt to different habitats. I think that same could be said of macro organisms, but at a much greater/ slower scale.