A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[grmorton]

That high? Then there has definitely been a big shift over the last few decades when they were largely Old Earth Creationists. Wasn't it the ASA that Henry Morris left when he couldn't get them to accept YEC?



For Adrift: Here is a link to the American Scientific Association and the Wikipedia page on them.

Yes, Ole Henry left the ASA, but that was in the 1950s. I had almost no one who would agree that a donkey talked (it would of course have to be miraculous). But it always seemed to me that if we allow the miracle of the resurrection, we have to allow that God could or did do other miracles.

Rogue, it has been a long time, how are you doing?

[Littlejoe]

Hey Glenn!

Long time no see!!! I hope you're doing ok! How goes the fight with your health?

I just want you to know that it was your articles you had on your website that finally moved me off of OEC to TE. I understand why you took it down but it was such a fantastic resource. I know Barry Desborough preserved some of your papers on Wikispaces. They are getting harder to find though.

Hope you will stop by a little more often.

[Adrift]

I just want you to know that it was your articles you had on your website that finally moved me off of OEC to TE.

I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I don't really see the distinction between the two. In my mind it's one of those every dog is an animal, but not every animal is a dog kinda thing. Like, every TE is an OEC, but not every OEC is a TE. I feel the same way about the distinction between Creationist and OEC or TE. I guess most people think YEC when they think "Creationist", but in my opinion all Christians are Creationists.

[Littlejoe]

I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I don't really see the distinction between the two. In my mind it's one of those every dog is an animal, but not every animal is a dog kinda thing. Like, every TE is an OEC, but not every OEC is a TE. I feel the same way about the distinction between Creationist and OEC or TE. I guess most people think YEC when they think "Creationist", but in my opinion all Christians are Creationists.

In my experience (YMMV) OEC's don't usually believe in Evolution.

[shunyadragon]

The article is written for lay people, and very little in science or other disciplines is ever totally new. Do you have anything of interest to say about Jeremy England's scientific contributions?

I already did, I said, I agree with his findings, and he confirms earlier work. Aside from that he is helping develop the models for 'dissipation-driven adaptation of matter' in evolution and natural changes over time like increasing complexity as a part of the process of evolution. The issues of 'randomness' not being a causative issue concerning the process nor the outcome of evolution, nor any other macro natural process, and the problem of evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics have long been resolved.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, I can't think of a statement more at odds with reality than the one above. Mankind butchers our fellows in war; we are hateful, we create governments whose citizenry demand that this group or that be exterminated. We rob, we hate, in adultery, we steal trust in a marriage for 15 min. of pleasure. We see humans beheading others for merely believing different things. Sorry, my friend, I think you didn't find reality where you went.

Well, Hi Glenn! I hope you are in good health.

I am not sure what your point here is, but I believe God Created all life and humanity naturally in the process we observe as evolution. The fact that 'Created Naturally' would make humans fallible with faults as you describe above is not a reason to object to my choice, which you do not believe. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges this reality, as do all religions. The problem is 'What is the cause of this fallible human prown to the dark side of sin?' I do not accept the Genesis myth that the first humans, Adam and Eve, were created innocent with no dark side, and their 'Fall' due to temptation cursed all future humans to a world of pain, death and sinful nature. The paleontological evidence is clear, humans have always been very human and lived in a world of life and death, good and bad behavior, and an animal world not much different from today. There is clearly no evidence for any version of the Biblical Genesis Creation despite many trying to manipulate it to force fit the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old.

[robrecht]

I already did, I said, I agree with his findings, and he confirms earlier work. Aside from that he is helping develop the models for 'dissipation-driven adaptation of matter' in evolution and natural changes over time like increasing complexity as a part of the process of evolution. The issues of 'randomness' not being a causative issue concerning the process nor the outcome of evolution, nor any other macro natural process, and the problem of evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics have long been resolved.

And I already noted your apparent agreement. I am sure he will be greatly gratified to hear that you concur.

[rogue06]

Yes, Ole Henry left the ASA, but that was in the 1950s. I had almost no one who would agree that a donkey talked (it would of course have to be miraculous). But it always seemed to me that if we allow the miracle of the resurrection, we have to allow that God could or did do other miracles.

Rogue, it has been a long time, how are you doing?

Increasingly feeling my age You? I know you had/have some serious health issues recently.


I wonder if the fact that you are largely familiar with TEs who are scientists if that does not color their view somewhat. What I mean is that they are trained to look for natural explanations for things. Still, it surprises me that so many in your acquaintance would outright reject many miracles because, as you note, they do allow for the Resurrection which is a major miracle. The small handful of TEs that I know who are scientists are more like me than those who simply dismiss the miracles described in the OT.

Also, just because something might have a "natural explanation" doesn't automatically discount a miraculous element. Returning to the example of Lot's wife, even if turning into a pillar of salt is "merely" a way of saying that she had a stroke and died the very fact that it appears to have happened the moment that she disobeyed God's instructions seems to be more than mere coincidence.

[rogue06]

I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I don't really see the distinction between the two. In my mind it's one of those every dog is an animal, but not every animal is a dog kinda thing. Like, every TE is an OEC, but not every OEC is a TE. I feel the same way about the distinction between Creationist and OEC or TE. I guess most people think YEC when they think "Creationist", but in my opinion all Christians are Creationists.

Indeed. All Christians are a creationist of one stripe or another. There is just disagreement over the processes by which God used to create.

[rogue06]

In my experience (YMMV) OEC's don't usually believe in Evolution.

The acceptance of evolution does seem to be the line of demarcation although I've met some OECs who accept limited evolution -- evolution of animals and plants but special miraculous creation of mankind.

[shunyadragon]

The acceptance of evolution does seem to be the line of demarcation although I've met some OECs who accept limited evolution -- evolution of animals and plants but special miraculous creation of mankind.

One common partial acceptance of evolution (OEC/TE?) by some Christians and many Muslims is that Evolution is true for all the life on earth except for Adam and Eve. In this view humans are the product of special Creation beginning with Adam and Eve. Many if not most OEC consider the 'Flood' a true event of some sort.

[Adrift]

One common partial acceptance of evolution (OEC/TE?) by some Christians and many Muslims is that Evolution is true for all the life on earth except for Adam and Eve.

We've had a couple of TEs in this very thread that have stated that they did not think that Adam and Eve were special creations; That they were hominins/hominids.

[Adrift]

In my experience (YMMV) OEC's don't usually believe in Evolution.

The acceptance of evolution does seem to be the line of demarcation although I've met some OECs who accept limited evolution -- evolution of animals and plants but special miraculous creation of mankind.

Hmm. I mean it's obviously not a terribly great resource, but Wikipedia groups TEs in with OECs. Doing a quick google, some group called the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis seem to lump TEs with OECs as well. I don't know. I'm not sure I care for all of these labels anyways. I'm a Christian, and that's about the only label I really care about.

[KingsGambit]

Hmm. I mean it's obviously not a terribly great resource, but Wikipedia groups TEs in with OECs. Doing a quick google, some group called the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis seem to lump TEs with OECs as well. I don't know. I'm not sure I care for all of these labels anyways. I'm a Christian, and that's about the only label I really care about.

ICR and AIG (who split off from one another) do so polemically. They don't care much for people who disagree with them so I wouldn't use them as an authoritative source of terminology.

[Cerebrum123]

It seems you said that I need to get my facts right, but then agreed that the word could mean moral evil. You seem to want it both ways.

Nope, only pointing out that context determines definitions of words.

Need to add that if God has perfect foreknowledge AND created Satan, it is hard to see how he didn't know what Satan would do, and thus, in going ahead with it, originated evil.

This is not the same as "creating evil". Satan's acts are not Gods, and neither are our own actions to be assigned to God like that. Unless you go with a hyper Calvinist view. If we assign blame to God for that, then logically all blame for all evil lies on God's shoulders. God Himself is then evil, and we should not be following Him.

One can link this to free will. Logic may require natural evil in a world with free will.

There is nothing about free will that necessitates evil acts.