Is Theistic Evolution Tenable?

[missmuffet]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Perhaps you could explain further. I assumed you mean it is not tenable on theological grounds (but share your thoughts on science too, if you wish). Why do you believe Genesis 1-3 could not be interpreted in a more figurative fashion?

Theistic evolution is incompatible with the literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis. I only support a literal reading of the Bible. 

[The Barbarian]

21 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

Theistic evolution is incompatible with the literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis. I only support a literal reading of the Bible. 

It's incompatible with your particular interpretation of Genesis.    Which is an entirely different issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

I assume that some in the TE community would allow for some special creation (ID)/intervention when it came to the creation of souls.

while all TE are evolutionists none are naturalists (philosophically speaking).

So to support there position exegesis of Gen 1-2 would have to support a figurative account of the narrative, falsifying a literal view, and uphold a evolutionary account, falsifying ID or YEC. 

Now one could argue abductively that TE gives the best accounts of both the scientific data and the scriptural data. 

That goal seems like a huge undertaking in and of itself. What if each were to argue the most salient case for the other position? 

That would take out some of the vitriol.

Maybe not "uber genius", but well above most, I would say.

Catholics, for example recognize that man's body is produced by natural processes, but his soul is given directly by God.

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

23 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

I only support a literal reading of the Bible. 

I'd be willing to bet you already agree with certain non-literal aspects of Genesis 1-3. For example, Eve was obviously not the "mother" of all living - evidence shows that this must be taken figuratively.

[missmuffet]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'd be willing to bet you already agree with certain non-literal aspects of Genesis 1-3. For example, Eve was obviously not the "mother" of all living - evidence shows that this must be taken figuratively.

I don't bet. There is figure of speech in the Bible. But they are obvious. The Bible is God's Word to us. 

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

I don't bet.

A figure of speech of my own. I apologize, I meant no offense.

3 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

But they are obvious.

What if it is obvious the earth and universe are older than 10,000 years old?

[Uber Genius]

On March 2, 2020 at 8:43 PM, The Barbarian said:

Maybe not "uber genius", but well above most, I would say.

Catholics, for example recognize that man's body is produced by natural processes, but his soul is given directly by God.

 

Lol. Barbar, did you look at the avatar? Does it remind you of anything? Ever heard of a literary technique known as irony. Look up Wile E Coyote and it may help.

agreed that Catholic doctrine has swung over to the TE side recently, despite greater evidence to the contrary. It is a problem to read back current science into a book that had little to do with science, and when it does present things regarding the natural world does so with the view in mind of God operating outside the physical constraints. 

But I do think TE is a live option and as science progresses and the strangle-hold on academia is loosened, we can solve serious problems rather than driving out the researchers that attempt to publish discomfirming results. 

[Uber Genius]

On March 2, 2020 at 2:50 PM, one.opinion said:

I've tried explaining my position. It hasn't seemed to remove any vitriol :-P

I was actually suggesting that you argue a view other than the one you hold. In turn other would argue your TE view. I have used this approach in seminars since 2002 with some good results.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Uber Genius said:

I was actually suggesting that you argue a view other than the one you hold. In turn other would argue your TE view. I have used this approach in seminars since 2002 with some good results.

Ahh, "steelmanning"! That might make an interesting thread! I wonder if anyone would like to try it with me...

Edited March 4, 2020 by one.opinion

[Uber Genius]

I am willing. And like Aquinas, am up to the task of accurately representing the best evidence for each view. I don't use many of the various frauds such as haesckel's embryos, peppered moths, Darwinism tree of life, piltdown and other frauds, I also don't use appearance of age arguments, or decry accuracy of radiographic dating methods. 

Alternatively, we could ask people to weigh in on the toughest argument against their view. So when Franscis Collins came out with his book, "Language of God," and showed how some genes in non-coding regions of our DNA were 99% similar to that of mice, including errors of transition, it made no sense if mice weren't the ancestors of humans. Luckily for me a couple years later Collins came out saying we now know that what we thought was junk actually has significant function so instead of residual non-functioning code we had working code that was useful to both organisms currently. 

But if Collins had passed away before the second edition then we would have a powerful argument in favor of Evolution.