Theory of Evolution

[Oik]

[quote]For example, when I prepare a meal for myself, I go through a process. All phases of this process can be very directly controlled by none other than me. The same is true for a potter molding clay into a jar. There is a process involved in all of these things yet the "creator" of these things is still directly and actively involved.[/quote]

I see your point. The distinction here though it that God created everything he molded. He created that which is used to create. God is Creation itself (NOT in the universalist mentality, mind you!).

When you do something, you are using what has been given you. Furthermore, you are wroking in the limits that God has set. You, in this sense do not create out of nothing.

[quote]I think the very same can apply to evolutionary theory. Evolution does not logically necessitate that it be a passive process that unfolds, initiated and managed passively by a "clockmaker" figure, so to speak. It could be a passively controlled process, but nowhere is passive operation required either explicitly or implicitly. I think evolutionary theory (as well as many other theories on origins) allows itself to be executed more along the lines of a potter or cook, every phase intricately, directly controlled. Inasmuch, evolution would still be a process directly controlled by God by which certain aspects of our reality come to be, thus qualifying as creationism.[/quote]

I agree with your conclusion. I do however, disagree with the logic you employ to arrive at it (wierd, huh? ).

Man is God's creation, not evolution's creation in accordance with God. In a way, evolution separates the inherent hu8manioty of man from the moment he is created. It asserts that a possess (albiet, in your sense, a process controlled by God) creates man's body.

I believe there is a disconnect here. I think that evolution fundementally separates the goodness and humanity of man from the creation of man's body.

If a process creates man's body (even a process controlled by God), the ramifications are that man's body is made in a inhumane way. Man's body becomes the object of animals. What them becomes the redemption of this animal body is that God injects into it a soul. This equates humanity for the Theistic Evolutionist.

Non-Theistic Evolution (whether it is non-Chrisitian or anti-Christian) does not even account for the soul. It doesn't nor can it account for consciousness. So the explaination of man and humanity takes a purely empirical approach. This is problematic because man is not merely empirical, man is Body-Soul.

Science has the duty to either attempt to account for this or to stop proporting Evolution.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:34 PM']Science intentionally limits itself to empirical observation.

Where is the fault? Man is not merely empirical.

Why is this important? Science is authoritative, that's why.
[right][snapback]716139[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Science should only be authoritative on scientific matters based on empirical evidence, IMHO. Otherwise we are presented with a situation akin to my example of a mechanic performing medicine. That's not to say; science is science, philosphy is philosophy, and ne'er the twain shall meet. The point is, once scientists bare witness to philosophical tenets, they are no longer practicing science. Likewise when operating in reverse. Practitioners of a field may participate in a cross-over into another field, yet it is another field than science one steps into when making philosophical claims using evolutionary theory as supporting evidence. So I disagree, science is most definitely not responsible for explaining things of a non-physical, spiritual nature.

Edited September 8, 2005 by hierochloe

[Oik]

If science wants to make empirical observations about empirical things, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

Man isn't just empirical, so Science must make a choice: Stop talking about humanity or admit that there is more to Science than empirical observation.

I believe that one day science will admit this, though I highly doubt that it will be in the direction consistant with Chrisitanity.

As for evolutionists, there actually has been a non-Christian attempt to use empirical observation to account for the soul. There is a growing opinion that man's consciousness arises from the lack of man's ability to survive among the other speices. We can't run faster, we aren't really bigger, we don't have claws or wings, we have soft "shells."

So the empiricists have said that man's consciousness "evolved" as a way for humanity to survive as a species. This is such an errror. However, if you take the evolutionist appraoch it is compatible.

This is yet another illustrastion of however evolutionary theory, the process, creates a larger disconnect between God' interaction in creation and Science.

Essentially, this theory strips a way man's consciousness from his soul. This undermines so many different things, Christianity, Philosophy, Theology.

The Soul is where man's consciousness lies. If consciousness "evoloved," then the soul unnecessary. Why? Because consciousness becomes empirical and material.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']I see your point. The distinction here though it that God created everything he molded. He created that which is used to create. God is Creation itself (NOT in the universalist mentality, mind you!).

When you do something, you are using what has been given you. Furthermore, you are wroking in the limits that God has set. You, in this sense do not create out of nothing.[/quote]
Lol, I realize my examples using human roles are not pure - and how could they be since it's arguable that humans can even begin to comprehend God's creative action.
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']I agree with your conclusion. I do however, disagree with the logic you employ to arrive at it (wierd, huh? ).

Man is God's creation, not evolution's creation in accordance with God. In a way, evolution separates the inherent hu8manioty of man from the moment he is created. It asserts that a possess (albiet, in your sense, a process controlled by God) creates man's body. [/quote]
What about a "process" that [i]is[/i] God? Could not God be [i]within[/i] all of the environmental variables that interact in that which we label evolution?
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']If a process creates man's body (even a process controlled by God), the ramifications are that man's body is made in a inhumane way. Man's body becomes the object of animals. What them becomes the redemption of this animal body is that God injects into it a soul. This equates humanity for the Theistic Evolutionist.[/quote]
Ironically, the biblical story of creation in it's literal translation does indeed outline a process - night/day, followed by gathering of waters, exposure of dry land,etc up to man molded from the dust of the ground after which life is breathed into him, "and man became a living soul". Following that Eve is created from a rib taken from Adam while he is sleeping in the garden God placed him in after creating him. Though I must admit I'm not prepared at this point to make any statements regarding the physical division between a human body and that of any other animal and how it relates to this whole discussion.

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']Non-Theistic Evolution (whether it is non-Chrisitian or anti-Christian) does not even account for the soul. It doesn't nor can it account for consciousness. So the explaination of man and humanity takes a purely empirical approach. This is problematic because man is not merely empirical, man is Body-Soul.

Science has the duty to either attempt to account for this or to stop proporting Evolution.
[right][snapback]716168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As soon as one classes evolutionary theory within a framework of specifically "non-theistic" or "theistic", they are no longer within the realm of empirical science. Science does not have a duty to account for things of a spiritual nature, because an empirical (aka scientific) approach [i]cannot[/i] account for such things.
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']So the empiricists have said that man's consciousness "evolved" as a way for humanity to survive as a species. This is such an errror. However, if you take the evolutionist appraoch it is compatible.[/quote]
Aha, I think I see the root of discontent now. Disregarding intelligent design for a moment to play devil's advocate as it were, I think it's far more likely that survival features such as hide, claw, fang, and brute strength were reduced as increased intelligence rendered them obsolete. I could debate that further using purely physical evidence but it's not necessary. Evolutionary theory may allow for all kinds of crazy conclusions - that doesn't make them true in the least, nor does it discount the theory. The important point is that science cannot account for what Christians define as a human soul. It's scientifically impossible to develop sound empirical statements about that which is not physical - period. No, not even with evolutionary theory.

I do agree that evolutionary theory is applied by some scientists to support non-scientific conclusions, which can indeed be destructive when they fall on fertile ground. However, this is no different than people spinning scripture to their own misleading ends, which is just as destructive imo. You will find abuse in every field. Honestly, I would encourage willing scientists to attempt to explain away the soul, and God for that matter, every chance they get because for every theory they may develop that flops (and they all do), my faith is actually tempered to even stronger conviction.

[White Knight]

If Evolution were true, we'd still be having experiments today, yet we dont see anything, and even after a few hundred years there would be differences, yet we see none, we dont see any apes beginning the evolution process into men.


We'd have hundreds of thousands of human fossils labeling our link to our ape hertiege, but since we do not, it is dismissed as a forgery.


Evolution is wrong, and it needs to be taught still, but it needs to be taught in the way that students can actually understand the Flaws of it and completely dismiss it entireally.

[Oik]

Good debate Hierochloe, thanks!

Can we agree to disagree?

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 14 2005, 10:21 AM']Good debate Hierochloe, thanks!

Can we agree to disagree?
[right][snapback]722919[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Most certainly a good discussion and my thanks to you for taking the time to engage my points. Looking back, I've made the assertion in the past that science and philosophy are seperate. I'd like to edit that now. After a lot of thought on the matter, I think I was not using the term philosophy correctly, rather falling back on a more slang definiton. Indeed, science would be included in the term philosophy. I still think it is outside the realm of science (or physical science to be specific) to attempt to make statements on things of a spiritual nature (eg soul).

[Oik]

[White Knight]

This has been an pretty profitable debate, however, I dont think it is finished yet.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 15 2005, 11:16 PM']This has been an pretty profitable debate, however, I dont think it is finished yet.
[right][snapback]725154[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Lol, yes it was one of the best discussions I've had on the topic, and it led me to a more accurate definition of the term [i]philosophy[/i]. So hey, productivity 4tw!! We're not typing these big essays for nothing.

[White Knight]

Glad you got something out of it, I too, did as well, however my views and such still stand. lol.