Does evolution negate the concept of a personal god?

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Learn what ad hominem means.

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

By applying them to entirely different things. Learn to read, perhaps starting with ...

Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design​

 

[Popeyesays]

Try reading Guy Murchie's Seven Mysteries of Life to put a bookend on the other side of your opinions.

Intelligent Design is no scientific theory, it lacks all the qualities of scientific experimentation and testing; however, it seems obviously true to me. No need to teach it anywhere, it's just a given to existence.

God is NOT a Blind Watchmaker, therefore debunking the idea is to debunk nothing. It's a strawman. And, YES, I know what a strawman is.

Regards,
Scott

Regards,
Scott

 

[Willamena]

Learn what ad hominem means.

Why? What do you think it means? Calling her argument pathetic "appeals to personal considerations."

 

[Hope]

Learn what ad hominem means.

Thank you very much, I know exactly what it means. I don't know why you often find it necessary to patronize someone who sees things differently than you.

By applying them to entirely different things. Learn to read, perhaps starting with ...

Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design​

Instead of referring me to a book that I currently have no money to buy, could you perhaps summarize for me how it explains your apparent inconsistent terms in relation to evolution? I would like that very much. Thanks.

 

[Random]

No. Especially not if one is inclined to accept Deistic arguments.

 

[logician]

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.

As an atheist I don't believe any god concepts are valid, thus this thread for me was more of a rhetorical look at evolution and a "personal" god concept.

 

[Popeyesays]

I think God is Just and no one gets more from Him based on their personal relationship. I might imagine a personal relationship with the Creator, but that's my ideation, not His.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Intelligent Design is no scientific theory, it lacks all the qualities of scientific experimentation and testing; however, it seems obviously true to me. No need to teach it anywhere, it's just a given to existence.

Would you agree that, if a creator god is a given, such a creator god could have 'designed' evolution to work as suggested by science?

That question is to everybody and anybody btw.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God is NOT a Blind Watchmaker, therefore debunking the idea is to debunk nothing.

Therefore? Learn what "therefore" means. And you might even read the book to learn what Dawkins means -- but you probably won't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Instead of referring me to a book that I currently have no money to buy, could you perhaps summarize for me how it explains your apparent inconsistent terms in relation to evolution? I would like that very much. Thanks.

What is "apparent" to you is entirely a function of your understanding. Start here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would you agree that, if a creator god is a given, such a creator god could have 'designed' evolution to work as suggested by science? That question is to everybody and anybody btw.

It is a worthless question. If you posit a deity that can do anything you posit a deity that can do anything (and thereby destroy any possibility of scientific (i.e., inter-subjectively verifiable knowledge). The problem, of course, is that such a deity could also presumably create all that you see in six days some 5768 years ago replete with 'evidence' falsely suggesting evolution and a roughly 4.5 billion year old earth. In fact, it is little more than hubris that allows you to so condescendingly dismiss the Great Turtle.

 

[Fluffy]

Scuba Pete, how do you reconcile the concept of design with the process of natural selection? Surely the one adds to the other a predicate that is contradictory with its definition. Natural selection is necessarily undesigned in order for it to fit under the definition of "natural selection".

Hope,
I cannot speak for Jay and so whilst I agree with the quotations out of context that you have provided regarding his beliefs, my justification for them might differ. Nevertheless, in order to show you how such beliefs can be reconciled, I will explain how I do so here.

Evolution is a great theory because it simply explains the phenonmena that it is attempting to explain whilst being backed up by abundant evidence and making verifiable and falsifiable predictions.
If evolution were used as a tool by a god in the same way that a builder uses a hammer then it would be the equivilant of chucking it over 30 feet in the hope that it hits the nail on the head.

To summarise: Evolution is a great theory that explains phenomena which are less well designed than a ranged hammer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Scuba Pete, how do you reconcile the concept of design with the process of natural selection? Surely the one adds to the other a predicate that is contradictory with its definition. Natural selection is necessarily undesigned in order for it to fit under the definition of "natural selection".

Foreknowledge can go a long way. Does the fact that a bowler can so accurately predict where the ball will go that he can throw a strike imply that he designed the bowling alley himself?

If evolution were used as a tool by a god in the same way that a builder uses a hammer then it would be the equivilant of chucking it over 30 feet in the hope that it hits the nail on the head.

And I think that it's reasonable to say that any being worthy of the title "god" would be able to do that.

 

[Popeyesays]

"Foreknowledge can go a long way. Does the fact that a bowler can so accurately predict where the ball will go that he can throw a strike imply that he designed the bowling alley himself?"

No, but the alley was designed by a man, to specific requirements for bowling alleys. The surface involved also plays a considerable part in how the bowler anticipates his play--wood alleys behave differently than composite alleys even though BOTH are regulation play.

Just for the record, I grew up in bowling alleys, my father was a regional pro-bowler and my first job was in a bowling alley.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Wandered Off]

No. Especially not if one is inclined to accept Deistic arguments.

But if one is inclined to accept deistic arguments, evolution could be interpreted as further evidence against the notion. Deistic arguments generally reject a personal god from the get-go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but the alley was designed by a man, to specific requirements for bowling alleys. The surface involved also plays a considerable part in how the bowler anticipates his play--wood alleys behave differently than composite alleys even though BOTH are regulation play.

Yet a bowler could bowl with exactly the same accuracy if he were to use any arbitrary surface that he knew just as well. If he knew the ball's response to uneven slate, for example, or even stale pudding, as well as he did to waxed hardwood, then he'd be able to control the ball just as well. Agree?

Presumably a god that knows everything perfectly could know the exact trajectory to get a strike on the most warped alley in existence.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scuba Pete, how do you reconcile the concept of design with the process of natural selection?

There is no need to. It's not the FORM that is important, it's the spirit. God was waiting for sentience: not a particular morphology. I don't believe that they have shown that sentience is an evolved trait either.

 

[Hope]

Hope,
I cannot speak for Jay and so whilst I agree with the quotations out of context that you have provided regarding his beliefs, my justification for them might differ. Nevertheless, in order to show you how such beliefs can be reconciled, I will explain how I do so here.

Evolution is a great theory because it simply explains the phenonmena that it is attempting to explain whilst being backed up by abundant evidence and making verifiable and falsifiable predictions.
If evolution were used as a tool by a god in the same way that a builder uses a hammer then it would be the equivilant of chucking it over 30 feet in the hope that it hits the nail on the head.

To summarise: Evolution is a great theory that explains phenomena which are less well designed than a ranged hammer.

Thank you for answering my question. I appreciate it.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, considering that the FIRST tool of Creation was the Big Bang, I'd say a thirty foot toos of a hammer is pretty much a finesse.

It seems odd to suggest that Evolution is so hopelessly complex when we have quantum mechanics and the life and death of stars being used to create the building blocks of evolution.

Regards,
Scott