VBM wrote:

david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1127875455.084527.309210@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

VBM wrote:

"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1127793966.508384.153460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

VBM wrote:

"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message

What exactly is "Theistic Evolution"?

Since you like links so much, here are a couple for you:

http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/

"This position fully embraces both the religious beliefs of
conservative Christianity and the scientific theories of

geological and biological evolution. It contends that God ordains

sustains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of

This is incoherent, if "evolution" is conceived of the way the

Dawkins and Sagan conceive of it.

And why would we have to accept an atheistic philosophy along with a
biological process?

Is mind/intelligence involved in any way in the _origination_ of this
"biological process"?

Well, sure, that is what I believe.

Upon what basis/ grounds do you "believe" that mind/intelligence is/was
involved in the _origination_ of this "biological process"?

Do you think that starting with simply non-living matter, biological
life can arise?

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you think that?

On the Origin of Life

But I don't think that anything about
the process itself can tell us that, anymore than the process of
photosynthesis can. Both are just natural processes which I happen to
believe God brought about to operate in His creation.

Is mind/intelligence involved in any way in the
_continued operation_ of this "biological process"?

I have no idea, but I know that God is able to create a process that can
operate without His constant involvement.

Suppose the Judeo-Christian God were to suddenly cease to exist.
Do you think that material existence would continue to exist in such a
circumstance?

Do you agree with verse 17 here?:

I see no reason to think He is
constantly tinkering with the evolutionary processes. Do you think that

micro-manages photosynthesis, or lets it run on its own?

I think that photosynthesis currently "run[s] on its own."

To illustrate: imagine I designed a robot that could fabricate other
robots, which in turn fabricate other robots, and on it goes-- I make
it so that robot production involving robots making other robots
"run[s] on its own."
The 1st robot was designed by me, and the succeeding robots, though
fabricated by preceding robots, were ultimately the workproduct of my
mind/ intelligence, which made the original robot that could fabricate
other robots.

Does this "biological process" have a name?

Well, sure, we are talking about biological evolution, are we not? Yes,

just checked above and we were definitely talking about evolution, sure
enough.

"we are talking about biological evolution"

Meaning of "evolution"?

The fact that some atheists may attempt to use a
scientific theory to further their own agenda does not mean that we

to
accept that there is a necessary link between the two.

Did you have a particular "scientific theory" in mind, and if so, what
"scientific theory"?

Am I missing something? We are talking about evolution here.

It sounds like you
want to the definition of evolution to be something that you can more
easily
dismiss.

What do you think "the definition of evolution" should be?

There are two basic aspects of evolution. The first is the idea that
existing species have developed from earlier species over billions of

back to a common ancestor or ancestors. This is sometimes called the

of evolution. Even most of the ID guys agree that this has happened.

"idea that existing species have developed from earlier species over
billions of years, back to a common ancestor or ancestors"
Do you accept this idea?

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds?

Was mind/ intelligence involved in the origination of the "common
ancestor or ancestors"?

"back to a common ancestor or ancestors.... Even most of the ID guys
agree that this has happened."
It is possible to accept both ID and common descent:

ID + common descent: A Proposal

religious faith and common descent

1910s remarks by Caullery, Edmund B. Wilson, and Bateson on the idea of
top-down unfolding/ [Bateson]"unpacking of an original complex which
contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living
things present"

The
other is the mechanical process which causes this change to occur, you

natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc, etc. Basically the

that genetic changes within an isolated population will cause

changes.

Do you agree with the Mayr here?:

from
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"

Lest anyone think that Robson and Richards, as doubters, had
characterized the opposition unfairly, or that their two principles
represent too simplistic or unsubtle a view of the synthetic
theory, I cite the characterization of one of the architects of the
theory himself (Mayr^4 1963, p. 586-- the first statement of his
chapter on species and transspecific evolution):

The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all
evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic
changes, guided by natural selection, and that transspecific
evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification
of the events that take place within populations and
species.
....
I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the
mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel
as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault
came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox
theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of
macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it-- since
beguiling is often forever-- but if Mayr's characterization of the
synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general
proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as
textbook orthodoxy.

compare

Larry (who does not mourn the death of the synthetic theory) Moran

Eldredge in:
Simpson, Eldredge in _Synthese_, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse,
Patterson, Raup, Stanley

There is nothing about atheism in evolution. There is nothing in

which PRECLUDES the existence of God, or God's Creative work. Science

say nothing to this, even if some atheists DO attempt to say something

this. Yes, evolution works fully, and can be explained fully, without
reference to God. But this is the same for photosynthesis, gravity, and
quantam mechanics.

Do you think material existence originated?

If 'yes,' do you think the origin of material existence "can be
explained fully, without reference to God"?

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics

Should we dismiss all of these because they can be
explained without reference to God? Should we dismiss the weather

by meteorologists because they don't discuss the fact that God

all the elements that cause the weather patterns? No, evolution is
explained just like any other natural process, without reference to God

way or the other.

Do you think that physics exhibits the appearance of having been the
product of mind/ intelligence?

Einstein: physics was designed

This is why millions of Christians around the world have no problem
accepting the scientific explanation of evolution as simply one of the
natural processes God has established in His Creation.

Sagan, Carl. 1996. _The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.

I would agree with this entirely. I think God set up the process so

could occur without his ongoing intervention. But, of course, God could
have chosen to intervene if He had liked, but if He did, it seems He did

in a way that left no mark. I believe God chooses to engage with His
Creation, with Humanity in particular, in a more intimate and relational
way. I don't figure God is running around trying to keep all the

processes He has put in motion spinning like plates on top of sticks.

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views

concept of "blindwatchmaking"

"Credo - What I Believe
I believe that God Almighty created the heavens and the earth, and

life upon the earth. He accomplished this process over billions of
historical years. He has been in charge of this process since the
beginning of time and He still is in charge. He directed the

of life forms over time that many people call evolution."

This is incoherent, if "evolution" is conceived of the way the

Dawkins and Sagan conceive of it.

See above.

Yes, really see above. Think of it this way. Imagine an historian who

an atheist. He discovers all kinds of awful things about the Church
throughout history. Now, let's say that all this stuff is actually

So, he goes on to write a book about his historical discoveries and

his own analysis. He says that all of this historical evidence is proof
that the Church is evil and we should not believe in God. Now, even

we know his conclusions about the evidence were wrong, does that make

facts wrong themselves? No. The facts are still there. Those horrible
things happened. It just doesn't mean what he says it means.

Similarly, if an atheistic scientist wants to take the evidence we have

evolutionary development and draw incorrect philosophical conclusions

the existence of God, this does not make the evolutionary development

The scientist has stopped being a scientist at that point and has

over into philosophy and theology.

What Creationists do is latch on to every quote by an atheistic

who does the same thing. They go beyond the science and begin drawing
non-scientific conclusions. When they do this, they are wrong. But

are not speaking for "science" at that point, and what they say does not
undermine the scientific evidence.

When Sagan said this, was he "not speaking for 'science' at that
point"?:

Sagan, Carl. 1980. _Cosmos_ (NY: Random House), 365pp. Chapter
1's first line:
THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE.

Compare:
Revelation 1: 8 (The Message)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%201;&version=65;
The Master declares, "I'm A to Z. I'm THE GOD
WHO IS, THE GOD WHO WAS, AND THE GOD
ABOUT TO ARRIVE. I'm the Sovereign-Strong."
Revelation 1: 8 (King James Version):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%201;&version=9;
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and
which is to come, the Almighty.
See also Revelation 1: 4.

"10. Intelligent design is looking for God in the wrong place. I

that intelligent design is an attempt to find evidence for God in

world of biology, to find the fingerprints of the Almighty in

This is silly. Try reading Job, some Psalms, or Romans 1: 19-20.

Right, but that seems to only apply to one who "has eyes to see",

is
the believer.

"the believer" in what, exactly?
Around when did the first "believer" live?

In God, of course, and I have no idea when the first believer believed.

Which "God[s]"? An ancient Egyptian god? Baal? Thor?

_The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
Language_ (1993, 2002). See also
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201;&version=65;
Romans 1:18 on:
But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic
reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
God has created, people have always been able to see
what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
nobody has a good excuse.

Obviously, God is NOT self-evident in nature, or everyone
would believe.

"would believe" what, exactly?

In God, of course.

Do you think Satan exists?

Yes.

If 'yes,' does Satan "believe"?

Yes. But he has had a different experience of God from most Men. I

that Man can, indeed, experience God in nature, and I think His being is
portrayed in the whole of Creation. But I don't think that God has

that nature in the processes and mechanics of that Creation. He does

have to create a system which needs His micro-management in order to be
experienced in that Creation. God can be sensed in nature, and should

glorified as the creator of all things, but He can not be "proven" by a

of tests of His Creation.

Just like God does not come down and miraculously appear
before each of us individually and tell us He is real and in charge.

insists that we have faith in the things NOT seen.

Did Jesus insist to Doubting Thomas that Thomas "have faith in the
things NOT seen"?

No, He showed Thomas a special grace, as he showed others. But for

Faith is required.

Do you think "Faith is required" to accept atheism?

Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have Enough Faith to
Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books), 447pp.

Justification by faith, which is the evidence of things
not seen.

Did Jesus insist to the townspeople He interacted with that they "have
faith in the things NOT seen"?

Do you agree with this?:

Psalm 19 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019;&version=31;
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world. ....

Yes, of course, but that does not mean that God is scientifically

from those heavens. And that is the point you are not getting. There

HUGE difference between God being spiritually evident in all we see

us, and God being scientifically provable.

Do you think that [Paul]"men are without excuse"?

Romans 1 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201;&version=31;
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven
against all the godlessness and wickedness of men
who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since
what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since
the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--
his eternal power and divine nature-- have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been
made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither
glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but
their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise,
they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for images made to look like mortal
man and birds and animals and reptiles.

The former requires that the
viewer be open to seeing God, and not hardened of heart. The latter

be deduced and logically determined by even the most hard-hearted. Do

really think that God has made Himself scientifically provable?

I don't know what you mean by "scientifically provable," nor by
"scientifically," nor by "provable."

Suppose a jury hears testimony and concludes that a suspect was guilty
of a crime. Suppose the suspect was indeed guilty of that crime.
Was it "provable" that the suspect committed the crime?
Was it "scientifically provable" that the suspect committed the crime?

Do you think it is "scientifically provable" that time had a beginning?

2 Timothy 1, from verses 8-9 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%201;&version=31;
....God,
9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life-- not
because of anything we have done but because of his
own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in
Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,....

Titus 1 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%201;&version=31;
2 a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of
eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised
before the beginning of time,
3 and at his appointed season he brought his word to
light through the preaching entrusted to me by the
command of God our Savior....

Compare:

Psalm 90:2, John 17:5 and 17:24, Ephesians 1:4-5, 1 Peter 1:20

from
astronomer Robert Jastrow speaks

Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther
back in time, but the barrier to further progress
seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another
year, another decade of work, another measurement,
or another theory; at this moment it seems as though
science will never be able to raise the curtain on the
mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived
by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends
like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak;
as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted
by a band of theologians who have been sitting there
for centuries.

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang

All science does is tell us how things work naturally, not whether or

there was a supernatural force which created the natural process.

Do you agree with the last sentence of this Huxley?:

Huxley, Thomas H. 1860. "The Origin of Species" in
_Darwiniana: Essays by Thomas H. Huxley_, Volume II of
the 9-volume series "Collected Essays By T. H. Huxley"
(New York: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1968; originally
published in 1893 by Mc Millan & Co.), 475pp., 22-79. A
paragraph on 29-30:
The student of Nature wonders the more and is
astonished the less, the more conversant he becomes
with her operations; but of all the perennial miracles she
offers to his inspection, perhaps the most worthy of
admiration is the development of a plant or of an animal
from its embryo. Examine the recently laid egg of some
common animal, such as a salamander or newt. It is a
minute spheroid in which the best microscope will
reveal nothing but a structureless sac, enclosing a glairy
fluid, holding granules in suspension.1 [1: When this
sentence was written, it was generally believed that the
original nucleus of the egg (the germinal vesicle)
disappeared. 1893.] But strange possibilities lie

dormant in that semi-fluid globule. Let a moderate
supply of warmth reach its watery cradle, and the plastic
matter undergoes changes so rapid, yet so steady and
purposelike in their succession, that one can only
compare them to those operated by a skilled modeller
upon a formless lump of clay. As with an invisible
trowel, the mass is divided and subdivided into smaller
and smaller portions, until it is reduced to an
aggregation of granules not too large to build withal the
finest fabrics of the nascent organism. And, then, it is as
if a delicate finger traced out the line to be occupied by

the spinal column, and moulded the contour of the body;
pinching up the head at one end, the tail at the other, and
fashioning flank and limb into due salamandrine
proportions, in so artistic a way, that, after watching the
process hour by hour, one is almost involuntarily
possessed by the notion, that some more subtle aid to
vision than an achromatic, would show the hidden artist,
with his plan before him, striving with skilful
manipulation to perfect his work.

That is
for religion, theology and philosophy to determine. Science tells us

the Heavens work, Scripture tells us how to get to Heaven.

"Science tells us"

Dallas Willard: "science says nothing. It is not the kind of thing
that can say anything. Only scientists say things...."