Christian evolutionists here

The book that has probably influenced me the most on the subject of evolution is Francis Collins' "The Language of God".

On page 200 he says: ".... an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space and time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God chose the same mechanism to give rise to a special creature who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right anf wrong, and a desire to seek fellowship with him."

Collins coined the term Biologos, and more can be seen on his website, biologos.com.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm just curious. I'd like to get a head count of which theists believe in evolution, and which do not. When I say 'believe in evolution', I mean embracing all of it. Millions of years; common descent of all life, etc. People who 'only believe in micro-evolution' will not be considered pro-evolution in my tally, but anti.

I'd like to know, by percenta ...[text shortened]... ducated guess; he supports a literal Noah's ark.)
RBHILL

Pro evolution so far : [b]37.5%[/b]

I'm even more curious, and hoping to avoid the death which usually accompanies such endeavors.
I'd like to get a head count of which posters agree on a standard definition of evolution, and which do not.

Here is the Wiki definition:

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.

100% agreement

-

Okay with most of it, but there's a bit here and there, I dunno...
SwissGambit
Proper Knob

Some of it is okay, but there's a lot that's just really out there...
divegeester
whodey
Zahlanzi
KellyJay
CalJust

Couldn't care less, 100%
FreakyKBH

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm just curious. I'd like to get a head count of which theists believe in evolution, and which do not. When I say 'believe in evolution', I mean embracing all of it. Millions of years; common descent of all life, etc. People who 'only believe in micro-evolution' will not be considered pro-evolution in my tally, but anti.

I'd like to know, by percenta ...[text shortened]... ducated guess; he supports a literal Noah's ark.)
RBHILL

Pro evolution so far : [b]37.5%[/b]

The blank check of embracing it all means what?
Believing in it, does that mean it isn't factual?
There could be countless pieces of the changes that one group dislikes over
another group. Can you at least bring to the table and explain what it is
those that accept it, believe in, or acknowledging it as fact? Spell it out for
us please, how did it start, what makes it continue over time?
Kelly

Originally posted by CalJust
The book that has probably influenced me the most on the subject of evolution is Francis Collins' "The Language of God".

On page 200 he says: ".... an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space and time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeki ...[text shortened]... th him."

Collins coined the term Biologos, and more can be seen on his website, biologos.com.

The book that most influenced me is "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

The selling point for me is that he took ancient rabbinical teachings and thought regarding Genesis instead of forcing the pieces of the puzzle to fit modern science.

Originally posted by whodey
Just because one does not reject scientific findings does not mean that they do not take the Bible literally.

I also believe that there was a flood. Was it world wide? I don't know. Did it contain all the animals that exist today? I don't believe it did. It could very well be that the flood wiped out all the known life in the region only. The ark cou ...[text shortened]... conclusions based upon the Hebrew interpretation of the Bible as well as passed down knowledge.

Yes, but if you believe in an old earth, you probably do not think that the 6 days of creation in Genesis are literal days. Right?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think a distinction should be made for what type of evolution is being refereed to, for I have no objection to adaptation but I firmly reject transmutation of one species into another.

I see PK has hashed this point out already.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm even more curious, and hoping to avoid the death which usually accompanies such endeavors.
I'd like to get a head count of which posters agree on a standard definition of evolution, and which do not.

Here is the Wiki definition:
[quote]Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. ...[text shortened]...
divegeester
whodey
Zahlanzi
KellyJay
CalJust

[b]Couldn't care less, 100%
FreakyKBH[/b]

Well, since you seem content to answer for us, I see no reason to break up your little game. Do what you will.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The blank check of embracing it all means what?
Believing in it, does that mean it isn't factual?
There could be countless pieces of the changes that one group dislikes over
another group. Can you at least bring to the table and explain what it is
those that accept it, believe in, or acknowledging it as fact? Spell it out for
us please, how did it start, what makes it continue over time?
Kelly

Just to be clear - I am counting anyone who accepts Common Descent as 'pro-evolution'.

Evolution started with a single lifeform that lived billions of years ago. Everything alive today is a descendant of that ancestor.

It continues for a variety of reasons:
1) changes in the external environment
2) the genetic process of reproduction (in which a combination of the parents' DNA produces offspring with different characteristics)
3) the occasional mutation (yeah, I know; most mutations suck for the mutant. But very very rarely there is one that rocks.)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Just to be clear - I am counting anyone who accepts Common Descent as 'pro-evolution'.

Evolution started with a single lifeform that lived billions of years ago. Everything alive today is a descendant of that ancestor.

It continues for a variety of reasons:
1) changes in the external environment
2) the genetic process of reproduction (in which a ...[text shortened]... yeah, I know; most mutations suck for the mutant. But very very rarely there is one that rocks.)

I guess I disagree than since your reasons for it to continue seem more
like reasons it would stop to me.
Kelly

If I may weigh in here, as always in the role of neutral commentator (above the fray or beyond the pale, depending on how you look at it): even among those who accept that evolution really happened (over millions of years, humans and apes having had a common ancestor, etc.), there is significant difference of opinion on a number of issues.

For example, some evolutionists hold that the two mechanisms, natural selection + random mutation, explain the diversity of life as we see it now, given that life somehow got going millions of years ago, but that these mechanisms do not explain how life originated in the first instance. Darwin himself held this position, so his famously titled book "On The Origin of Species" is somewhat misleading. It was later evolutionists who extrapolated Darwin's theory backwards to try to use it to explain the first appearance of life from non-living matter. See for example Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."

Second, even among convinced evolution theorists, some dispute whether the two above-mentioned mechanisms are sufficient to explain the present level of species diversity (leaving aside how life got going in the first instance), and postulate additional mechanisms not covered by Darwin's original theory.

Some in the creationist camp cite this divergence of opinion in the evolutionist camp as proof that evolution is 'just a theory' and did not really happen. In this, creationists are seriously mistaken; some divergence of opinion about details does not prove that it did not happen.

The salient point here is that evolution theory is itself in a state of flux and there is ample room for Christians of various flavors to embrace one or another variant of it in good faith. I hear even the Vatican has conceded that it really happened and is not 'just a theory.'

For further reading, I recommend: "Why Darwin Matters," by Michael Shermer. Written by a former creationist who came to embrace the opposite position. He provides a good survey of the people who argue for creationism and why, and the politics behind it (and it is very definitely a political issue, not a theological one).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think a distinction should be made for what type of evolution is being refereed to, for I have no objection to adaptation but I firmly reject transmutation of one species into another.

No serious evolution theorists hold that a human baby was ever born of an ape's womb. Or than a single creature which was born an ape died human. If that is what you mean by "transmutation of species" you needn't bother to refute it, because no one else holds it.

Marxist 'scientists' for a time in the USSR and the GDR held the position that evolution proceeds by quantum leaps, rather than by gradual (per)mutations; that is, they held that new species 'spontaneously' appeared. This was how they explained the lack of intermediate stages between, say, ponies and horses and zebras. No one takes this seriously any more.

Originally posted by moonbus
No serious evolution theorists hold that a human baby was ever born of an ape's womb. Or than a single creature which was born an ape died human. If that is what you mean by "transmutation of species" you needn't bother to refute it, because no one else holds it.

Marxist 'scientists' for a time in the USSR and the GDR held the position that evolution proc ...[text shortened]... mediate stages between, say, ponies and horses and zebras. No one takes this seriously any more.

The idea of punctuated equilibrium as far as I am aware remains a valid theory and is naught but an attempt to address inconsistencies within the fossil record. I reject everything that Properknob professes as he has never once supported me in anyway but has always opposed me at every turn.

Originally posted by moonbus
If I may weigh in here, as always in the role of neutral commentator (above the fray or beyond the pale, depending on how you look at it): even among those who accept that evolution really happened (over millions of years, humans and apes having had a common ancestor, etc.), there is significant difference of opinion on a number of issues.

For example, so ...[text shortened]... and the politics behind it (and it is very definitely a political issue, not a theological one).

It is a truth issue, foundational for those who reject God and those that
accept God.
Kelly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The idea of punctuated equilibrium as far as I am aware remains a valid theory and is naught but an attempt to address inconsistencies within the fossil record. I reject everything that Properknob professes as he has never once supported me in anyway but has always opposed me at every turn.

Opposed you at every turn?! LOL!!!!

You are a fundamentalist Christian, and I am, using your own words, a 'rabid base materialist', of course I'm going to oppose you. We're at complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to matters in this forum.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a truth issue, foundational for those who reject God and those that
accept God.
Kelly

Come again. Are you saying evolution is a truth issue with respect to God's existence?