Thursday, July 8, 2010

Theistic Evolution

I am really not sure where to stand with regard to theistic evolutionists. In many respects, I feel that they are on the side of science, but sometimes it seems like the last stand of a god-of-the-gaps. I personally went through a transition from young earth creationist, to old earth creationist, to theistic evolutionist and finally relinquished the theos altogether and embraced a naturalistic explanation for the biodiversity on earth.
Theistic evolutionists are probably the best solution to solving the problem of creationism/ID, as they can show the creationists that it is possible to be a believer and also acknowledge real science. The problem that I see is that it is driving a rather impervious wedge between religion and science, allowing people to get away with placing an intellectual barrier between their critical thinking and their religion.

C.S. Lewis and Creation Science

It may boggle the minds of some evangelicals, but the famous apologist C.S. Lewis was himself a theistic evolutionist. Lewis did make some arguments against naturalistic evolution though and some deceitful YEC's have quoted those arguments to support their nonsense.


  1. I think it is just as much crap as anything with religion involved. They are apologists and taking the middle ground in a situation where there is no middle ground. There is scientific evolution and then their is hokum and crap, and apologies for hokum and crap.

  2. Still, you've gotta admit it's more logical than YECism. I don't see the problem with theistic evolution, unless your holy book specifically says it didn't happen that way. It's no more strange than for a religious person to be a "theistic chemist."

  3. Oh definitely, YECism is just so far from reality...

    Technically the Bible does say that it wasn't done that way, but most people understand that nothing in genesis ACTUALLY happened.

  4. The idea of evolution influenced by a god is *somewhat* believable, much more so than that of a god just creating a whole bunch of creatures out of nowhere. If said god then decided to disappear forever - which is out of line with any religion I know of, but not out of line of what one hypothetically could do - then it makes a quite plausible theory. It's pretty much the reason I prefer to describe myself as apatheist/IDGAFist, not atheist.

  5. The god Namida describes, is that the Deist style god? The god that creates then buggers off?

    Post on Deism would be choice. Don't know much on the subject.

  6. Yeah it would be Deism.

    I'll see what I can conjure up.

  7. I don't even know for sure that one would have to "create, then bugger off". It might be a case of "create, then sit back and watch to see what happens", especially if the god in question wasn't omniscient. It all comes down to a matter of them not interfering or interacting with their creation in any visible or noticable way. Kind of along the lines of what "God" in Futurama says, "If you do things just right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

  8. As per Lamberth's teleonomic argument, since the weight of evidence reveals teleonomic causation - no wanted outcomes, and supernaturalism insists on wanted outcomes-teleology, then to adduce the latter as behind the former contradicts science rather than being compatible with it as Jerry Coyne so well explicates in "Seeing and Beleiving" @ Talk Reason and also there is Amiel Rossow's essay on the IDism of Kenneth Miller.
    Therefore, creationist evolution or evolution creationism is an oxymoron and quite incompatible with science from the side of science but from the side of religion, yes, there is that compatiblity as there is between marriage and adultery!
    Scientists are now studying how people see pareidolias- like the man in the moon- rather than reality. Therefore, the Lamberth's argument from pareidolia ensues to argue that people see the pareidolias of intent-agency- teleology and design when there are only teleonomy [ pace Ernst Mayr] and patterns.
    This argument applies to not only to teleological ones but also to any involving intent: no intent means none to start the Big Bang, to make miracles or to be the Master of history to save Jewry or internvene in it otherwise or to be behind religious experience.
    Without the referents then of Primary Cause, Grand Miracle Monger,etc., then He has no referents,andcombined with His contradictory,incoherent attributes, He is that square circle and thus cannot exist! Therfore, we atheists, A.J. Ayer notwithstanding, take ignosticims as part of our atheism as it percolates through the arguments for and against Him.This is Lamberth's contribution to ignosticism.
    The argument from pareidolia, I think, is no genetic fallacy but rather how people find God as the Primary Cause and natural ones as the secondary ones rather than natural ones themselves as that primary cause and sufficient reason, Leibniz notwithstanding.
    With my friend Graham Robert Oppy ["Arguing about Gods"], I plead for fallibilism, as did Socrates, that one might be wrong.
    As Skeptic Griggy,Naturalist Griggsy and Rationalist Griggsy, my signature is :" Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism."
    The following blogs ask for serious inquirers to post at them and perhaps to be co-owners:
    Ignostic Morgan's
    Strato of Ga.
    Thales Ignostic Morgan.
    Google also the Griggsy names to peruse serious naturalist new atheist, anti-theist attacks on supernaturalism. Some of the comments might be hard at first to decipher due to my neurological problems, but most are clear enough. Yes, I'm Decidely Atheist!
    Blessings and good will to all!

  9. The atelic or teleonomic argument should have been put instead of this argument so as not to equate this one with the other one. Sorry.

  10. Skeptic Griggsy
    The atelic or teleonomic argument applies not only to teleological ones but also to....

  11. Griggsy I'll have to have a look into this teleonomic argument that you mentioned. It sounds interesting.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. @ Human Ape: LOL. I can't hear what he is saying over that incredibly loud grinding axe....

  15. Yeah, for a long time I was always puzzled when I heard theists call atheists 'angry' and 'militant' but now I know exactly what they're talking about, people like Human Ape. I briefly checked out his blog, and it's basically just pages and pages of calling god a fairy, Christians retards, morons etc.

  16. I removed Human Ape's comments because he had links to his blog on it. He's a complete douchebag and is definitely an atheist fundamentalist. He called me a fake atheist on his blog and then started censoring my comments. Anyway, his blog is an eyesore and consists only of one giant angry rant about everyone who has a different viewpoint to him. Fuck Human Ape!