User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 14 of 14

  1. #11
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    The whole debate is absurd. At its root it pits physical causes against metaphysical causes, as though the two can't mutually exist. The result is that everyone's trying to resolve a question along the lines of "Did you walk to work, or bring your lunch?"

    Here's how I see it. If you ask anyone of faith "Is a baby miraculous? Does the birth of a baby represent an act of God?" they'll answer with a resounding "Yes." As a person of faith, I agree. At the same time, people of faith know about sperm, egg, ovulation, implantation, pregnancy, the whole nine yards of the physical process.

    Now if knowing that there is a physical process for conception and birth of a child doesn't shake one's faith, why should faith be shaken by the presumption that there is a physical process for speciation?

    Does the physical evidence of natural history point to a process by which species have come and gone over time? Yes.

    Does this have any implications for the existence (or nonexistence, for that matter) of a sovereign Lord of Creation? No.

    Does it mean that we have to choose between the Bible and Darwin? No. I believe that speciation happens by a physical process. I believe that there is a conscious and omnipresent God who owns the process, and indeed all processes. QED.

  2. #12

    Default

    What Oberon and nozflubber said. I've never seen a conflict between these systems of belief, even for a minute. In my opinion, they don't even try to explain the same thing.

    And I'm continually surprised when people think that Christians don't believe in evolution. Evangelicals do, but they're hardly anything approaching the majority. Is it really that prevalent a misconception?
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  3. #13
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Suppose that you have decided to make a pond by redirecting a stream. So you build mounds and dig trenches until the water flows into recess in the land and forms a pond.

    In one sense, the pond is clearly a product of design, i.e. it would not exist without the intentional intervention of an individual. But nobody put the stream there in the first place, nor impelled the water downhill. The situation just existed somehow, and from that you, by incremental adjustments, brought a pond into being.

    Perhaps God intentionally directed the flow of evolution to produce a particular outcome; the mounds and trenches could have been contrived with an ultimate design in mind. Since God is all-powerful, or at least extremely powerful, any tool could be employed for creation, why not evolution?
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    What Oberon and nozflubber said. I've never seen a conflict between these systems of belief, even for a minute. In my opinion, they don't even try to explain the same thing.

    And I'm continually surprised when people think that Christians don't believe in evolution. Evangelicals do, but they're hardly anything approaching the majority. Is it really that prevalent a misconception?
    Uhm ... I don't have any idea what all the previous stuff was about, since I'm not so hot at keeping up with those types of conversations. I just wanted to pop in and say that the majority of Christians I know do not believe in evolution. They believe Genesis is 100% literal. They believe Theistic Evolution is "dangerous." 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution

    These people who take Genesis literally might have a hard time reconciling evolution with their beliefs, as far as I can tell, because it would mean that death existed in the world before the "fall of man," which was supposed to be the cause of death in the world. I just wanted to mention that because this idea of young earth creationism is indeed very prevalent.
    I-71%, N-80%, F-74%, P-96%

Similar Threads

  1. Another blow to religious freedom
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 12:38 PM
  2. What types are the most attracted to religious organizations?
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-30-2011, 01:29 AM
  3. How would you deal with the realization that your religious beliefs were false?
    By uncommonentity in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-23-2011, 08:54 AM
  4. type does not automatically equal religious belief
    By prplchknz in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 10:18 PM
  5. Religious belief as a mental illness (with your hosts, Erm & Eck!)
    By EcK in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-23-2009, 12:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO