Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[Jeremy Mason]

If one believes that God is using evolution as a tool, then it follows that evolution is not pruposelss. That's a philosophical stance which has nothing to do with the facts.

Thank you Storm. I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Storm]

You're quite welcome.

 

[logician]

" one believes that God is using evolution as a tool, then it follows that evolution is not pruposelss"

I don't believe such.

 

[Storm]

" one believes that God is using evolution as a tool, then it follows that evolution is not pruposelss"

I don't believe such.

That's obvious. But you did ask a question, and it was answered. You don't have to agree to comprehend.

 

[fantome profane]

If one believes that God is using evolution as a tool, then it follows that evolution is not pruposelss. That's a philosophical stance which has nothing to do with the facts.

What you are saying here makes perfect sense. However I think it is important to note that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that would indicate that the natural forces of evolution are following or have followed a planned direction. And so I think that what logician says is correct, evolution has no purpose or direction.

I do understand that for many people the idea that human life is not the result of an intentional process is inconceivable and the belief in a intentional creator an automatic assumption. This is fine. I have no problem with this. There is nothing in the science that can contradict this, just as there is nothing in the science that can substantiate it. But scientifically this assumption is unnecessary.

 

[Storm]

What you are saying here makes perfect sense. However I think it is important to note that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that would indicate that the natural forces of evolution are following or have followed a planned direction. And so I think that what logician says is correct, evolution has no purpose or direction.

I do understand that for many people the idea that human life is not the result of an intentional process is inconceivable and the belief in a intentional creator an automatic assumption. This is fine. I have no problem with this. There is nothing in the science that can contradict this, just as there is nothing in the science that can substantiate it. But scientifically this assumption is unnecessary.

Allow me to present my own views for comparison.

I don't believe that God used evolution as a tool to create humans. I believe that evolution itself is evolving, and that the rise of sapient life was an inevitable step in God's evolution.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

What you are saying here makes perfect sense. However I think it is important to note that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that would indicate that the natural forces of evolution are following or have followed a planned direction. And so I think that what logician says is correct, evolution has no purpose or direction.

I do understand that for many people the idea that human life is not the result of an intentional process is inconceivable and the belief in a intentional creator an automatic assumption. This is fine. I have no problem with this. There is nothing in the science that can contradict this, just as there is nothing in the science that can substantiate it. But scientifically this assumption is unnecessary.

Then why are there many respected scientist that agree with a divine plan? Did these people blindly establish their faiths without fact checking. These people as scientists were great fact checkers. It's hard for me to believe that they would through caution to the wind with so much at stake.

 

[fantome profane]

Allow me to present my own views for comparison.

I don't believe that God used evolution as a tool to create humans. I believe that evolution itself is evolving, and that the rise of sapient life was an inevitable step in God's evolution.

Well you have another perfectly valid philosophical position. But again I want to point out that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that sentient life was inevitable. I don’t know if you would agree with this or not. But the point is that you really don’t need scientific evidence to believe this. And there is nothing in the scientific evidence that makes this belief untenable or unreasonable. This is a different assumption that you may freely choose to make, but scientifically the assumption is still unnecessary.

 

[fantome profane]

Then why are there many respected scientist that agree with a divine plan? Did these people blindly establish their faiths without fact checking. These people as scientists were great fact checkers. It's hard for me to believe that they would through caution to the wind with so much at stake.

That is a loaded question. I hope you will forgive me for not getting into this at the moment. But please understand me that I am not saying that theistic evolution is unreasonable, just unnecessary.

 

[Storm]

Well you have another perfectly valid philosophical position. But again I want to point out that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that sentient life was inevitable. I don’t know if you would agree with this or not. But the point is that you really don’t need scientific evidence to believe this. And there is nothing in the scientific evidence that makes this belief untenable or unreasonable. This is a different assumption that you may freely choose to make, but scientifically the assumption is still unnecessary.

Uncontested.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

That is a loaded question. I hope you will forgive me for not getting into this at the moment. But please understand me that I am not saying that theistic evolution is unreasonable, just unnecessary.

On the contrary, I feel that reconciling the stumbling stones of a divine plan as it relates to evolution and this discussion is necessary. Am I wrong for saying so or is that another loaded question?

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Everything about the cosmos speaks to a purposeful/ intelligent evolution IMO...From the onset of the Big Bang , the physical constants of physics and chemistry all seem beneficently ‘ fine tuned’ in order to give rise to Intelligent / carbon based beings such as ourselves

Dna IS A CODE...and there are NO other comparable examples of a code ( real or imagined ) which are not the product/brainchild of a purposeful intelligence/ mind(s)


Fleshly evolution is too fast/ too efficient...There are no signs of that hopelessly slow/ hopelessly inefficient long chain of minute changes which Darwin agreed should ( neigh must ) be present in the fossil record

According to all renown mathematicians who’ve ever studied the Darwinian evolutionary problem ( see Wistar Destroys ‘ Darwinian ' Evolution ) ...Random mutations ( albeit honed by Natural Selection ) could never begin to suffice for abiogenesis/ the appearance of sentience from non-living matter/ nor for the shaping of species etcetera...

My guess is that there is some sort of informational/ intelligence field ( which might be called Omniscience ) underpinning all of creation and giving order to it in perpetuity ...There is nothing ' Darwinian ' in any of this ! Nor could there be...

 

[fantome profane]

On the contrary, I feel that reconciling the stumbling stones of a divine plan as it relates to evolution and this discussion is necessary. Am I wrong for saying so or is that another loaded question?

I don’t believe in a divine plan, so it presents no stumbling blocks for me when it comes to evolution. It seems that storm has no stumbling blocks when it comes to evolution. Logician seems to have no stumbling blocks when it comes to evolution.

If you have some stumbling blocks that have not been addressed please spell them out and we can talk about them.

But if you are asking me why some scientist believe in “God” all I can say is that scientists are people. And the question as to why people believe in “God” is a subject for another thread. (or is it every other thread? )

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I don’t believe in a divine plan, so it presents no stumbling blocks for me when it comes to evolution. It seems that storm has no stumbling blocks when it comes to evolution. Logician seems to have no stumbling blocks when it comes to evolution.

If you have some stumbling blocks that have not been addressed please spell them out and we can talk about them.

But if you are asking me why some scientist believe in “God” all I can say is that scientists are people. And the question as to why people believe in “God” is a subject for another thread. (or is it every other thread? )

Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

 

[Autodidact]

Everything about the cosmos speaks to a purposeful/ intelligent evolution IMO...From the onset of the Big Bang , the physical constants of physics and chemistry all seem beneficently ‘ fine tuned’ in order to give rise to Intelligent / carbon based beings such as ourselves

Well, in retrospect, of course the universe would have to look like it was fine tuned for whatever is here.
It would be odd for the entire universe to exist for the purpose to something that occupies like .00000000001% of it. Kind of wasteful.

Dna IS A CODE...and there are NO other comparable examples of a code ( real or imagined ) which are not the product/brainchild of a purposeful intelligence/ mind(s)

Only if you assume that it's a code in that sense.

Fleshly evolution is too fast/ too efficient...There are no signs of that hopelessly slow/ hopelessly inefficient long chain of minute changes which Darwin agreed should ( neigh must ) be present in the fossil record

Other than the entire fossil record, that is.

According to all renown mathematicians who’ve ever studied the Darwinian evolutionary problem ( see Wistar Destroys ‘ Darwinian ' Evolution ) ...Random mutations ( albeit honed by Natural Selection ) could never begin to suffice for abiogenesis/ the appearance of sentience from non-living matter/ nor for the shaping of species etcetera...

Not only is it odd to suppose that mathematicians would be studying biology, it would also be odd to suppose that evolution would try to account for abiogenesis.

My guess is that there is some sort of informational/ intelligence field ( which might be called Omniscience ) underpinning all of creation and giving order to it in perpetuity ...There is nothing ' Darwinian ' in any of this ! Nor could there be...

And is there some reason why we should give more credence to your guess than the entire modern science of Biology?

 

[camanintx]

From the onset of the Big Bang , the physical constants of physics and chemistry all seem beneficently ‘ fine tuned’ in order to give rise to Intelligent / carbon based beings such as ourselves

Douglas Adams came up with the best argument against this line of reasoning but somehow I doubt you will understand it.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

 

[fantome profane]

Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

Yes..

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

Douglas Adams came up with the best argument against this line of reasoning but somehow I doubt you ( Hela ) will understand it.

Frankly I'm sick of the rather pretentious / condescending commentary of some smug secularists on this site, who take ( for example ) Darwinian Dogma ( and it is dogma ) / an Atheistic world view ( in the guise of objective science ) at face value, without ever seriously questioning any of it. BUT then get all bent outa shape when others do. Darwin was a very mortal man with feet of clay, he had some serious flaws...ditto Darwinism/ neo-Darwinism/ science orthodoxy ( inclusive of the notions that our universe was an accident when all signs point to the physical constants of physics and chemistry being purposefully ' fine tuned' even at a nanosecond after the BIG BANG ) ...

I don't actually mind when the debate gets heated, my objection is when others Hypocritically complain when they get a taste of their own medicine. But so long as you can dish it out, and also take it Camanintx ( which I seriously doubt ) ....there’s NO PROBLEM

CHEERS

 

[camanintx]

Camanintx :

Frankly I'm sick of the rather pretentious / condescending commentary of some smug secularists on this site, who take ( for example ) Darwinian Dogma ( and it is dogma ) / an Atheistic world view ( in the guise of objective science ) at face value, without ever seriously questioning any of it. BUT then get all bent outa shape when others do. Darwin was a very mortal man with feet of clay, he had some serious flaws...ditto Darwinism/ neo-Darwinism/ science orthodoxy ( inclusive of the notions that our universe was an accident when all signs point to the physical constants of physics and chemistry being purposefully ' fine tuned' even at a nanosecond after the BIG BANG ) ...

I don't actually mind when the debate gets heated, my objection is when others Hypocritically complain when they get a taste of their own medicine. But so long as you can dish it out, and also take it Camanintx ( which I seriously doubt ) ....there’s NO PROBLEM

CHEERS

The argument that physical constants were fine tuned doesn't hold water (pun intended) unless you can show that they could have been different from what they are. Since no one knows how the universe came to be the way it is, any claim that it was designed is completely specious. This has been pointed out in several threads yet people keep repeating it, indicating that they don't really understand the argument.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do you think it is possible to believe in both evolution and God/creationism.

Yep.......