On the morality of evolution

[basics]

If the Sun was created on day 2, when did the first day start and end? We don't know how God created, well, everything.

Sir Adrian,

The sun, moon and stars weren't created until day 4. The Light that appeared on day 2 was from the Creator, Jesus Christ Himself. Surely it's not that hard to understand?

[conon394]

Say perchance I had to kill you to survive just because you had more than me, where is the morality in that? There isn't any yet men kill for lesser reasons than that. Oh and by the way women can be just as bad and they're supposed to be the better at understanding ones. No my friends evolution is nothing to shout home about.

Still works out better than the morality of god in the Bible.

----

The sun, moon and stars weren't created until day 4. The Light that appeared on day 2 was from the Creator, Jesus Christ Himself. Surely it's not that hard to understand?

Err no the text is God, no Jesus in the creation story.

[Sir Adrian]

Sir Adrian,

The sun, moon and stars weren't created until day 4. The Light that appeared on day 2 was from the Creator, Jesus Christ Himself. Surely it's not that hard to understand?

I stand corrected, but you haven't answered my question. When did day 1 start and when did it end if there was no light

[basics]

I stand corrected, but you haven't answered my question. When did day 1 start and when did it end if there was no light

Sir Adrian,

And I too stand corrected because it was on day one that God lit up the earth thus separating night from day so on day 2 we had a clear indication of what time would mean in terms of days, months and years. By creating the sun, moon and stars He locked them into that system and it's that system that has endured since creation.

[Kissaki]

Sir Adrian,

And I too stand corrected because it was on day one that God lit up the earth thus separating night from day so on day 2 we had a clear indication of what time would mean in terms of days, months and years. By creating the sun, moon and stars He locked them into that system and it's that system that has endured since creation.

It says that on Day 1 God separated light from the darkness - not night and day. Today, we define a day as a complete revolution of the Earth around its own axis. But until the heliocentric model was accepted, a day was defined as the period between sunrise and sunset. From one day to the next would be from one sunrise to the next.

[basics]

It says that on Day 1 God separated light from the darkness - not night and day. Today, we define a day as a complete revolution of the Earth around its own axis. But until the heliocentric model was accepted, a day was defined as the period between sunrise and sunset. From one day to the next would be from one sunrise to the next.

Kissaki,

" And God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night and the evening and morning were the first day." Genesis 1:5. To the Jews a day starts at sunset in accordance with the darkness being there before the light and so in accordance to the movement of the revolution of the earth which we know as twentyfour hours their day starts at sunset making the Sabbath begin on a Friday night until Saturday night.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As far as Christianity and evolutionary biology are concerned, it seems the idea of compatibility necessarily negates basic tenets of Christianity, to the same extent as YEC with respect to basic science.

[basics]

Well apart from the stupidity of Darwin's Theory where in the Bible does science and the word disagree? God supplied us with oxygen for breathing, water for drinking and cleansing, told us the world was round, gave us our dates and times for our lives, provides all the ingredients for medecines and did it when He created us from the first days on. Evolution...bah!

[Sir Adrian]

As far as Christianity and evolutionary biology are concerned, it seems the idea of compatibility necessarily negates basic tenets of Christianity, to the same extent as YEC with respect to basic science.

It doesn't because Christianity never concerned itself with how the world was made, only with salvation. As we've established priod, strict biblical literalism is a 19th century heresy.

Sir Adrian,

And I too stand corrected because it was on day one that God lit up the earth thus separating night from day so on day 2 we had a clear indication of what time would mean in terms of days, months and years. By creating the sun, moon and stars He locked them into that system and it's that system that has endured since creation.

That still does not answer my question. When did day 1 start and end?

[Lord Thesaurian]

That’s backwards for obvious reasons, and the assertion that “Christianity never concerned itself with how the world was made” is a bizarre lie. Theistic evolution began to gain traction in the late 19th century in response to Darwin’s discoveries. The Vatican didn’t officially reject intelligent design until the turn of the 21st century. Calling the traditional, historical view of Genesis “Biblical literalism” doesn’t validate the spurious assertion that the latter is the newcomer.

[Cope]

That’s backwards for obvious reasons, and the assertion that “Christianity never concerned itself with how the world was made” is a bizarre lie. Theistic evolution began to gain traction in the late 19th century in response to Darwin’s discoveries. The Vatican didn’t officially reject intelligent design until the turn of the 21st century. Calling the traditional, historical view of Genesis “Biblical literalism” doesn’t validate the spurious assertion that the latter is the newcomer.

Christianity does not particularly concern itself with how the world was beyond affirming God as the creator. This necessitates - not negates - a belief in intelligent design.

Job 38:

² Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

³ Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

⁴ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

⁵ Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

⁶ Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

⁷ When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[Sir Adrian]

That’s backwards for obvious reasons, and the assertion that “Christianity never concerned itself with how the world was made” is a bizarre lie. Theistic evolution began to gain traction in the late 19th century in response to Darwin’s discoveries. The Vatican didn’t officially reject intelligent design until the turn of the 21st century. Calling the traditional, historical view of Genesis “Biblical literalism” doesn’t validate the spurious assertion that the latter is the newcomer.

Christianity teaches, and has always taught since the days of Peter, "leave philosophy to the philosophers". The duty of a christian church, a real christian church, not the charismatics who bark in church or the money laundering prosperity pastors, is to be a hospital of the soul. The church cannot and will not ever tell you what is right only what is wrong because only God can be right. Claiming to understand the mind of God, the motivations of God or the actions of God is hubris and a great sin. Which is why the scriptures were never, until the advent of extremist evangelism aka the charismatic movements, seen as literal and cannot ever be seen as literal without being wrong so therefore there is no point of contention between evolution and genesis. Evolution belongs to the real of science, genesis belongs to the realm of faith. Christianity deals EXCLUSIVELY in faith. We do not care about the reality of how this temporal world was made. We only care about the permanent world to come.

You're taking the opinion of a guy who lives just as sinfully as you and me and sees religion as a job, and you're making it into theological truth. It's not. And what's worse you're setting it against thousands of years of teaching by people who were much closer to God than either of us and this pastor and claiming that the teachings go against the basic principles of Christianity.

Theistic evolution began to gain traction in the late 19th century in response to Darwin’s discoveries.

It would be quite hard for it to exist before the 19th century considering that's when the freaking theory of evolution was postulated, by Darwin. You're criticizing the stone for being wet because it has water on it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Christianity does not particularly concern itself with how the world was beyond affirming God as the creator. This necessitates - not negates - a belief in intelligent design.

The assertion that Christianity necessitates intelligent design is a rejection of theistic evolution.

Intelligent design proponents attempt to demonstrate scientifically that features such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity could not arise through natural processes, and therefore required repeated direct miraculous interventions by a Designer (often a Christian concept of God). They reject the possibility of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the outset,[21] in contrast to theistic evolution (to which even Charles Darwin was open[142])

"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican...n-not-science/

You're taking the opinion of a guy who lives just as sinfully as you and me and sees religion as a job, and you're making it into theological truth. It's not. And what's worse you're setting it against thousands of years of teaching by people who were much closer to God than either of us and this pastor and claiming that the teachings go against the basic principles of Christianity.

You’ve previously rejected the opinions of such seminal figures as Sts Paul and Basil, so the above commentary is a personal interpretation at best.

It would be quite hard for it to exist before the 19th century considering that's when the freaking theory of evolution was postulated, by Darwin. You're criticizing the stone for being wet because it has water on it.

This is a concession that it was theistic evolution, not the traditional, historical interpretation of Genesis, which arose in the 19th century, contrary to your earlier claim.

[Cope]

The assertion that Christianity necessitates intelligent design is a rejection of theistic evolution.

All Christians affirm that the universe was designed intelligently. There are disagreements about how that design manifested itself, though there is no particular reason why the phrase "intelligent design" should be monopolized by a YEC interpretation.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Just because intelligent design must be synonymous with YEC in the first place for your argument against that association to be relevant doesn’t mean Wiki and the Vatican are only talking about YEC vs theistic evolution when they differentiate theistic evolution from intelligent design.

[Cope]

Just because intelligent design must be synonymous with YEC in the first place for your argument against that association to be relevant doesn’t mean Wiki and the Vatican are only talking about YEC vs theistic evolution when they differentiate theistic evolution from intelligent design.

In a Christian context, the theory of "intelligent design" is strongly associated with YEC for obvious reasons. As per the header, the cited Wikipedia article is discussing "a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism" in contrast to "generic arguments from intelligent design" (which is what I was referring to).

[Lord Thesaurian]

The header specifically says intelligent design is not to be confused with theistic evolution, and the article goes on to explain how Christian intelligent design contrasts with theistic evolution. Even if one were to consider the differences between intelligent design and theistic evolution semantic for personal reasons, the dichotomy Rev Coyne addressed was between evolution and intelligent design which he derisively regarded as a rejection of evolution, “creationism by another name,” not between YEC and a more generic version of intelligent design. Indeed, Darwin’s work and evolutionary biology itself contrasts with the ancient teleological argument from design (which is what you are referring to) by positing that natural phenomena can explain biological complexity, the appearance of design. Thus the appearance of design in and of itself is not evidence of god or gods. Never mind symbolism vs literalism. There is no creation ex nihilo.

The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal'; also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent creator.[1][2][3][4]

The earliest recorded versions of this argument are associated with Socrates in ancient Greece, although it has been argued that he was taking up an older argument.[5][6] Plato and Aristotle developed complex approaches to the proposal that the cosmos has an intelligent cause, but it was the Stoics who, under their influence, "developed the battery of creationist arguments broadly known under the label 'The Argument from Design'".[7]

Abrahamic religions have used the teleological argument in many ways, and it has a long association with them. In the Middle Ages, Islamic theologians such as Al-Ghazali used the argument, although it was rejected as unnecessary by Quranic literalists, and as unconvincing by many Islamic philosophers. Later, the teleological argument was accepted by Saint Thomas Aquinas and included as the fifth of his "Five Ways" of proving the existence of God. In early modern England clergymen such as William Turner and John Ray were well-known proponents. In the early 18th century, William Derham published his Physico-Theology, which gave his "demonstration of the being and attributes of God from his works of creation".[8] Later, William Paley, in his 1802 Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity published a prominent presentation of the design argument with his version of the watchmaker analogy and the first use of the phrase "argument from design".[9]

From its beginning, there have been numerous criticisms of the different versions of the teleological argument, and responses to its challenge to the claims against non-teleological natural science. Especially important were the general logical arguments made by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published in 1779, and the explanation of biological complexity given in Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859.[10] Since the 1960s, Paley's arguments have been influential in the development of a creation science movement which used phrases such as "design by an intelligent designer", and post 1987 this was rebranded as "intelligent design", promoted by the intelligent design movement which refers to an intelligent designer. Both movements have used the teleological argument to argue against the modern scientific understanding of evolution, and to claim that supernatural explanations should be given equal validity in the public school science curriculum.[11]

[Cope]

Intelligent design and evolutionary theism are not the same. Both cover a broad spectrum of beliefs. To be a theist (a necessary condition for belief in evolutionary theism) implies a belief in some form of intelligent design - just not necessarily the "specific pseudoscientific form of creationism" discussed in the original Wiki article.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Theistic evolution constitutes the general belief that the existence of God is consistent with the prevailing scientific consensus regarding the origins and development of life and the universe (which rejects intelligent design, not just YEC). As per both Wiki articles, Intelligent design, by contrast, is the idea that apparent irreducible complexity in nature is evidence of an intelligent creator.

[Cope]

Theistic evolution constitutes the general belief that the existence of God is consistent with the prevailing scientific consensus regarding the origins and development of life and the universe (which rejects intelligent design, not just YEC). As per both Wiki articles, Intelligent design, by contrast, is the idea that apparent irreducible complexity evidence of an intelligent creator.

The theory of evolution is not an ontological argument; theistic evolution is. Christians believe in an intelligent prime mover who designed the universe both intelligently and to be intelligible (where there are laws, there must be a lawmaker). As above there is a broad range of beliefs which fall under the category of "intelligent design", some of which are compatible with theistic evolution, some of which are not.