How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[Katzpur]

Which? Evolutionary theory or the history of life?

Evolutionary theory.

In broad strokes:

Evolutionary theory is founded on the idea that three unguided processes - inheritance, random mutation, and natural selection - are responsible for the history and diversity of life on Earth. If any factors other than these three are responsible in a significant way, then evolutionary theory is wrong.

As for how we know it's right... well, it works. It's confirmed by observation and experiment, and has excellent predictive value, This supports the idea that the understanding behind the theory is sound.

Yeah, I get it. And I accept it. What I don't get is why it must necessarily be unguided.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evolutionary theory.

Yeah, I get it. And I accept it. What I don't get is why it must necessarily be unguided.

Well, where's the room for guidance?
- is it by God making random mutation not actually random? Then evolution is false.
- is it by God messing with inheritance? Then evolution is false.
- is it by replacing natural selection with artificial selection by God? Then evolution is false.

And on top of all that, the evidence is against it. How can someone reconcile the idea that God is directing evolution toward some goal with the fact that evolution doesn't show the directionality we would expect if it were progressing toward a goal?

 

[Katzpur]

Well, where's the room for guidance?
- is it by God making random mutation not actually random? Then evolution is false.
- is it by God messing with inheritance? Then evolution is false.
- is it by replacing natural selection with artificial selection by God? Then evolution is false.

And on top of all that, the evidence is against it. How can someone reconcile the idea that God is directing evolution toward some goal with the fact that evolution doesn't show the directionality we would expect if it were progressing toward a goal?

Sorry, but your rationale makes as little sense to me as mine does to you. I believe the processes you have named are, in fact, guided by natural laws that a divine Being established before the whole thing started. I also see evolution as an orderly process progressing towards the goal determined by that same divine Being. Clearly, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this as we do on most everything else.

 

[Bear Wild]

I would like to understand from members how they would think or believe that the existence of God negates Darwinian evolution. Does it?

No it does not! If one believes that a god or goddess created the world and set it into motion then and evolution is the way life progressed then there is no conflict. That said there is still no need to place a god in the picture but if that is someone's belief then there is no conflict.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, but your rationale makes as little sense to me as mine does to you. I believe the processes you have named are, in fact, guided by natural laws that a divine Being established before the whole thing started.

And - to use the quote that's been attributed to Laplace - I have no need for that hypothesis. The assumption that God is behind everything isn't something that can be inferred from the evidence.

I also see evolution as an orderly process progressing towards the goal determined by that same divine Being.

When biologist J.B.S. Haldane was asked what we could infer about God from "creation," he replied "an inordinate fondness for beetles."

I'm not sure how anyone could see orderly progress in the history of life. Regardless, if you think that this progress has anything to do with evolution producing humans, I encourage you to check out Full House: the Spread of Excellence from Plato To Darwin by Stephen Jay Gould, particularly "Part Four - The Modal Bacter: Why Progress Does Not Rule the History of Life." He did a much better job than I could of explaining why evolution does not actually progress toward larger or more complex organisms.

Clearly, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this as we do on most everything else.

I think you're wrong, if that's what you mean.

 

[Clara Tea]

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

Link says: Catechism: "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of the faith derive from the same God."

The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

Link says "Pope [Francis] Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang."

However, the pope asserts that God guides evolution.

MY STATEMENT:

DNA is enough for court evidence and DNA confirms evolution.

If the world was only 6,000 years old, you'd think that there would be cave drawings or writings about dinosaurs.

Special relativity says that time slows at fast speeds, and General Relativity says that time slows in strong gravity. Thus, science says that God's time is likely not our time.

Many theists argue that if evolution was real you'd be able to see it happen. But, if evolution was that fast, we'd all be different instantly. We do, however, see mutation (evolution and adaptation) in viruses. For example, a different flu shot has to be given every year because of evolution.

God wants free choice (bad goes to hell, good rejoins heaven). But, if the hand of God reached down from heaven, it would be difficult for people to deny the existence of God (though I am sure that some would). Thus, God wants to hide his works in order to allow freedom of choice. So, God wants atheists and scientists to see a rational and explained world where dinosaur bones date to millions of years. This means that scientists can discount religion, if they want to, because they have ideas that will allow them to disbelieve (thus free choice).

Darwin didn't have the benefit of DNA testing, but still reached conclusions (many of them right, but some of them wrong) about evolution, solely on the structure of animals and plants.

Theists with agendas seek to prove their version of events, and this can cloud judgement. Scientists don't take sides, they merely seek the truth.

 

[blü 2]

I would like to understand from members how they would think or believe that the existence of God negates Darwinian evolution. Does it?

The elements of the question appear to be ─

The bible says the origin of species was God's special creation of each kind.

The theory of evolution shows that the bible's view of the origin of species is false.

So if God were real, would that negate the theory of evolution?​

For the existence of God to negate the theory of evolution, the theory would have to be wrong. Creationism goes back a long way, but its modern form was developed from the publication 1961 of Whitcomb and Morris's book The Genesis Flood. In the almost 60 years since then, "Creation science" has put not even one, not even very tiny, scientific scratch on the theory of evolution. So don't just believe the evolution scientists when they say the theory of evolution is accurate in its essentials, look at the sheer size of its enemies' failure to show otherwise.

As for the bible being wrong then two interpretations are possible. The first is that humans wrote the bible and what they wrote reflected the understandings of their time and place, and God can't be blamed for that.

The second is that, since God admits [he] tells lies ─

1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.”

2 Chronicles 18"22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.

Jeremiah 4:10 ... “Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem ...”

Jeremiah 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, / and I was deceived;

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet

2 Thessalonians 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false
​

the tale of special creation is just another such falsehood.

 

[Deeje]

Since I have never been shown any real evidence that evolution, on the scale 'suggested' by science, ever took place, it seems to me more of a fairy story that unguided and undirected evolution is the process by which microscopic amoebas eventually transformed themselves into creatures the size of a four story building....with absolutely no proof whatsoever that they actually did.

Science 'suggests' a lot of things that it cannot prove, and as long as there are people who want to believe their unprovable suggestions, evolution will remain an impressive edifice with absolutely no foundations.

What they do have some proof for is "adaptation", which is only the ability within a "family" of creatures to adapt to a changed environment or food source. The adaptations are small and confined to that family. It never takes them outside of their own taxonomy.....so how does an amoeba become a dinosaur without changing its taxonomy? With a heap of wishful thinking and very little solid evidence.

 

[atanu]

I would like to understand from members how they would think or believe that the existence of God negates Darwinian evolution. Does it?

Very creative post. It can generate many deep queries within.

My answer is NO. Prakriti is ever-evolving.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The elements of the question appear to be ─

The bible says the origin of species was God's special creation of each kind.

The theory of evolution shows that the bible's view of the origin of species is false.

So if God were real, would that negate the theory of evolution?​

For the existence of God to negate the theory of evolution, the theory would have to be wrong. Creationism goes back a long way, but its modern form was developed from the publication 1961 of Whitcomb and Morris's book The Genesis Flood. In the almost 60 years since then, "Creation science" has put not even one, not even very tiny, scientific scratch on the theory of evolution. So don't just believe the evolution scientists when they say the theory of evolution is accurate in its essentials, look at the sheer size of its enemies' failure to show otherwise.

As for the bible being wrong then two interpretations are possible. The first is that humans wrote the bible and what they wrote reflected the understandings of their time and place, and God can't be blamed for that.

The second is that, since God admits [he] tells lies ─

1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.”

2 Chronicles 18"22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.

Jeremiah 4:10 ... “Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem ...”

Jeremiah 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, / and I was deceived;

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet

2 Thessalonians 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false
​

the tale of special creation is just another such falsehood.

Why do people automatically assume the Bible's story of creation when someone speaks of God or it's association with evolution or creation?

 

[McBell]

Why do people automatically assume the Bible's story of creation when someone speaks of God or it's association with evolution or creation?

um...
It is the creation story they are most familiar with?

 

[wellwisher]

I would like to understand from members how they would think or believe that the existence of God negates Darwinian evolution. Does it?

If you substitute the words "natural selection" with the words "Divine selections", then they both say similar things. The two male bucks competing for breeding rights is inherent within their natures. The selection was made in advance based on inherent criteria, such as faster and stronger.

The difference is science uses a "Divine principle" based on random. Their God can be found in casinos playing dice and cards, often winning jackpots. Religion uses a God of reason and ingenuity, who can think, anticipate and plan. Both are divine in the sense of achieving the needed results beyond human control and will. The flip of a card or the product of planning becomes the fate.

In terms of civilization and humans, we tend to mimic the God of reason and planning, when it comes to the evolution of domestic plants and animals. For example, a dog breeder will mate two dogs based on planned desirable traits. He will not use a casino approach unless he is counting cards so they can beat the casino. Although, often change occurs due to unintended consequences. But this is due to limited reasoning as much as random events. Man was made in God's image so that would imply God is reasonable and not normally found in casinos, except to change the pace, now and then.

When civilization first formed, humans had the choice between these two God's. They would worship by projecting and copying their own inner nature. The rational God head set the better example, helping the human mind anticipate, cause and affect within a rational reality. The random or whims of the Gods approach, was competitive, but did not go as far to in terms of advancement, since it did not allow one to plan and anticipate to the same degree. It was not chosen by applied science, which is what allows science to have the tools needed to do science. The applied scientists prefer to contrive in a directed manner.

If you look at the teams competing for the corona virus vaccines, those who could reason and anticipate finished first compared, to those who randomly rolled the dice to find a cure. The former may have gotten more engineers involved.

 

[SalixIncendium]

um...
It is the creation story they are most familiar with?

In such a venue of an interfaith forum, that’s disappointing to hear, especially when the question is posed by someone who isn’t Christian or Jewish.

 

[blü 2]

Why do people automatically assume the Bible's story of creation when someone speaks of God or it's association with evolution or creation?

If you've been posting on religious forums as long as I have then you already know that to mention Darwin and the bible is to open the question of evolution as against special creation.

If you didn't intend to do that, perhaps you could clarify what in fact your intention was? How else would evolution be thought of as mutually exclusive with God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do people automatically assume the Bible's story of creation when someone speaks of God or it's association with evolution or creation?

What other story did you have in mind?

 

[firedragon]

Well, where's the room for guidance?
- is it by God making random mutation not actually random? Then evolution is false.
- is it by God messing with inheritance? Then evolution is false.
- is it by replacing natural selection with artificial selection by God? Then evolution is false.

And on top of all that, the evidence is against it. How can someone reconcile the idea that God is directing evolution toward some goal with the fact that evolution doesn't show the directionality we would expect if it were progressing toward a goal?

Can you present the evidence that is "against it" as you said?

 

[Audie]

Since I have never been shown any real evidence that evolution, on the scale 'suggested' by science, ever took place, it seems to me more of a fairy story that unguided and undirected evolution is the process by which microscopic amoebas eventually transformed themselves into creatures the size of a four story building....with absolutely no proof whatsoever that they actually did.

Science 'suggests' a lot of things that it cannot prove, and as long as there are people who want to believe their unprovable suggestions, evolution will remain an impressive edifice with absolutely no foundations.

What they do have some proof for is "adaptation", which is only the ability within a "family" of creatures to adapt to a changed environment or food source. The adaptations are small and confined to that family. It never takes them outside of their own taxonomy.....so how does an amoeba become a dinosaur without changing its taxonomy? With a heap of wishful thinking and very little solid evidence.

Goodness, still stuck on science and proof.

How long, or lord, how long?

And btw what you feel you have been shown is hardly an intellectual gold standsrd.

 

[firedragon]

Why do people automatically assume the Bible's story of creation when someone speaks of God or it's association with evolution or creation?

Because people are used to hearing insults and refutations against it so much that they wish the same thing to occur again and again because its entertaining. Its a cognitive bias.

 

[Audie]

If you substitute the words "natural selection" with the words "Divine selections", then they both say similar things. The two male bucks competing for breeding rights is inherent within their natures. The selection was made in advance based on inherent criteria, such as faster and stronger.

The difference is science uses a "Divine principle" based on random. Their God can be found in casinos playing dice and cards, often winning jackpots. Religion uses a God of reason and ingenuity, who can think, anticipate and plan. Both are divine in the sense of achieving the needed results beyond human control and will. The flip of a card or the product of planning becomes the fate.

In terms of civilization and humans, we tend to mimic the God of reason and planning, when it comes to the evolution of domestic plants and animals. For example, a dog breeder will mate two dogs based on planned desirable traits. He will not use a casino approach unless he is counting cards so they can beat the casino. Although, often change occurs due to unintended consequences. But this is due to limited reasoning as much as random events. Man was made in God's image so that would imply God is reasonable and not normally found in casinos, except to change the pace, now and then.

When civilization first formed, humans had the choice between these two God's. They would worship by projecting and copying their own inner nature. The rational God head set the better example, helping the human mind anticipate, cause and affect within a rational reality. The random or whims of the Gods approach, was competitive, but did not go as far to in terms of advancement, since it did not allow one to plan and anticipate to the same degree. It was not chosen by applied science, which is what allows science to have the tools needed to do science. The applied scientists prefer to contrive in a directed manner.

If you look at the teams competing for the corona virus vaccines, those who could reason and anticipate finished first compared, to those who randomly rolled the dice to find a cure. The former may have gotten more engineers involved.

Try more thought and fewer words.

 

[Audie]

Evolutionary theory.

Yeah, I get it. And I accept it. What I don't get is why it must necessarily be unguided.

Depends how far the guidance is.
Maybe a God set off the big bang and has been hands off ever since.
Indifferent and undetectable.
What point to even talking about such a hypothetical god?