Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

[Willamena]

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.

Oddly, though, we do fully understand why water floats when it freezes.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Water is the only known non-metallic substance to expand when it freezes.

Oddly, though, we do fully understand why water floats when it freezes.

You both make my point so well! We can see how God did it, and we can understand "Why" he did it. No other "non-metallic" substance reacts in this way: just water. Can you name ANY flora or fauna which does not require water for survival? Yet, of ALL the things on this planet, the essence of life just happens to float when it freezes. Can anyone even work out the chances for this?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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?

This makes too many assumptions to be taken seriously.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

No. That the carpenters who constructed your surroundings were as sloppy as your god of evolution.

 

[Hope]

No. That the carpenters who constructed your surroundings were as sloppy as your god of evolution.

I find the above quote interesting in light of another quote in another thread from the very same person:

evolution is arguably the most elegant and successful paradigm of modern science

:angel2::angel2:

Come on, Jay.....such inconsistency is so out of character for you!

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greeetings!

>Does evolution negate the concept of a personal God?

Of course not!!

And indeed, religion evolves over time just as does creation generally!

No problem.

Bruce

 

[Scuba Pete]

No. That the carpenters who constructed your surroundings were as sloppy as your god of evolution.

Come scuba dive with me sometime Jay. The diversity and abundance of life in an environment that would normally kill us is astounding. I only wish that current artisans could produce something half as beautiful and intricate as a leafy sea dragon, or as colorful as a rainbow parrotfish. When you see the perfect symbiosis of cleaner shrimp with a large drum you see that God's program far exceeds anything we can do.

 

[Popeyesays]

Life is extremely diverse. It flourishes in places one would not expect. It is a dynamic force and we cannot really fathom the depth of its mechanics.

DNA appears to be the mechanic of life.

DNA in no way denies a Creator.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lew0049]

Please specify micro or macro evolution

 

[UnTheist]

Please specify micro or macro evolution

There's no such distinction. It's simply "Evolution" (Biologists never made the concept of micro and macro-evolution. It was formed by the Creationists.)

 

[Scuba Pete]

Please specify micro or macro evolution

It doesn't matter. To accept one is to accept the other. I have to agree with UnTheist on this one.

 

[logician]

I still have not seen a coherent argument that contradicts my premise. The strongest argument that anyone can muster is that we ignore that evolution occurs blindly and god still will take an interest in "whatever" results from it. If a supposed god set up a chaotic universive to begin with, it evidently was not concerned with specific outcomes, just the big picture.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Have you even read this thread?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Assuming there is a god that created the universe, including the evolution of life, how would we know that it has or has not a purpose to it?

It does seem to have no purpose when considered in contrast with traditional Christian ideas about gods plan for us and personal relationship with us. However, simply because one concept of god doesn't match up with what we see taking place in the natural world doesn't mean the opposite of what we previously believed is true, it just means what we previously believed was false.

 

[logician]

Have you even read this thread?

Have you?

 

[UnTheist]

Have you?

How about you answer the question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find the above quote interesting in light of another quote in another thread from the very same person: ... Come on, Jay.....such inconsistency is so out of character for you!

That you perceive this as an inconsistency is pathetically sad. There is no inconsistency whatsoever.

 

[Hope]

That you perceive this as an inconsistency is pathetically sad. There is no inconsistency whatsoever.

Then please explain. Such ad hominem tactics are an evasive response.

How are the terms "elegant" and "sloppy" consistent?

 

[Super Universe]

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?

Evolution does not negate God, nothing does. God did not "allow" evolution to take place, it's just one part of a whole.

The premise that evolution has no grand purpose might be the way some wish to view it but biology controlling itself and changing over time is a grand purpose. This change is built within, it's called DNA activation and it happens suddenly when a biologic species reach's a certain point.

Yes, environmental pressure can and does affect species but to a very minor degree compared to the activation of it's DNA upon reaching a certain evolutionary point. Environmental pressure is mostly used to control populations, not affect change.

What would God care about individuals or species? God cares about the real you, not the temporary vehicle that you are so attached to now. God does not care whether we evolved into our current form or intelligent birds, reptiles, fish, or whatever.

Too many are still stuck in a religious view of God, one where He is constantly doing this and that or not doing this or that. The universe is on automatic, God has much more important things to do.

 

[Ozzie]

Not at all. And those that would argue that a personal God is a quibble, irrelevant etc in evolutionary terms have no answer to the question of how to apply personal psychology to evolution.