Theistic evolution: All evolution, no real theism

_{News
July 24, 2016

theistic evolution

3}_{Categories
theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

But you knew that, didn’t you?

From Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of In the Shadow of Oz, :

I’ve jumped to the final (summary chapter, offered by Neil Spurway), because it is one of the more dramatic examples of just how far theistic evolution can go. Here we finally see someone willing to essentially throw in the towel. For starters, he offers “for me a naturalistic account of any aspect of being human is, quite simply, the only sort of account which can be correct.” He emphasizes that many of the things we believe make humans an exception to the animal kingdom (what has been called a “revolution” rather than an “evolution”) are simply points along a sliding scale. “Every owner of a horse or dog is quite clear” of primitive conditions of consciousness, morality and love. He goes on, “For me, the imago dei simply is the sum of such properties: the sum is larger in a human being than in any other animal.”

Spurway then justifies his allegiance to naturalism: “The whole evolutionary process is God-given, not any individual step.” This of course, as I’ve been saying for a while now, is an undemonstrated assumption. Since on his view, no matter what we find, God did it, absolutely any religion could make the same claim with complete immunity. This view that everything can be explained naturalistically, such that all naturalism is God’s way of working, is given far more credence than it should be. On this view, the best evidence for God’s activity in everything is our complete inability to detect Him in anything. That is, on Spurway’s view, we can explain everything in the natural world without invoking God. So why do we include Him?

When written as plainly as Spurway puts it, we can then see why concepts like creationism or intelligent design are anathema to the theistic evolutionist. For those such as Spurway, any suggestion that God (or any agent) would be required to explain any particular phenomenon somehow suggests that the God/agent isn’t present in the others. But is that true? Take the resurrection as an example. More.

Theistic volution can explain away any evidence of design. Its only purpose has been to get Christians used to rule by naturalist atheists. And the first rule is: No design

See also: Theistic evolution empties theism of meaning

and

What the fossils told us in their own words

Comments

Seversky wrote (83, responding to my 22): "Of course, one designer for which it is a problem is the Christian God" Even if so, that is a theological problem for Christianity itself, not a flaw in scientific arguments for design. ID theory may argue that malaria could not have come into existence without design; that argument stands or falls on its scientific merit, without regard to whether it helps or hurts Christian theology. ID theorists, *qua* ID theorists, have *zero* responsibility to engage in Christian apologetics. ID theorists who happen to be Christian may feel a personal responsibility to engage in Christian apologetics; but that is because they are Christian, not because they are ID theorists. Clear examples: Michael Denton has not written even one sentence of Christian apologetics; Richard Sternberg hasn't written any apologetics, either. This shows that ID, *qua* ID, can be completely indifferent to the truth or falsehood of Christianity. "so you need to disavow his [Johnson's] version" I don't know that this is the case, because I haven't read enough of Johnson to know whether or not he sharply distinguished arguments for design from their apologetic use. If he made such a distinction, I wouldn't have to disavow him at all. But let's take the worst-case scenario and say that Johnson's writing lets Christian apologetics leak into his ID arguments all over the place. So what? Johnson is old news. He hasn't written a major ID book or article in over 20 years. The major books representing ID theory are No Free Lunch, The Design of Life, Behe's two books, Meyer's two books, Denton's Nature's Destiny, and a few others. None of these books purports to defend the Christian God or justify suffering caused by the designs in nature. There are other books written by ID authors which *do* tackle the problem of evil, etc., but those books identify themselves as theological books, and their authors indicate that in them they are speaking as Christians. Several of Dembski's popular books fit into this category. But ID doesn't need those books to make its design arguments. "No, it wouldn’t but neither would it prove it was designed and, if that’s what you’re claiming, then the burden or proof is on you." But of course I did not undertake, in the context of my reply to you, to prove that malaria -- or *anything* -- was designed. I undertook only to show you that a proof that malaria -- or any other pain-causing thing -- was designed would not pose a problem for ID theory. It might pose a problem for Christian theology, but not for ID theory. Why should ID theory be responsible for rescuing Christian theology from its problems? What other scientific theory has that burden laid on it, that it must solve the theological difficulties of Christian claims? Do you demand of the Continental Drift theory that it solve the problem of evil? Do you demand of String Theory that it deal with, say, some apparent incoherence in the doctrine of Trinity? Why should ID theorists be responsible for *anything* other than making arguments for design? "We can certainly discuss the lesser claim that an inference to design is warranted even where no designer is known or even specified." And that lesser claim is made in the ID works that I specified above.Timaeus_{September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @ 22
I answer that: None of those things are incompatible with an ID hypothesis. A designer might have intended a world in which there was destruction and suffering.
Quite right. There are any number of possible designers for which all that suffering is not a problem. Of course, one designer for which it is a problem is the Christian God which, as we all know, was the one the founding fathers of ID like Phillip E Johnson clearly had in mind when promoting Intelligent Design.
I think you are hoping that someone will be suckered into launching into one of the various Christian justifications for the existence of evil and suffering. But ID isn’t committed to explaining why there is evil and suffering. ID isn’t a religion or a philosophy of life. It’s an inference to design. If you want a religion or a philosophy of life, read Kierkegaard or Nietzsche or Plato or Kahlil Gibran, not Dembski or Behe or Meyer or Wells.
Your version of ID might just be about the inference to design but Johnson's wasn't, so you need to disavow his version or be vulnerable to the suspicion that you aren't being honest about your motives
So yes, malaria is horrible, and yes, a designer might have intended it. That might make the designer nasty or sadistic, or it might make the designer’s purposes inscrutable; it wouldn’t disprove that malaria was designed.
No, it wouldn't but neither would it prove it was designed and, if that's what you're claiming, then the burden or proof is on you.
If you are arguing against the inference of design, argue against that; if you are personally rejecting the kind of God who would create malaria, that’s a different argument entirely. But don’t mix up the arguments.
I am arguing against the inference to the Christian God as designer which has been the case at least since William Paley, was the case for Phillip Johnson and is quite clearly the case for many UD regulars. We can certainly discuss the lesser claim that an inference to design is warranted even where no designer is known or even specified.Seversky_{September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

TE tries to find a role for God in evolution. YEC claims God has no role in evolution (its Godless). YEC is a far more serious error.Mung_{August 7, 2016
August
08
Aug
7
07
2016
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Stephen B TE subordinates God to Darwinist ideology. . More like it subordinates the theory of evolution to theistic ideology.velikovskys_{August 6, 2016
August
08
Aug
6
06
2016
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

SB: You are confusing what comes first as a priority (revelation) and what comes first in time (reason). It all starts with reason.
If it all starts with reason, then reason comes first in priority.
No. Prior in time does not mean exactly the same thing as prior in importance. SB: I value revelation highest of all.
Yet you claim that it all starts with reason.
That is because it does. I must first use my reason to know that God exists before I can accept and understand His revealed truth (prior in time). However, it is more important to give intellectual assent to revelation than to know God exists (prior in importance). SB: I also use my reason to decide which exegetical methods are appropriate for Scripture, so that I avoid the errors of TE, and yes, the errors of YEC.
The errors of YEC? How do the errors of YEC differ from the errors of TE?
TE subordinates God to Darwinist ideology. YEC tries to use Genesis as a scientific textbook. TE is a far more serious error.StephenB_{August 6, 2016
August
08
Aug
6
06
2016
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
I also use my reason to decide which exegetical methods are appropriate for Scripture, so that I avoid the errors of TE, and yes, the errors of YEC.
The errors of YEC? How do the errors of YEC differ from the errors of TE?Mung_{August 5, 2016
August
08
Aug
5
05
2016
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
I value revelation highest of all.
Yet you claim that it all starts with reason.Mung_{August 5, 2016
August
08
Aug
5
05
2016
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
You are confusing what comes first as a priority (revelation) and what comes first in time (reason). It all starts with reason.
If it all starts with reason, then reason comes first in priority.Mung_{August 5, 2016
August
08
Aug
5
05
2016
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

YEC could be true, however, if uniformatarianism is false. Still, that requires a stretch. I think uniformatiarism is true, so I reject YEC.
Interesting :/Vy_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Mung
So you elevate reason and logic over divine revelation!
You are confusing what comes first as a priority (revelation) and what comes first in time (reason). It all starts with reason. I value revelation highest of all. However, faith and reason work together. In the beginning, I use my reason to know which claims of revelation are true. God revealed himself in Scripture, not in the Koran or Vedas or Talmud. You can't use revelation to discover revelation, just as you can't use faith to discover which religion is true. The process starts with reason. First, reason shows that God exists. Then reason helps you to discover which of those who claim to speak for God can be trusted. As it turns out, only one was telling the truth--Jesus Christ. Once reason takes you to where you need to be, then the right faith takes over and illuminates your reason. If one allows the wrong faith to illuminate his reason, he is lost. I also use my reason to decide which exegetical methods are appropriate for Scripture, so that I avoid the errors of TE, and yes, the errors of YEC. Without reason, people will believe that God tells them to fly airplanes into buildings. The worst advice you can give anyone is--"Just believe." No. What you want to believe is the truth.
No, I merely observed that you fail to apply that same respect for reason and logic to the claims of Young Earth Creationism.
Your so-called “observation” is an illusion—and an insult. I apply my reason to all models. Reason tells me that YEC claims are likely false. YEC could be true, however, if uniformatarianism is false. Still, that requires a stretch. I think uniformatiarism is true, so I reject YEC. However, TE cannot possibly be true under any circumstances. So TE is more unreasonable than YEC.
By what process did the originally created kinds evolve?
If macro-evolution is true, then it would seem that God guided the variations. Random variations cannot produce specified outcomes, only indeterminate ones.
That process was guided by God or it was not guided by God.
Of course. Please pass the word along to the TEs, who think it can be both at the same time.StephenB_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

I have crossed referenced this post with:- https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/methodological-naturalism-31-great-scientists-who-made-scientific-arguments-for-the-supernatural/#comment-614330 Thanks, Mung, that you take the time to respond to a "moron," as you say elsewhere (# 71, https://uncommondescent.com/theistic-evolution/theistic-evolution-all-evolution-no-real-theism/#comment-614284) However, following my main comments # 150, (to recap):- “Let’s apply your logic to the resurrection. In an instant Jesus created a brand new species of human, regenerating himself from the dead with a body that is duality, a super creation. That is, a body able to transcend both the spiritual and physical realms. Did He use unguided evolution to create anything about His new Self? Where did He get His cues from when He was dead? The Father at Sinai, was, is and remains a six day creationist. The Son died keeping divine law.” _____________________________________________________ you reply # 152: "First, I deny that Jesus created a brand new species of human. Second, even if Jesus did create a brand new species of human, that’s one new species since the Creation." #71 _______________________________________________________ I perceive you edge your bets! There is only one humankind. You overlook the fact, that His resurrection was the second God-Man species. His first; at the Incarnation, when the Godhead became God-Man, physically bound with flesh. Also, are you not confusing species with varieties or kinds? Even Darwin had difficulty distinguishing between, the words, and the word “kind,” he avoided like the ten plagues of Egypt. _______________________________________________________ “Darwin’s failure to define a major term in his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, is not surprising. The true origin of every species is the Creator, the God of the Bible. The difficulties in defining the term “species” has more to do with the failure of evolution to adequately explain what we see in nature as well as what we have seen documented in the fossil record.” http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/darwin_couldnot_define_species.html ________________________________________________________ However, the original "moron" according to a plain reading of divine law, you must also tar: that is God the Creator/Jesus, and His divine law which He wrote in Stone at Sinai, as “I am.” He created in six days, the original YEC’ist. Still, to imply written were the Ten Commandments by a "moron" would be blasphemy if divine law is true, as said. Mung, I am not asking you to believe what I believe, only to try and at least understand my logic to a belief, which I readily acknowledge is not mainstream by today's sieve-like evolutionist logic. Nevertheless, Mung, you do me honour by classing me as a “moron.” Jesus said: "blessed are those who mock and say all manner of things against you, for great is your reward in heaven." And believe me Mung, I have had worse said in The Catholic Times, (England). Irrespective, if calling me a "moron" makes you feel better: fine. However, from my own experiences of being drawn or influenced by evolutionism, it was the realisation that true origin is set in a divine law that really sank home with me. At that point, scripture became clear and sound. No fancy footwork needed to get around things. For me, the cosmic measurements do not reflect or take into account a vast maturing miracle. Miracles affect data. The beginning miracle affects data big time. I believe we live in the matured wine of six-day creation. The yoke is easy and the burden light. Anyway, to finish, five “moron” woman to consider who were given mystical understandings of Genesis. Julian of Norwich (1342-1416) was the second woman to do so, and the first English woman to write a book in English, of the mystical “Revelations of Divine Love.” Saint Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), made Doctor of the Church 2012, in Scivias and Book of Divine Works was given an understanding of Genesis and John 1:1. Venerable Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) in The Mystical City of God, through the Holy Mother. Stigmatic Blessed Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) in The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations. St. Bridget (1303-1323), Patron Saint of Europe, wife and mother of eight children, was the only women ever to found a religious Order, Ordo Sanctissimi Salvatoris. She may also be called the patron saint of failures. “The value of St Bridget's Revelations, sometimes the object of criticism Venerable John Paul II explained in his Letter Spes Aedificandi: ‘The Church, which recognized Bridget's holiness without ever pronouncing on her individual revelations, has accepted the overall authenticity of her interior experience’” (n. 5). https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20101027.html No doubt, Mung, the Patron Saint of Europe is a “moron” also?mw_{August 1, 2016
August
08
Aug
1
01
2016
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

YEC denies that God is involved in evolution. ID contradicts this claim. Both cannot be true.
You keep yapping on about X denying Y involved in evolution but I gotta ask - what evolution?Vy_{August 1, 2016
August
08
Aug
1
01
2016
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Bully for them. They are morons.
Based on the content of your recent comments, you just described yourself. Bravo!
The rejection of evolution entails the belief that all extant species were specially created by God.
That's about as moronic a statement an individual can make. It's on par with the usual crap that comes out of Dawkins' mouth. Dude! Read your comments before posting.Vy_{August 1, 2016
August
08
Aug
1
01
2016
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

Vy: YECs reject evolution – macro and micro. They’ve done so for over a decade. Bully for them. They are morons. The rejection of evolution entails the belief that all extant species were specially created by God.Mung_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
You are assuming that my disdain for the TE model comes from a YEC perspective. Not at all. It comes from a respect for reason and logic.
So you elevate reason and logic over divine revelation! StephenB:
You are assuming that my disdain for the TE model comes from a YEC perspective. Not at all. It comes from a respect for reason and logic.
No, I merely observed that you fail to apply that same respect for reason and logic to the claims of Young Earth Creationism. By what process did the originally created kinds evolve? That process was guided by God or it was not guided by God.Mung_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Mung: YECism is clearly at odds with intelligent design. StephenB: I don’t agree with YEC, but it is not at variance with intelligent design. YEC denies that God is involved in evolution. ID contradicts this claim. Both cannot be true.Mung_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

@63 I wrote, "Most YECs believe in either fixity of the species or something close to it." Correction: That should read, most YECs believe in either fixity in "kinds" or something close to it. The point is that, while I am not on board with it, a case can be made for YEC. No case can be made for TE.StephenB_{July 30, 2016
July
07
Jul
30
30
2016
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

@mw, here's the corrected version.Vy_{July 30, 2016
July
07
Jul
30
30
2016
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Hi Vy # 64; fair comments. The link to "original," appears to be not working.mw_{July 30, 2016
July
07
Jul
30
30
2016
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

Wayne Rossiter posted: “Recently, some in the industry have expressed concerns about my general assessment of theistic evolution, which is, ‘you cannot be intended and unintended at the same time.’” https://shadowofoz.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/a-specific-brand-of-evolutionary-creationism/ He goes on to point out what Giberson said: “sin is basically selfishness . . . evolution has a lot to say about selfishness . . . Selfishness, in fact, drives the evolutionary process . . . After many generations selfishness was so fully programmed in our genomes that it was a significant part of what we now call human nature.” Rossiter says, “So, now God is using a mechanism that causes pain, suffering and death, and literally creates us sinful. Francisco Ayala has been very clear about this (apparently aware of the implications).” (Professor Francisco Ayala, is a former Dominican priest, ordained in 1960, but left the priesthood that same year.) He then quotes Ayala: “I think Intelligent Design implications are blasphemous, because they imply that God is inept. Like in the design of the jaw. And everything else. . . every animal or plant is incompetently designed, and is a cruelty. . . I prefer to see this as natural selection, rather than [as] a consequence of design by an intelligent designer, the Creator. . . I don’t want the God of benevolence and the omnipotent God to be given the credit for having made that creation.” A letter from Uncle Screwtape could not have put it better - the Ten Commandments contains blasphemy by saying God created in six days. It is evolution that is a gift from God over billions of years, not some instant freakish stone mirage at Sinai through Moses. Indeed, Ayala’s book, Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion (Joseph Henry Press: Washington DC, 2007), also states that “evolution has solved the ‘theodicy’ problem” (p 3). Meaning, that’s got rid of Satan. The god endowed power of Evolution can do natural miracles without knowing the outcome of a miracle via natural selection, devoid of free will while drumming up all the material needed in the cosmos from nothing. Surely, the natural grand theory of evolutionism is ultimately nothing more than a meaningless human construction, from and of nothing to deny the possibility that there is God, but in which we must bow to and believe in nothing!mw_{July 30, 2016
July
07
Jul
30
30
2016
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

I've been watching this thread for a while now and I've got to say Mung, you seem fundamentally confused. Your entire argument against YEC is a strawman. In fact, your description (or at least understanding of what YEC is) is a huge strawman. Simple googling answers your questions so it's quite surprising you even ask them although that behavior is to expected of Darwinists and their brethren of the theistic variety.
Why are you asking me? Are you not a YEC? YEC’ism rejects all evolution before the fall. YECism rejects death before the fall. I ought not need tell you this.
YECs reject evolution - macro and micro. They've done so for over a decade. You certainly don't think the borrowed ideas of what Darwinists define today as "microevolution" was unknown to the world before Darwin stepped on the scene, do you?
The Ark, not Eden. The process post-Flood, not post-Fall.
How exactly does God creating original kinds with the ability to adapt to varying environments equate to unguided mindless and blind evolution or even theistic Darwinism?
There’s nothing mysterious about my questions or statements.
You need to read them again.
YECism cannot be defended. It capitulates to atheism and Darwinism when it comes to the biological world of today.
Your strawman version of YEC? Absolutely. Actual YEC? Absolutely false.
YECism accepts that the creatures alive today had as ancestors those creatures which survived the flood ... IOW, they evolved.
Equivocating adaptation (and speciation and ...) with evolution is getting you nowhere.
YECism accepts that this diversity is due to descent with modification, and that this process is not guided by God. they evolved, via unguided processes.
Seriously? Did you read that before posting it? "Darwinian programmers accept that the way antiviruses react to viruses is not guided by the programming of the antivirus. Ergo, antiviruses are created by randomly throwing marbles at computers for x number of days then hitting 'RUN'." Does that sound logical?
It is in fact no different from the position of “theistic evolution” that you have set out to attack. All evoluti9on, no real theism. Unless by theism you mean a God that is hands off.
Strawman.
YECism is clearly at odds with intelligent design.
If by "Intelligent Design" you mean God creating over anything but 6 days (as stated in the Bible numerous times) and/or with evodelusion, sure. ---- Sadly, your disingenuous attempt at refuting a strawmanned YEC isn't original. Your level of confusion, assuming that is what it is, is sort of unique though.Vy_{July 30, 2016
July
07
Jul
30
30
2016
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

Mung
Why are you asking me? Are you not a YEC
Heavens No. I think the earth is 4 billion years old. I also think that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. However, arguments for a young earth are not irrational. They are merely implausible. There is a difference. You are assuming that my disdain for the TE model comes from a YEC perspective. Not at all. It comes from a respect for reason and logic.
YEC’ism rejects all evolution before the fall. YECism rejects death before the fall. I ought not need tell you this.
I didn't say I didn't know. I was asking you what you thought.
YECism accepts that this diversity is due to descent with modification, and that this process is not guided by God. they evolved, via unguided processes.
Most YECs believe in either fixity of the species or something close to it. They do not believe that descent through modification can produce new species. Indeed, they don't even mean the same thing as evolutionists when they use that term. For macro evolution, the addition of new information over time is necessary in order to produce new body plans. YECs do not believe in the formation of new body plans at all, either before or after the flood. They think that animals of a certain "kind" bear a resemblance to animals of that same kind at the time of the flood. So your assessment of YEC is incorrect.
It is in fact no different from the position of “theistic evolution” that you have set out to attack.
It is quite different. I don't just set out to attack TE. I explain why it is irrational. There is nothing irrational about guided macro-evolution, but there is definitely something irrational about unguided evolution that is guided.
YECism is clearly at odds with intelligent design.
No it isn't. I don't agree with YEC, but it is not at variance with intelligent design.StephenB_{July 29, 2016
July
07
Jul
29
29
2016
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Are you saying that YECs accept micro evolution (Darwin’s special theory) but reject macro evolution (Darwin’s general theory) before the fall? Or are you saying that that they also reject micro evolution before the fall?
Why are you asking me? Are you not a YEC? YEC'ism rejects all evolution before the fall. YECism rejects death before the fall. I ought not need tell you this. Now if you indeed seek clarity, why are you asking me questions about before the fall? Mung: By what process did the creatures which left the ark become the numerous and varied species that we see today? The Ark, not Eden. The process post-Flood, not post-Fall. There's nothing mysterious about my questions or statements. YECism cannot be defended. It capitulates to atheism and Darwinism when it comes to the biological world of today.
I am willing to entertain your thesis if you will articulate it for me.
Let me state it again then. YECism accepts that the creatures alive today had as ancestors those creatures which survived the flood, and that the diversity of living species is not because every species that exists today was specially created after the flood. IOW, they evolved. YECism accepts that this diversity is due to descent with modification, and that this process is not guided by God. they evolved, via unguided processes. It is in fact no different from the position of "theistic evolution" that you have set out to attack. All evoluti9on, no real theism. Unless by theism you mean a God that is hands off. YECism is clearly at odds with intelligent design.Mung_{July 29, 2016
July
07
Jul
29
29
2016
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

CancelStephenB_{July 29, 2016
July
07
Jul
29
29
2016
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Of related note to nuanced expressions of networks of genes that differentiate between hedonic and noble moral happiness. Atheists can't even explain where one gene and protein came from. Much less can they explain networks of genes acting in concert:
Miracles in Evolutionary Theory – July 28, 2016 Any sufficiently advanced improbability is indistinguishable from a miracle. Excerpt: In Signature in the Cell, building on research by Douglas Axe on protein function, Stephen Meyer calculated the probability of one relatively short protein 150 amino acids in length as being one chance in 10 to the 164th power (10-164, pp. 210-212). In other words, expecting just one protein by chance exceeds the universal probability bound calculated by William Dembski (10-150) by 14 orders of magnitude -- 100 trillionth the chance! The word "miracle" doesn't even come close to belief in such an event. Yet these evolutionists want us to believe that somewhere between 355 and 463 genes or protein products, all working in concert, emerged by chance. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/miracles_in_evo103032.html
bornagain77_{July 28, 2016
July
07
Jul
28
28
2016
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Dean_from_Ohio at 57, Thank you. Of related interest to the overall subject of objective morality vs. subjective morality, Atheists hold that morality is subjective and illusory. Whereas on the other hand, Theists hold that morality is objective and real. And the empirical evidence shows us that the Theist is correct. For instance, 'nuanced' morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become fully aware of the morally troubling situation. This following study shows that objective morality is built/designed, in a very nuanced fashion, into the way our bodies differentiate between ‘hedonic’ and ‘noble’ moral happiness:
Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness - July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm
And although nuanced genetic responses of a moral nature, between noble vs. hedonic happiness, is pretty good for establishing that “there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws” (Martin Luther King), the following studies go one step further and shows that our moral intuition transcends space and time:
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) – (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: “But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called “presentiment,” as in “sensing the future,” but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. “I like to call the phenomenon ‘anomalous anticipatory activity,’” she said. “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It’s anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it’s an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm
There is simply no coherent explanation that a materialist/atheist can give as to why morally troubling situations are detected prior to our becoming fully aware of them or before they even happen. Whereas a Theist, since he believes morality to be real, would expect as such. Of personal note, Dean Radin's work as was referenced by Hameroff, has been severely mocked and ridiculed by atheists since it directly challenges their materialistic beliefs. But I personally, as far as the science itself is concerned, find Radin's work to be above board. For instance
Roger Nelson and Dean Radin Defend 9/11 Global Consciousness Claims http://mindpowermasters.blogspot.com/2009/06/roger-nelson-and-dean-radin-defend-911.html
Of related note: In the following video, Dr Antoine Suarez points out that Immanuel Kant's empirical requirement for the moral argument for God to be validated, (i.e. which was simply evidence for influences arising from outside space-time), has now been met in quantum mechanics:
God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum - Antoine Suarez - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk
bornagain77_{July 28, 2016
July
07
Jul
28
28
2016
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Mung
What about any of the above do you find confounding?
What I am asking for is clarity. Are you saying that YECs accept micro evolution (Darwin’s special theory) but reject macro evolution (Darwin’s general theory) before the fall? Or are you saying that that they also reject micro evolution before the fall? Or are you saying that they reject micro and macro evolution before the fall, and then make a dramatic turn, embracing both micro and macro evolution after the fall? (That would be an unusual claim). If you are really saying that YEC’s believe in macro evolution after the fall, is that supposed to be the Godless equivalent of TEs, who believe in macro evolution both before and after the fall? I am simply asking you to connect your own dots. Meanwhile, I can only guess about what you mean. I am willing to entertain your thesis if you will articulate it for me.StephenB_{July 28, 2016
July
07
Jul
28
28
2016
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Mung @24. I cannot make sense of what you are saying. I will leave you to yourself.
It's not difficult at all to follow. Whether you actually want to follow is another matter entirely. The title of the OP describes Theistic Evolution as "All evolution, no real theism." What is the difference between that and YEC'ism, where, post Fall, God is hands off when it comes to evolution? YEC'ism: All evolution/devolution, no real theism. Let me spell it out a different way. By what process did the creatures which left the ark become the numerous and varied species that we see today? 1. The species we have today were all specially created by God (YECism rejects this). 2. The species we have today were all on the ark. There have never been any new species since the Flood. (YECism rejects this). 3. The species we have today evolved/devolved from common ancestors which were on the ark. 3.a. God guided that process. (YECism rejects this.) 3.b. God did not guide that process. (YECism accepts this.) Godless evolution. It's the YEC position. What about any of the above do you find confounding?Mung_{July 27, 2016
July
07
Jul
27
27
2016
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Origenes is right, of course. His point is well expressed. I would also add that this concept applies to the outcomes and effects of processes and mechanisms, not the free will choices of humans who are, themselves, causal agents. Humans have the power, temporarily at least, to frustrate God's will.StephenB_{July 27, 2016
July
07
Jul
27
27
2016
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

JDK @23,
JDK: A key issue is chance, and you haven’t answered my questions: are the things that look like chance to us (the roll of a dice, a fortunate escape from an accident) actually chance to God, or is that what looks like chance to us is not chance to God.
If for Him things are not up to chance, then they are not up to chance for anyone. When one holds that the dice is loaded and the outcome guaranteed, one cannot coherently subscribe to a theory wrt the dice that assumes randomness and equal outcomes.Origenes_{July 27, 2016
July
07
Jul
27
27
2016
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply