Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

[logician]

Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

If a supposed god exists, and allowed the process of evolution to take place, the premise is that since evolution has no grand purpose, that homo sapiens was an "accident' and not a purposeful outcome of evolution.

If so, why would this god care about individuals of our species or any species, since it had no real intentions of "creating us". This "god" of evolution seems to be only concerned with the grand scheme of things, and not the details of the outcome. This is in direct conflict with some religious concepts that consider god controlling the process of creation to the point of making certain homo sapiens came on the scene, to the point of caring in detail about each person in its creation.

Any thoughts?

 

[MaddLlama]

Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

No

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

Nope. Evolution can co-exist peacefully with God.

If a supposed god exists, and allowed the process of evolution to take place, the premise is that since evolution has no grand purpose, that homo sapiens was an "accident' and not a purposeful outcome of evolution.

If so, why would this god care about individuals of our species or any species, since it had no real intentions of "creating us". This "god" of evolution seems to be only concerned with the grand scheme of things, and not the details of the outcome. This is in direct conflict with some religious concepts that consider god controlling the process of creation to the point of making certain homo sapiens came on the scene, to the point of caring in detail about each person in its creation.

Any thoughts?

This sounds similar to cosmicism. In such a case, it is still in the grasp of the individual--and culture--to create its own meaning.

 

[logician]

Nope. Evolution can co-exist peacefully with God.



This sounds similar to cosmicism. In such a case, it is still in the grasp of the individual--and culture--to create its own meaning.

But I think the process of evolution, which is basically blind to outcomes, does not co-exist comfortably with a personal god.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

Not in the least.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But I think the process of evolution, which is basically blind to outcomes, does not co-exist comfortably with a personal god.

But determinism does. Besides, "God" is malleable; it can conform around a blind process. Evolution may be blind, but we give it sight (illusory or not).

 

[logician]

But determinism does. Besides, "God" is malleable; it can conform around a blind process. Evolution may be blind, but we give it sight (illusory or not).

Maybe it can, but why would it?

 

[Willamena]

Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

If a supposed god exists, and allowed the process of evolution to take place, the premise is that since evolution has no grand purpose, that homo sapiens was an "accident' and not a purposeful outcome of evolution.

If so, why would this god care about individuals of our species or any species, since it had no real intentions of "creating us". This "god" of evolution seems to be only concerned with the grand scheme of things, and not the details of the outcome. This is in direct conflict with some religious concepts that consider god controlling the process of creation to the point of making certain homo sapiens came on the scene, to the point of caring in detail about each person in its creation.

Any thoughts?

Why would us being an accident negate God's caring about us, even if it negates any purpose? Perhaps God cares for everything it directly or indirectly creates.

Perhaps the "details of the outcome" are the "grand scheme of things."

 

[Darkness]

If we live in a deterministic universe, then God already knows what will happen with Evolution and so His creation of the Universe is actually like creating Humanity. It just takes a little longer.

 

[lamplighter]

Basically what Darkness said, If a god is infinitely wise then he would have a deliciously deep understanding of the Chaos theory and would be able to create everything the way it wanted by the slightest push to set things in motion. Also if a god is beyond time it wouldn't matter how long something takes, it's not like it has anything else to do and time to waste. Though I don't know if this is considered a personal god anymore as it would being doing very little in interaction to achieve what it wants.

 

[Willamena]

"Deliciously deep"? Oh dear. Let me ask, though, do you think the fellows who came up with the Chaos theory understood it?

 

[rojse]

Evolution, or any other scientific concept, cannot prove god.

Firstly, science has deliberately set itself up outside of religious spheres.

Secondly, no matter what science reveals that may contradict the teachings of a religious group, it still does not prove or disprove the existence of that god/gods. The same can be applied conversely - no scientific discovery can prove the existence of a god, even if it is favourable with religious teachings.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If a supposed god exists, and allowed the process of evolution to take place...

God didn't just "allow" the process to take place: he designed it.

God used evolution just like a carpenter uses a saw: as a tool. Who knows what he's working on next!

 

[Papersock]

Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

Like everyone else said so far, I have to say no, it doesn't.
But really, it depends on how you look at it. If you believe in a personal god for various other reasons, you could easily see evolution as guided by your personal god.
If you do not believe in a personal god, you could see how evolution could have occured with no personal god directing it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God used evolution just like a carpenter uses a saw: as a tool. Who knows what he's working on next!

You better hope that is not true ...

 

[lamplighter]

"Deliciously deep"? Oh dear. Let me ask, though, do you think the fellows who came up with the Chaos theory understood it?

well it's not like it's a hard concept to understand but to know what will happen exactly down to the interaction of a particular atom and all the changes it will go through in 100 years might be a little trickier to predict especially if trying to go from Big Bang to sentient life forms on planets. I should have changed the words to "A deep understanding of what it's actions will happen as according to the sensitivity of nonlinear dynamical systems". I don't think anything really happens randomly per se, I think everything is a result of an almost never ending chain of reactions, all the minute variances that will occur in one particular element's action are just a result of other actions from before hand, our inability to know how all the interactions occurring around us constantly are going to shape one elements behavior, does not mean things just happen randomly.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You better hope that is not true ...

Which? That he is working on something else? (I doubt that he is finished.) That he uses evolution as a tool of creation? Or, that he designed the laws that make evolution work?

Now, I don't believe that God constantly has his fingers in the machine, but I do believe he had a good idea of what the results will be. Remember those polychromatic worms and images they had back in the days of Windows 3.11? We were mesmerized by the fractal images as they danced and evolved upon our screen. God is a far better programmer than that! I don't think it coincidental that water floats when it freezes either. I believe that God designed it that way so that life could exist. We may not fully understand (or believe in) God. And no, we may not fully understand (or believe in) evolution. The converse is not true. Evolution has got to be THE most elegantly designed mechanism ever.

 

[lunamoth]

I don't think it coincidental that water floats when it freezes either.

Have to say, the properties of water are pretty darn amazing.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Maybe it can, but why would it?

Because we make it.

 

[lamplighter]

I don't think it coincidental that water floats when it freezes either.

you're right it's not

An unusual property of ice frozen at a pressure of one atmosphere is that the solid is some 8% less dense than liquid water. Water is the only known non-metallic substance to expand when it freezes. Ice has a density of 0.9167 g/cm³ at 0 °C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is most dense, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4 °C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals of ice as the temperature drops to 0 °C. (In fact, the word "crystal" derives from Greek word for frost.) This is due to hydrogen bonds forming between the water molecules, which line up molecules less efficiently (in terms of volume) when water is frozen. The result of this is that ice floats on liquid water, an important factor in Earth's climate. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature (density of ice at −180 °C (93 K) is 0.9340 g/cm³).