archeological remains that are older than 6000 years old aren't a matter of ideological views,

I agree with this. It is becoming an ideal perspective on existence. Intelligent Design, from what I have studied and heard has been pretty obnoxious. I think that things cannot arise out of an absence but rather an infinite source while still having evolved after being set in motion as all evidence points out.

That is essentially a Deist's position. Fair enough.

That is also theistic evolution.

I thought Theistic evolution implied more action on God's part, ie, not just a first mover or impartial observer, but actively guiding evolution.

Not all deists and theists believe the same course of events. I was under the impression that deists generally believed that God made the Universe via Big Bang, and directed what we know as evolution to occur, whereas theists believe the Bible more literally (seven days, let there be light, etc.)

That's Intelligent Design (the idea proposed mainly by the Discovery Institute).

Edit: The previous was to hunter.

To squishydemon, that's not quite right. Deism is belief in a non-immanent God - one which takes a sort of hands-off approach to his creation. Theism is belief in an immanent God who takes an active interest and role in the events of the created reality.

I am a theist and an evolutionist, so not all theists take a literalist interpretation of Genesis (not all theists are Christians for that matter).

There are people watching me
O_O

There are people willing to give info on these points. Whether they are watching you actively is not important.

I said that because the last two users who posted both have eyes for their avatars. It's somewhat unsettling, somewhat cool.

I know. I was being facetious.

It's not specific scientific findings; in order to reject the cosmological and terrestrial sciences' determination of the age of the Earth and instead believe in an age with no scientific evidence, you have to reject the methods which were used and deem the non-evidence methods more valid.

We're talking about principles which are core to chemistry, physics, cosmology, geology, archaeology, biology, and all other fields which derive from these fields (including anthropology, psychology, ecology, meteorology, etc.). To reject a scientific finding based on method is one thing, but to reject a finding which has been studied in multiple field--each via multiple methods--and when the methods used are so fundamental to most other major discoveries in those fields, it is pretty safe to say that one is rejecting scienctific finding.

Certainly not all of science, but enough of science that it is no longer a "specific" result, as though the rejection were a singular, minor, and rational incident.

:/ Gorgon said it better, reject the tenants, reject the philosophy, reject the science.

Also,
Is still Human-centric, which still seems counterintuitive to natural selection to the extent that we are still a transitional state, not a perfect one.

Gorgon, one can still be an excellent chemist, physicist, biologist, etc. while incorrectly dismissing some number of related scientific findings. Such people may have a more limited understanding of aspects of their field, but I don't think acceptance of evolution, an old earth, etc. is so fundamental to every science that one can't be a YEC and a good scientist at the same time. I agree that the rejection of evolution is incorrect and that it is bound to have some negative effect on one's scientific understanding, but I don't think it it's as disastrous as you do.

Speaking from my own beliefs, it's not as though theistic evolutionists believe God created the universe to produce Homo sapiens, but we do think that the creation of intelligent life which could interact with God was one purpose of creation.

This argument is like: "which do you agree with, 1. the theory of gravity, or 2. giant invisible donkeys push free-moving objects down to the ground, accelerating as they go because it gives them sexual pleasure"

Evolution is a fact supported by such a vast array of evidence you can't "deny" it. It just is, like gravity or the fact the earth is round.

I also do not "believe in" creationism or intelligent design, simply because there is no evidence. No, I cant explain how "something came from nothing" but that doesnt mean I should just be drawn into the idea of the "supernatural". That is what people did for mythology. Can't explain lightning? - Its an angry god throwing bolts of lightning at you. A very illogical and inevitably harmful way to think.

It's wasn't illogical at the time. Religion speculation and mythology, in some respects, served as a precursor to scientific observation. As with lightening, how would a person who never heard of gas or ions explained that these trippy white lines are ionized gas? Humans always seek answers. "This white shit just hurt me and my livestock. Why are bad things happening to me? Perhaps I am being punished."

@tarzan

Your second paragraph is hyperbolic. Evolution is certainly harder to demonstrate than gravity or the shape of the earth, hence the disagreement over it (and not over gravity or earth shape).

Regarding your first and third paragraphs, the choice of belief in a fundamentally naturalistic or supernaturalistic reality is effectively arbitrary as neither is demonstrably a simpler or better explanation than the other.

I believe God exists, and I believe God has certain attributes. Few of those beliefs are motivated by a desire to explain the existence of the universe. Atheism vs. theism is a separate argument. But given that I have already adopted a theistic worldview, theistic evolution is the most reasonable position I can hold.

@hydrogen777

Alright, I will accept your first point. The evolution of new species is a very gradual process that takes place over such an incredibly large amount of time that it is difficult for many people to grasp just how much time has already passed.

I guess I am simply curious as to WHY people must believe in the supernatural. The natural is readily available (in many cases) for observation and study. The supernatural on the other hand is not grounded in anything we can measure because in its "supernaturalnous" it does not abide by any laws. I see the believe in god as a silly tradition that serves no real value to our existence.

I do give more respect to those christians who support scientific inquiry. Most of my exasperation with religion lies with those who continually reject well supported scientific facts. (The age of the earth for example, or evolution).

I guess I simply do not see the point in thinking about the supernatural. We cannot control it even if it exists or change it or use it for our benefit.

@Marky Marc

It may have been a precursor for scientific inquiry, but do we still need to fathom such ideas in which we have no proof. I'm assuming you would agree that technology has had a significant impact and the amount of information about the natural world that is available and the rate in which that information is being discovered. Things are quite different than they were. I dont believe we need to create stories of "supernatural powers" to explain things that have happened.

Please don't double post. Use the edit button.

For creation and the origin of the universe, that's debatable. Because currently you still have to believe that something is infinite. Whether or not it's some set of particles or whatnot that where there forever, or something that created those particles, or something else, there is still a belief in the infinite.

You've already said it yourself:So really, the difference isn't so great as you make it out to be. You're believing in something infinite either way and that's something that you're just taking on faith. Either the faith that there is a god or the faith that there is not a god, but you're still have no way of verifying the correctness of your belief.

@magicallegume

My ideas about the beginning of the universe are "I do not know" which is completely different than "god made it". There is a lot I dont know about thermodynamics and all the physics stuff which is not my area of knowledge. It is a big difference. I am believing nothing because I have no proof. I'm not saying a god doesnt exist, I'm simply waiting for evidence. Which makes my beliefs NOT based on faith. There very well might be a god, but I say no until I get proof.

So you're saying that there might be a god but you don't believe in a god? That makes no sense.

Also, you don't have any proof that there is no god, because the concept of god, by it's very nature, cannot be disproved (and many would argue it can't be proved either). So really, the proper null hypothesis would be that the existence of god is unknowable. To say anything other than the existence of god is unknowable is to take something on faith. The faith that there is a god or the faith that there is no god.

I see, I thought you meant it was illogical at the time the beliefs were formed. If you have proof of evolution, please do show it. Evolution is a much more plausible explanation for the origin of life than creationism, but to say it is fact is incorrect.

You cannot prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with those who say the thing exists.

My opinion is that the existence of god is unknowable. I guess that might have been unclear with my wording. BUT, there are an infinite amount of things in which their existence is "unknowable" but I will not waste my time supposing they are real. I'm not going to believe a ghost rhinoceros is following me even though I have no proof that one isnt.

I believe similarly to tarzan, if God is simply a description of the unknowable, God will forever be shrinking into nothingness. There is no evidence to support an active god, while you can't refute a monist god, a deist's god or pantheism, that's because they require no proving, they are an unnecessary step in explaining natural phenomena, but what can be disproved is the wilful ignorance of people who claim the world is so young that the archaeological evidence can only be God trying to mislead us.