03 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobThis also states the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
"It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially."
So with these wide ranges of beliefs. Do you have any proof that Dr. Fancis Collins believes God made man by evolving man from an ape creature? I am looking for his specific definition and belief about it and not just a general belief about theistic evolution that covers a wide range of beliefs. Who knows, I might even believe in theistic evolution, if it is defined to include my beliefs. 😏
03 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWho knows, I might even believe in theistic evolution, if it is defined to include my beliefs - R J Hinds.
This also states the following:
[b]"It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creati ...[text shortened]... ows, I might even believe in theistic evolution, if it is defined to include my beliefs. 😏
Lord have mercy on R J Hinds, Lord have mercy on his soul.
03 May 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
This also states the following:
[b]"It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creati ...[text shortened]... ows, I might even believe in theistic evolution, if it is defined to include my beliefs. 😏
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/08/God-Is-Not-Threatened-By-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx
03 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouse'Theistic evolution holds that the theist's acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. The latter two are also based on a methodological assumption of naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. St. Anselm described theology as "Faith seeking understanding" and theistic evolutionists believe that this search for understanding extends to scientific understanding. In light of this view, authors writing on the subject, such as Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, say that "The best science and our best thinking about God belong together." Peters and Hewlett see science as a means of evaluating, understanding, and using to our benefit the intricacies of the world that God has created for us.' -- Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
What is 'theistic evolution'?
Also, I'd like to point this out, from the same page:
'Anglicans (including the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Church of England and others) believe that the Bible "contains all things necessary to salvation," while believing that "science and Christian theology can complement one another in the quest for truth and understanding." Specifically on the subject of creation/evolution, some Anglicans view "Big Bang cosmology" as being "in tune with both the concepts of creation out of nothing and continuous creation." Their position is clearly set out in the Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science. In an interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams expressed his thought that "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." His view is that creationism should not be taught in schools.'
I've maintained this for years and I've spoken out for it before in this very forum. This is one factor that led me back to the Episcopal Church after some time away. Another was their acceptance of women and homosexuals.