Is It Even Possible to Reconcile God with Evolution?

[CynthiaCypher]

In this article: Why You Can't Reconcile God and Evolution | Alternet, writer Greta Christina makes a pretty good case that the two cannot be reconciled. But as a theist I have to disagree, it is not that I believe in theistic evolution or that God somehow influenced or guided the process of evolution. I don't, I find theistic evolution impossible and contradictory but what I do believe is that God simply let the chips fall were they may and I believe that is the only way you can reconcile God and evolution.

So what thinks you guys?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I skimmed over the article and I find her arguments to be lacking. Evolution is just the idea that biological systems change over time. Pretty much everything else is debatable. I understand the "randomness" of evolutionary processes as having more to do with probability than with "blindness". Natural selection is not a "blind" process and it obviously has a purpose - to facilitate the survival of said species.

When it comes to theistic evolution, there's various models of it. Teilhard, for example, viewed the universe as heading towards an ultimate point of perfection which in Christian terms would be the Eschaton and he has been one of the biggest influences on Catholic theistic evolutionist thought.

Anyway, I'm not a biologist and don't claim to be an expert on it. At the end of the day, there's more unanswered questions than there are settled ones.

Nice sig, by the way. That's one of my favorite Slayer albums.

 

[Amechania]

God can't not be reconciled to TOE. TOE adds nothing or removes nothing from God. God adds nothing or takes away nothing from TOE. The two are in a constant state or equilibrium.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

God can't not be reconciled to TOE. TOE adds nothing or removes nothing from God. God adds nothing or takes away nothing from TOE. The two are in a constant state or equilibrium.

Pretty much. All that's important for a Christian in terms of our theology is that God is the origin of all that is. But when it comes to how things reached their present state of being (or the system that God chose for things to develop), it's not really that important.

 

[Ouroboros]

So what thinks you guys?

I think the author fails to support her claim. She can't make her case. It's just her opinion.

We have today software created by programmers that produce ("design") antennas, sound boxes, landscapes for games, and much more, by using genetic and evolutionary algorithms. So if there can be a "creator" (programmer) designing the "self-designing environment" for a certain thing, it sure is possible to have a super-programmer creating a universe (not saying that there was one for sure, but I can't say there wasn't one either). The goal for a landscape software is to design landscapes, so what if God created the universe and used evolutionary algorithms to create life? It's not up to us to say what God can or can't do (if there is a God).

 

[ametist]

perhaps through this interpretation of below verse:
"And when your Lord said to the angels:I am about to appoint a vicegerent in the
earth. They said: Will you place therein such as will cause disorder in it
or shed blood? We celebrate your praise and extol your holy names.
He answered: I know what you know not." (Quran
2:30)
only god can know about future, angels cant. angels were merely making an observation on the current situation. angels knew the nature of humans already existing on earth at some level of development. they already existed at the time of adam's creation. adam is called first man because he is the first among those who are able to become a vicegerent. other humans before his creation were not.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

God can't not be reconciled to TOE. TOE adds nothing or removes nothing from God. God adds nothing or takes away nothing from TOE. The two are in a constant state or equilibrium.

Only if God does not interfere with evolution.

 

[Amechania]

Only if God does not interfere with evolution.

If you were to say creationism and TOE are irreconcilable then I would agree.

 

[idav]

Only if God does not interfere with evolution.

Evolution works fine without god as long as nothing ever has to be created and just changes from a default state. It's having something rather than nothing that makes people think we need a creative entity of some sort.

 

[Sees]

I think she will get thumbs up from the choir and that's about it. Too many can only present a weak argument against simpleton flavors of theism.

 

[Riverwolf]

The evolutionary process is one of the manifestations of the Horned God (who I'm starting to suspect might be Elfking Ing wearing an Antler Helm).

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The evolutionary process is one of the manifestations of the Horned God (who I'm starting to suspect might be Elfking Ing wearing an Antler Helm).

The evolutionary process is blind, goalless and without purpose, so wouldn't that mean that the Horned God or any God that is identified with the process of evolution is also blind, goalless and without purpose?

 

[Riverwolf]

The evolutionary process is blind, goalless and without purpose, so wouldn't that mean that the Horned God or any God that is identified with the process of evolution is also blind, goalless and without purpose?

I would hardly apply those adjectives to evolution. It's just that the sight, purpose, and goals of evolution do not extend to Deep Time, but rather are reactive to environmental changes through a relatively small number of generations.

The thing about Polytheism is that the Gods aren't omniscient, and prone to making mistakes. They also aren't necessarily in sync with each other; in fact many of them actively work against one another. The Horned One has to work with the whims of the Sky, Earth, and Sea, amongst other forces. Failing to do so prevents adequate adaptation to take place, and thus extinction.

For me, Gods are not explanations, but interpretations.

 

[Thana]

In this article: Why You Can't Reconcile God and Evolution | Alternet, writer Greta Christina makes a pretty good case that the two cannot be reconciled. But as a theist I have to disagree, it is not that I believe in theistic evolution or that God somehow influenced or guided the process of evolution. I don't, I find theistic evolution impossible and contradictory but what I do believe is that God simply let the chips fall were they may and I believe that is the only way you can reconcile God and evolution.

So what thinks you guys?

Mmm, I find the article lacking any evidence, Just personal opinion. Nothing that makes Theistic evolution any more or less likely.

It always boggles my mind when people say they're irreconcilable, I honestly don't see any conflict between the two

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Mmm, I find the article lacking any evidence, Just personal opinion. Nothing that makes Theistic evolution any more or less likely.

It always boggles my mind when people say they're irreconcilable, I honestly don't see any conflict between the two

The arguments rest within the theory of evolution itself. A god interfering or guiding the process of biologically evolution contradicts natural selection. You can have either natural selection or theistic evolution but you cannot have both and the thing is all the evidence point to natural selection as being a basic fact.

 

[Father Heathen]

This might be of interest: Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CynthiaCypher]

This might be of interest: Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the major problems I have with theistic evolution is that is so unnecessary and so illogical. I believe in God but why would an all knowing god feel the need to interfere with or guide this process? God doesn't. If God is a utilitarian (which I believe is true) then God does not need to interfere or guide with biological evolution.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't think God would have any need to actively interfere with evolution and guide it after it got started. If He knows all, then He would know what starting conditions for the Universe would be necessary to create the evolutionary result that He desired. The question then is why He wanted this particular set of evolutionary events to take place and not another.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The article is a reasonably decent refutation of a very strict, literalistic creationist view, but not in any way a successful refutation of theistic evolution. She makes a lot of assumptions that simply cannot be backed up, such as the assumption that a God-guided (or, at the very least, God-started) evolutionary process would not result in genetic imperfections, or would contradict the central argument of genetic mutation being random. If we imagine God is as a non-interventionist being, it's not difficult to imagine that God would allow or create a process that would result in imperfect creations - the only problem arises if we assume God created humans directly, which is a strictly creationist view and not one held by people who believe in theistic evolution.

Essentially, the article only really deals with a very specific and restrictive view of theistic creation which makes the author unable to differentiate between creationism and theistic evolution.

 

[Alceste]

The arguments rest within the theory of evolution itself. A god interfering or guiding the process of biologically evolution contradicts natural selection. You can have either natural selection or theistic evolution but you cannot have both and the thing is all the evidence point to natural selection as being a basic fact.

In addition to natural selection, there are other possible pressures: sexual selection and artificial selection. These can all operate simultaneously. Hypothetically, if there were another pressure - divine selection - it could also operate simultaneously with the others. There is no rational argument or evolutionary mechanism I can think of that would prevent this.