Theists: What is your stance on evolution?

[brewer]

Yikes! Don't understand = magic?

Perhaps of myself, I should have used a term such as 'a marvel'.

You don't get say  the 'magic' of say a person seeing person seeing an airplane when there is no such thing in your own culture? As a child I was apparently terrified the first time I saw a movie; thought it was real and that the theatre was on fire. I was about 3.No TV here at that time.

A great example are the Cargo cults of Melanesia. One of 'em worships prince Philip.

--These things came from the sky and had all kinds of wonderful things inside.  So, some tribes built 'airstrips' and 'control towers' to lure the magical beings.


A cargo cult is an indigenist millenarian belief system in which adherents perform rituals which they believe will cause a more technologically advanced society to deliver goods. These cults were first described in Melanesia in the wake of contact with allied military forces during the Second World War.

Isolated and pre-industrial island cultures that were lacking technology found soldiers and supplies arriving in large numbers, often by airdrop. The soldiers would trade with the islanders. After the war, the soldiers departed. Cargo cults arose, attempting to imitate the behaviors of the soldiers, thinking that this would cause the soldiers and their cargo to return. Some cult behaviors involved mimicking the day-to-day activities and dress styles of soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills with wooden or salvaged rifles.

Cargo cult - Wikipedia

Coke bottle from the sky gods that only causes pain and disharmony?

[Ferrocyanide]

Magic and science rarely occupy the same space.

That depends on where one happens to be.

To the ignorant , science can seem to be magic.


I remain ignorant of exactly how computers work (code is magic to me)

As for the very idea that the universe may in fact have come from nothing---that does me head in.

Some theists have difficulty in telling the difference between science/technology and magic.
Some of them do reason that a TV, VCR, DVD player may seem magical to someone from a more primitive culture.
I agree that that can happen and has happened as has mentioned Oldandeasilyconfused Cargo cults.

So, where does one draw the line? What is real and what is magic?
I think this is called the Demarcation problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

A section of the text from wikipedia:
The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science and epistemology is about how to distinguish between science and non-science,[1] including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs.[2][3] The debate continues after over two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite a broad agreement on the basics of the scientific method.[4][5] The debate has consequences for what can be called "scientific" in fields such as education and public policy.[6]:26,35

An early attempt at demarcation can be seen in the efforts of Greek natural philosophers and medical practitioners to distinguish their methods and their accounts of nature from the mythological or mystical accounts of their predecessors and contemporaries.[7]

Aristotle described at length what was involved in having scientific knowledge of something. To be scientific, he said, one must deal with causes, one must use logical demonstration, and one must identify the universals which 'inhere' in the particulars of sense. But above all, to have science one must have apodictic certainty. It is the last feature which, for Aristotle, most clearly distinguished the scientific way of knowing.[2]
— Larry Laudan, "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem" (1983)

G. E. R. Lloyd noted that there was a sense in which the groups engaged in various forms of inquiry into nature set out to "legitimate their own positions",[8] laying "claim to a new kind of wisdom ... that purported to yield superior enlightenment, even superior practical effectiveness".[9] Medical writers in the Hippocratic tradition maintained that their discussions were based on necessary demonstrations, a theme developed by Aristotle in his Posterior Analytics.[10] One element of this polemic for science was an insistence on a clear and unequivocal presentation of arguments, rejecting the imagery, analogy, and myth of the old wisdom.[11] Some of their claimed naturalistic explanations of phenomena have been found to be quite fanciful, with little reliance on actual observations.[12]

Many historians of science are concerned with the development of science from its primitive origins; consequently they define science in sufficiently broad terms to include early forms of natural knowledge. In the article on science in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the scientist and historian William Cecil Dampier Whetham defined science as "ordered knowledge of natural phenomena and of the relations between them".[23] In his study of Greek science, Marshall Clagett defined science as "first, the orderly and systematic comprehension, description and/or explanation of natural phenomena and, secondly, the [mathematical and logical] tools necessary for the undertaking".[24] A similar definition appeared more recently in David Pingree's study of early science: "Science is a systematic explanation of perceived or imaginary phenomena, or else is based on such an explanation. Mathematics finds a place in science only as one of the symbolical languages in which scientific explanations may be expressed."[25] These definitions tend to focus more on the subject matter of science than on its method and from these perspectives, the philosophical concern to establish a line of demarcation between science and non-science becomes "problematic, if not futile".[26]
-----------------------------------------

So, a modern day scientist, who happens to be a theist, can reason that the gods have advanced technology.
If his Bible tells him (the theist scientist) that the jewish god is omniscient, doesn’t that mean the god is an ultra-scientist?
Does this mean that all the doors of possibilities are unlocked?
Can this god turn a wooden stick into a snake, a woman into a pillar of salt, make water appear and make it rain for 40 days ........and more.
This theist scientist will end up believing anything his leaders tell him since he has convinced himself that nothing is impossible for the jewish god.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is interesting to note that the emergence of omnipotent deities who are limited only by possibility begins right around the point where we begin (in any society) to quantify and categorize the natural world and our observations relationships to possibility. This, following tens of thousands of years, at least, of believing in limited gods. Not even the hebrew god was, as you put it, a super scientist before it was hellenized. It was a god of one thing, or a specific boundary of influence - both in what it could do and in who it would do those things for - additionally, it could be defeated by mundane things. All of this survived in case of the narrative of old magic book - as the hellenizers were mostly focused on new magic book.

The way we see the natural world around us has a noticeable effect on how we see gods. In the post classical world, that's the lord of a clockwork universe - but only because we understand evaporation - as opposed to a spring spirit and a river god and an ocean titan and a wind dirge and a rain sprite.

[Angrboda]

I think you're engaged in a little retconning because you think the idea is clever.

[Agnostic1]

For those Christians that accept evolution and include it into creation, why isn't it mentioned in the Bible? Beyond briefly stating that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Bible does not go into great detail about the miracle of evolution, which it surely would, if God were real and had started the Universe and all life forms on Earth. The Bible clearly states that God created Man (as opposed to 'people'..just sayin') out of dust. If God is responsible for evolution, why not go into a lot more detail about it? Saying "men" were created out of dust is not only vague, but inaccurate. Educate us! Where is science in the Bible? Science is a huge part of the modern world but suspiciously missing from the Bible. I have a Christian relative that I talk to routinely who does NOT believe in evolution. She believes God made Adam and Eve and incest got the world going. At least for Christians that believe in evolution, it is a step in the right direction.

[Ferrocyanide]

For those Christians that accept evolution and include it into creation, why isn't it mentioned in the Bible? Beyond briefly stating that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Bible does not go into great detail about the miracle of evolution, which it surely would, if God were real and had started the Universe and all life forms on Earth. The Bible clearly states that God created Man (as opposed to 'people'..just sayin') out of dust. If God is responsible for evolution, why not go into a lot more detail about it? Saying "men" were created out of dust is not only vague, but inaccurate. Educate us! Where is science in the Bible? Science is a huge part of the modern world but suspiciously missing from the Bible. I have a Christian relative that I talk to routinely who does NOT believe in evolution. She believes God made Adam and Eve and incest got the world going. At least for Christians that believe in evolution, it is a step in the right direction.

Since there aren’t too many jews around here.
I’ll step in to fill the void.

I have asked that question to believers.

1. One guy responded with:
Well, why do you think that god should mention evolution, the big bang in the Bible?

2. Me:
Isn’t the goal of the Bible to convince people to join the jewish religion? (judaism v 1.0, christianity, islam, mormonism)

3. Guy responds:
What makes you think that god wants everyone to join his religion?

4. Me:
I thought Jesus loves everybody.
I thought that Jesus came, he did a lot of magic tricks going left and right, to convince the jews to believe that he is the Christ.
That failed and he switched to plan B: convert the non-jews to judaism.
Then he wants his members to do recruiting for him and then he died.
Wouldn’t it be more efficient if there was some science in the Bible? This would be a gem for people of the 17 th, 18 th, 19 th and + centuries.
Imagine what would happen if this religion had the stamp of approval of 500,000+ scientists.

5. Guy responds:
Why would god want to be efficient in recruiting people?

6. Me:
Alright, what is god’s plan? Who does he want to recruit? Why is he being inefficient in his methodology?

7. Guy responds:
We don’t know what exactly god’s plan is. We don’t know when Jesus is coming back, bla bla bla.

8. Me:
I lost interest in the conversation since I understood that it is possible to give bs answers such as that to cover up all your bases. (I understood that a long time ago. I'm just trying to get them to think.).
They are trained to treat god as a mystery box. What seems illogical to me, for them, they assume that god has a logical reason but keeps it a secret.

So, maybe it is possible that the jewish god has chosen to give crappy evidence to humans and see who will join and who won’t.
However, this religion, this crappy evidence, looks like it is something that primitive humans can make up without any god.

So, I can’t tell the difference between a lackluster religion made by humans and a lackluster religion made by a god.
They both look identical to me. There isn’t anything to verify.

[Agnostic1]

Whenever I ask my very religious Aunt why the Bible doesn't go into detail about evolution or answer many questions, she directs me to read the Bible and says "all the answers you'll ever need to anything are in there." I am flabbergasted at how many EDUCATED people, that are high functioning, insist that the Bible is a true story. It is actually many stories all written by men. Being a woman, I have to see that as a clue as to the Bible's legitimacy. Why no female author's? I just got done watching video's on YouTube about convergent evolution and (for one example) how the eyeball has independently evolved on numerous occasions. I personally think it's probable that there is life on other planets and possible that convergent evolution would mean they look similar to us. That is way more fascinating to me than a religion that saves the evil as long as they accept Jesus and damns the innocent for not believing. Just sayin'. On that note: it would be amazing to find intelligent life on another planet and hear about their most popular 'religions'.

[Ranjr]

Science never brought no one back from the grave.  Only Jesus did that.  And if a monkey ever turned into a man, Jesus did that too.

[Ferrocyanide]

Whenever I ask my very religious Aunt why the Bible doesn't go into detail about evolution or answer many questions, she directs me to read the Bible and says "all the answers you'll ever need to anything are in there." I am flabbergasted at how many EDUCATED people, that are high functioning, insist that the Bible is a true story. It is actually many stories all written by men. Being a woman, I have to see that as a clue as to the Bible's legitimacy. Why no female author's? I just got done watching video's on YouTube about convergent evolution and (for one example) how the eyeball has independently evolved on numerous occasions. I personally think it's probable that there is life on other planets and possible that convergent evolution would mean they look similar to us. That is way more fascinating to me than a religion that saves the evil as long as they accept Jesus and damns the innocent for not believing. Just sayin'. On that note: it would be amazing to find intelligent life on another planet and hear about their most popular 'religions'.

About Education:
I think that the more a person is curious, the chances are higher that he will be interested in the sciences.
The more curious you are, the more likely that you want to know how something works.
Saying that an alien (god) build that city, an alien (god) made lifeforms on earth,  alien (god) made the universe doesn’t answer how they did it.

Aliens and gods are basically the same thing, except that a novel involving aliens is called science fiction and a novel involving gods is called a holy book/scripture/gospel.
In one, you have technology. In the other, you have miracles/magic.
If in Star Trek, they have teleporters, then in Christian Trek, Jesus can do teleportation by snapping his fingers.
If in Star Trek, someone gets phasor hit in the face and his eyes are damaged. Perhaps the doctor can grow eyes in a lab and then do a procedure to insert it into the human.
In Christian Trek, Jesus rubs mud on the face of the blind.

Being a woman, I have to see that as a clue as to the Bible's legitimacy. Why no female author's?

You should ask them and watch their answers. The correct question is “Why is the name of Adam mentioned early on, but the woman’s name come a few lines later. Why is man created first? Why are the names of wives often not mentioned? Why is Jesus a dude? Why 12 male disciples?”

I just got done watching video's on YouTube about convergent evolution and (for one example) how the eyeball has independently evolved on numerous occasions.

It has to do with logic and logic is limited.
Example 1:
If you want to see, then you will need a chamber, maybe a lens, a detector.
So, all eyeballs, all cameras will have this basic design.

Example 2:
What is the minimum number of legs that a chair should have?
Answer: 3

Whatever planet you go to, the klingons there will also have chairs with a minimum number of 3 legs.
Also, you can sit in a bean bag, a block of wood, or use magnetic levitation, suspension via wires.

personally think it's probable that there is life on other planets and possible that convergent evolution would mean they look similar to us.

Probably, it will have an eye or more. Probably, it will have symmetry. Humans have a vertical symmetry.
They will need to be able to move around, so I think this means you need a minimum of 4 limbs.

Oxygen is the best oxidizer so I imagine, they will use oxygen as well.
Carbon has the right properties. It concatenates to itself, so it opens the door to all sorts of chemicals with various properties.
So, I think they will be based on carbon.

[Agnostic1]

Science never brought no one back from the grave.  Only Jesus did that.  And if a monkey ever turned into a man, Jesus did that too.

There have been countless religions before Christianity where a savior was born on December 25th of a virgin and came back from the dead etc. There is no proof at all there has ever been a Jesus. I used to think he lived but never thought he was the "son of God". Now I doubt he ever lived. Too many versions of that story have been told. 
There still might be hope for life after death: evolution continues.