How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[SalixIncendium]

What other story did you have in mind?

Let’s run with the Big Bang theory.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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

I think that the problem stems from both sides of this type of debate not sitting down and starting with defining terms. As an outsider to the issue, let me play the referee's advocate.

Ehav4Ever says: "Okay you two, play nice. Let's settle this dispute the right way. Before we begin I will need both sides to address the following."

1. What is a "god" and by inverse what is not a "god?"
2. How far back does this definition go and is it authoratitive?
3. Please define what is existance.
4. Who was Darwin, what were his credintials, and skill set?
5. How do you personally define evolution?
6. How does your oponent define evolution?
7. Is there such a thing as macro evolution or micro evolution in your mindset?
8. How would one factually prove any concept of evolution?
9. How would one factually disprove the concept of evolution?
10. Have you studied, at a high level - university or above, the various concepts that can be termed "evolution" or "Darwin's concepts of evolution?"
11. Have you actually "personally" performed experimentation to prove out your ideas for or against any form of evolution?
12. What literature have you studied to come to your conclusions?

If the debates, on this topic, started from the above you would find the disucssion would be a bit more focused than these debates normally are.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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?

My question in the OP does not assume mutual exclusivity. It asks the question if they are mutually exclusive and how.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you've been posting on religious forums as long as I have ...

2017? You're a newbie.

 

[blü 2]

My question in the OP does not assume mutual exclusivity. It asks the question if they are mutually exclusive and how.

It therefore assumes that the question of mutual exclusivity arises in the context of God and evolution, no?

Moving on, then, what did you intend to ask instead?

 

[blü 2]

2017? You're a newbie.

I served my apprenticeship on the late great Beliefnet, starting in, from memory, 2002, though there have been years off here and there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

The existence of God does not negate Darwinian Evolution. People who believe in both are called "Theistic Evolutionists".

There are many religious texts that speak of Creation and imply or infer, however, that Evolution is not responsible for most life innovation. Since I understand the extreme accuracy of the Bible's prophecies and testimonies, I have decided that it speaks with authority against classic Evolutionary timelines and models and for the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It therefore assumes that the question of mutual exclusivity arises in the context of God and evolution, no?

Moving on, then, what did you intend to ask instead?

That is correct. I made no mention of the Bible in the OP or the creation story it tells.

 

[Marcion]

Which? Evolutionary theory or the history of life?

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.

If it could be shown that mutations leading to evolutionary changes in species are not random but somehow guided by the wishes or needs of the members of the species themselves, would you still be able to call that Darwinian evolution?
How much did Darwin himself restrict his theory in this sense?

Would species not go extinct much quicker than observed if they would have to wait very long timespans in order to get the complex adjustments needed for surviving in fast changing circumstances?
Developing new organs does not involve changing just one proteine that just happens to be the right one through random mutation.

I am all for evolution as causing diversity of life on planets, but which bit of the process are we somehow missing out on still?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it could be shown that mutations leading to evolutionary changes in species are not random but somehow guided by the wishes or needs of the members of the species themselves, would you still be able to call that Darwinian evolution?

No. That would probably be Lamarckism.

How much did Darwin himself restrict his theory in this sense?

Lamarckism was an older theory that Darwin was aware of and refuted. Darwinism was a response to Lamarckism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Laplace famously wrote:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of the past and the cause of the future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.​

At what point in the history of the planet would Beethoven, Laplace's contemporary, have been 'certain'?

 

[gnostic]

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.

That’s just speculative.

Did god tell you that...that he started the natural laws?

When it said in Genesis that god created light, to divide day from night, just by speaking a few words, that doesn’t at all describe the “natural process”, where one would experience day and night, morning and evening.

From what we learned from science, light just don’t appear from nothing, and according to Genesis, the Sun was never the cycle for day-and-night, morning-and-evening cycle until the sun itself was created on the fourth day.

So, “there was evening and there was morning”, for 3 days without the sun. What was really the source of light, if it wasn’t the sun? The light source “magic”? If so, then the light source wasn’t “natural”.

There is also nothing “natural” about the 2nd version of creation story -Genesis 2, where God created man instantly from dust.

Dust are waste product, from either inorganic sources or from dead organic sources.

Dust don’t simply naturally turned into organic matters, like cells, blood, tissues, bones, organs, etc.

Turning dust into living man, is definitely not natural, and not scientifically probable or possible.

And transforming one of Adam’s rib into an adult woman, is also not natural.

Serpent talking human language (Genesis 3), is also not natural, and only exist fables, fairytale, myths, fiction, comics & cartoons, movies and tv shows, etc.

There are definitely no natural processes involved with creation of light, and the creation of humans.

It seems to me that Genesis creation suspense natural laws and reality, in favour of make-believe of God’s magic powers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I served my apprenticeship on the late great Beliefnet, starting in, from memory, 2002, though there have been years off here and there.

And I served mine on iidb in the late 90's.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How can we be sure that it's "unguided"?

I suspect that the most reasonable response might be: "Why should we presume otherwise?" I have no satisfactory (or satisfying) answers to either question.

What I do think I know is that we live is an ordered cosmos plagued with stifling entropy yet able to surprise us with Mozart and Monet, and it seems to me that this capacity for emergence warrants caution and awe.

 

[Katzpur]

That’s just speculative.

Of course, it's just speculative. That's why I started my sentence with the words, "I believe..."

Did god tell you that...that he started the natural laws?

When it said in Genesis that god created light, to divide day from night, just by speaking a few words, that doesn’t at all describe the “natural process”, where one would experience day and night, morning and evening.

From what we learned from science, light just don’t appear from nothing, and according to Genesis, the Sun was never the cycle for day-and-night, morning-and-evening cycle until the sun itself was created on the fourth day.

So, “there was evening and there was morning”, for 3 days without the sun. What was really the source of light, if it wasn’t the sun? The light source “magic”? If so, then the light source wasn’t “natural”.

There is also nothing “natural” about the 2nd version of creation story -Genesis 2, where God created man instantly from dust.

Dust are waste product, from either inorganic sources or from dead organic sources.

Dust don’t simply naturally turned into organic matters, like cells, blood, tissues, bones, organs, etc.

Turning dust into living man, is definitely not natural, and not scientifically probable or possible.

And transforming one of Adam’s rib into an adult woman, is also not natural.

Serpent talking human language (Genesis 3), is also not natural, and only exist fables, fairytale, myths, fiction, comics & cartoons, movies and tv shows, etc.

There are definitely no natural processes involved with creation of light, and the creation of humans.

It seems to me that Genesis creation suspense natural laws and reality, in favour of make-believe of God’s magic powers.

Excuse me, but that's a whole lot of words you just tried putting in my mouth. I never stated nor even vaguely implied that I accept the Genesis account of the creation as an accurate account of what took place. Please don't lump me in with the folks who do.

 

[Marcion]

No. That would probably be Lamarckism.


Lamarckism was an older theory that Darwin was aware of and refuted. Darwinism was a response to Lamarckism.

Yes, it is indeed a bit like Lamarckism. Lamarck however failed to give a logical explanation for how the changes came about on a deeper level (too little was known about genetics) and Darwin could not yet imagine that the will of an animal or plant could effect the attraction of certain viruses that could alter the genome either. Nor can the present scientific community for that matter.

So both Lamarckism and Darwinism were based on too little, but Lamarck was on the right track.
Atheist will never admit that power of mind or consciousness has any direct influence on matter or indeed on life (except indirectly through the use of muscle power or life style). They also deny the effects of homeopathy for similar reasons.

But life is not just a special level or organic chemistry, it hovers between pure consciousness and the expressed world of matter. The theory of evolution and medicine will only make greater progress if they start to fathom this part of reality much more than they are able to do now.

 

[pearl]

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

It does not.

 

[firedragon]

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

I would like to say that since of late there has been an increasing animosity towards evolution by theists. Also vice versa. Due to that many of us would immediately jump to judgements, conclusions and cognitive biases. Thats why this question cannot be asked as independently as you did so easily and expect responses that do not have baggages like you have seen so far.

Anyway, as an opinion I can say that there is no way the existence of God can negate Darwinian evolution or vice versa. Darwinian evolution is a fairly new phenomena and prior to that there have been many theists who not only believed but also propagated evolution. So the harmony of theism and evolution was there always.

Nevertheless, Darwinian evolution is probably the best manner, if not the only manner in which a completely naturalistic explanation can be managed. If anything is gonna negate it it would be another alternative for natural selection, random natural selection, another theory altogether or even Neo darwinism itself.

Like you have pointed out I believe, it is not the existence of God that negates evolution or "darwinian evolution", it is negation of evolution itself that can negate evolution. Like many who did not negate evolution yet accepted an existence of a God, it can coexist, unless one negates evolution as part of his theology or whatever belief.

Peace.

 

[halbhh]

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

God doesn't negate reality such as the evolution of life, but is the cause of reality such as evolution of life -- in that he is the creator of the design of nature), so that the way nature operates and unfolds is his design in action.

 

[halbhh]

It depends on if you are speaking about a God who creates things without using a developmental method of design and if you're talking about someone who creates the physical world. So if 1. God makes everything from scratch without experimenting and 2. God has made Earth and its creatures...then yes there seems to be an incompatibility. If, however, you don't insist on both of these then I don't immediately see a contradiction.

Well, strictly speaking, being the originator of this universe (that is, this physics, which causes this universe) would not rule out subsequent interventions later in time, so one could have both nature created and unfolding naturally without interventions, yet also have some interventions anyway also. In scriptures part of the stories are about instances where God intervenes in discrete instances in human affairs and alters what would have been the natural outcome to a different outcome.