According to progressive creationism, God created the universe, life, and humanity, but he did it over a period of time billions of years long. As various species evolved from earlier species, God intervened periodically to give the process a helping hand. Without God's assistance, evolution would never have progressed as rapidly as it did on our planet.

Theistic evolutionism maintains that God only created the universe and simple life, not any complex form of life, including humanity. The idea is that after God created a very simple life form on our planet about three billion years ago, he departed the scene and allowed evolution by means of natural selection to take over.

Either way, it is GOD who is responsible for evolution and science does not tell this to us! Was Darwin wrong to neglect god's contribution to evolution?

Views: 683

Replies to This Discussion

Ahmen to that, Jeremy.

Madhukar seems to believe that he is superior to us in some way - clearly he is mistaken. I googled a posting on a a different forethought website earlier and there again, he was trolling or being insensitive to the board.

This is atheist nexus - many people here are amateur or even professional scientists and some ( I include myself in this) don't suffer fools gladly.

Stop bitching madhukar, you posted this baloney and you'll have to delete it or explain yourself. Either way, trying to divert attention from yourself won't wash. Capiche?

Marc Draco

Marc, If you look at your own conduct, all your accusations about me are actually true about you only. It was you who was reminding me about having more education etc. I have never raised any such issue and you have not answered any question I asked. On the contrary, it is you who has gone searching the world to find material against me. Everything that you did and are doing is wrong but you want to blame to save your own ego. I will keep on posting many m ore balonies, have you taken it upon yourself to fight only my balonies? Do ou have a reputation of fighting balonies or want to make it now? Better keep away from balonies. They may not be good for you to comment upon.

jeremy belcher

I am glad that you have asked a question without givin an indecent anology like giving a frnch kiss to a sister, as Marc Draco has done, so I will answer you in a decent language.

Jeremy, I must have seen more than a hundred discussuins on this site

and many with irrelevent subjects. I did not thgink much before posting this discusssion but I thought that this could be subject fo some discussin and I still think so. I can mention some headings of discussion that were actually frivolus, but there no point in creating ajnother controversy. Jeremy, I have found that many worthy subjects go begging for reply. Can those people who are un-necessarily criticising me now say confidently that they always make a good contribution to every good subject. Again if we do nit like a subject, and there are always such subjects, is it necessary to answer them and make indecent commments like goving a french kiss to a sister? And this very person teaches me goood etiquettes! Not only this, but goes on a search to find something against. What are we here?

In the end I will again add that I did not find this subject so bad as to raise this kind of unseemly quarrels. Hoewevr, thanks once again for your decency. I will always be decent to persons who are decent with me. Talking of giving a french kiss to a sister is the end of decency. I am greatly upset because of this. 

If anyone does not like a particular discussion, he should go somewhere else.

Jason is right.

"This is just another example of religion backpedaling to science and modern social consensus in order to remain relevant."

As such, I do not agree that this topic is somehow unworthy of the forum or is "a bore".  I might disagree with Madhukar that "theistic evolution" always takes on a Deist perspective the way he characterizes.  Rather, the conclusions of science are ratified by establishment theists as being caused all along by a sort of gloss of theistic oversight, all to be taken as a matter of faith, of course.    


Take this statement by Cardinal Ratzinger, who would soon become Pope Benedict XVI, from the International Theological Commission of the Vatican from 2004:

  "In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life.  Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe."  

Note the sort of merging of the hard won conclusions of scientific method with the dubious intangibles of traditional church dogma.  This is a process where the emperor is revealed to be devoid of clothes. In the rants here against the most extreme assertions and arguments on behalf of young earth creationism, there is not nearly enough attention granted on this forum to the "backpedaling" and false claims of compatibility between science and so many quarters of theism on our planet in the present time.         

Sam in WV

I might disagree with Madhukar that "theistic evolution" always takes on a Deist perspective the way he characterizes.

Please note that these are not my views. I have merely shown what the creationists argue. I am a fulll and strong atheist and I do not hold such views. I have stated my views elsewhere on this thread. I say that the creationists are trying to somehow push god in scientific facts so that later on they can say that evolution conforms to Bible. I think I am not much away from your thoughts.


Evolution is no longer a debatable topic, and to do so with dead head Christians is to give them credibility. Humor or even disrespect at this time is in order. As Richard Dawkins said, would you debate a flat earthier?  

James, perfect! Hear Ye! Year Ye! Debate tonight between round earthers and flat earthers. Leave your weapons at home. 

Hi Joan,

I myself travel to the high north, and almost fell off edge; not only do they claim that the earth is spherical but that it turns-----outrageous!!!

Yes, you have to watch your step while far north. 
I lived in Alaska for several years and spent many happy hours north of the Arctic Circle. I belonged to a ham radio club and we had contacts all over the world.  Where we experienced 24 hours dark, other people I talked with had 24 hours light.  Kind of makes one wonder how that can happen on a flat earth. 

It is indeed puzzling--lol!! In my younger years I spent time on northern Baffin Island, high arctic--an amazing experience.

I just looked up Baffin Island and it surely must have been an adventure. How did you happen to be there? 

 It was work that took me up there. I went up with a crew and we built a mining town up there close to an Inuit community called Arctic Bay, the town was later named Nanisivik. Presently the Canadian government is turning it into a deep water port, in the interest of Canadian sovereignty in the arctic.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service