Mother Nature vs. God?

[Anonymouse]

What is interesting about following all of these Evolution vs. Creationism threads is the close ambiguous word play that evolutionists employ that comes close to admitting that they may have a deity called Nature. This nature judges what is good, bad, productive, purposeful and still they cannot explain why I do not have a neck like a giraffe, the same life span as a bug or why I cannot fly or live underwater even though my “cousin” could.

When evolutionists speak against creationism I sometimes wonder if there aren’t enough artists in the ToE community. I wonder if sometimes they don’t recognize that the findings of evolution or the chain of events that are discovered doesn’t somehow give the researcher a glimpse into a unique and highly stylized sense of creation (for example, a God (or gods) that has created for the specific purpose of evolving). But what really captures my attention is the way that the ToE community describes nature and I realize then that they may have been following and researching (possibly misunderstanding) a different kind of god. Are highly prominent scientists accurately adhering to the scientific method or are they just promoting and putting all of their faith into Mother Nature?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's more likely that you have absolutely no idea what evolutionary theory describes and explains. Just a hunch. Let's call it an artistic insight.

 

[Android]

Are highly prominent scientists accurately adhering to the scientific method or are they just promoting and putting all of their faith into Mother Nature?

No faith is required.
We can see, touch, smell, hear and taste nature, we ARE nature.
I can see what you are trying to say, and I would agree... "we feel the same about nature as you do about god" The only difference being, we don't need faith, as our "god" is real, it can be tested, observed, lived!
No faith is required.

 

[Anonymouse]

It's more likely that you have absolutely no idea what evolutionary theory describes and explains. Just a hunch. Let's call it an artistic insight.

I've seen a myriad of clouds from both sides now to know that the theory of evolution is steeped in enough mystery as to be compared to any established religion.

 

[Anonymouse]

No faith is required.
We can see, touch, smell, hear and taste nature, we ARE nature.
I can see what you are trying to say, and I would agree... "we feel the same about nature as you do about god" The only difference being, we don't need faith, as our "god" is real, it can be tested, observed, lived!
No faith is required.

And like religion, there are aspects that cannot be concluded to truth nor has the theory of evolution been able to kill God. I do like your "we ARE nature"comment. Nice touch.

 

[Android]

And like religion, there are aspects that cannot be concluded to truth

I'd have to strongly disagree with this. That's like comparing a few blades of grass to the entire ball park!
Anyway, thats not my point. Nature is so amazing and awe inspiring, to claim that there is something even more awesome that created it, degrades the awesomeness of "mother nature".
"Mother Nature" doesn't deserve to be belittled in such a way.

 

[Valjean]

The ToE is hardly "steeped in mystery." "Killing God" is not, believe it or not, is not a goal of the ToE. The ToE's aims regarding God are the same as it's goals regarding the replacement of carburetors with fuel injection -- none.
You've mischaracterized the ToE and I suspect you've got a very skewed understanding of it. It has nothing to do with religion or God.

Nature is not a personage and does not judge, nor does it have goals. Its workings are entirely mechanical.
Yes, many people personify Nature as "mother" Many people love Nature. Many find Her workings elegant, but this affection is in no way translated into the ToE. The ToE is science following hard evidence, period.

 

[Anonymouse]

SEYORNI-The ToE is hardly "steeped in mystery."

“Steeped in mystery may have been too harsh. How about “mired in data”?

SEYORNI-"Killing God" is not, believe it or not, is not a goal of the ToE

If the theory of evolution (which, as you claim, has nothing to do with God) turns out to be true, the murder of God could very well be an inevitable by-product of this finding despite any intentions of the evolutionists and any residual beliefs of the religious minded (unless evolutionists produce scandalous photographic evidence of God and Mother Nature in bed together).

SEYORNI- You've mischaracterized the ToE and I suspect you've got a very skewed understanding of it. It has nothing to do with religion or God.

You are the second person in one day to tell me this.

SEYORNI- Nature is not a personage and does not judge, nor does it have goals. Its workings are entirely mechanical.

This is very close to how I understand nature but this understanding does not bring us any closer to the key solution of who or what devised the machine and turned it on.

SEYORNI-Yes, many people personify Nature as "mother" Many people love Nature. Many find Her workings elegant, but this affection is in no way translated into the ToE. The ToE is science following hard evidence, period.

..and when hard evidence isn’t available..then what?

 

[PolyHedral]

..and when hard evidence isn’t available..then what?

You say, "I don't know." It's not that hard.

 

[Thief]

The opening post was correct.
In discussion about evolution the word 'nature' comes up.
Nature was once believed to be a deity....mother of all.
Of course the 'scientist' has no thought about the word...he just uses it.
As the discussion of evolution continues the word 'creation' comes up.
Again there is little consideration to it's implication.

Then comes the misuse of the words...'need'......'unnecessary'.

I suppose, if the language we use every day was more....'discerning'...
then the crossover terms would not happen.

But to speak of complex chemistry as if it 'controlled' itself would be...'odd'.

To say the 'chaos' of the churning earth is completely random...yet productive.....
(Chaos was also a god).

And yes there are 'evolutionists', who say God does not exist.
and the theory of evolution strikes away...'creation'.....no God needed.

To speak evolution and assume it leaves God out is naive.
To speak creation without science is close minded.

God created Man.
Evolution is how He did it.
Genesis...Chapter One.

Chapter Two of Genesis is a story of manipulation...not creation.
Chapter Two is NOT a retelling of Chapter One.
A separate event.

Note: the terms with semi-quotes were noted as such because
these terms indicate intelligence.
Evolution is a 'controlled' item?
Not controlled?...and yet precise?

There is a great deal of chemistry on this earth behaving....'just like it should'.

 

[gnostic]

What is interesting about following all of these Evolution vs. Creationism threads is the close ambiguous word play that evolutionists employ that comes close to admitting that they may have a deity called Nature.

I think you are confusing evolution with pantheism or even deism.

I don't see nature as a god.

In any case, NATURE is the wrong word to use.

Animals and plants are indeed part of NATURE, but the biological sort.

But so are air, rivers and seas, rocks, clouds and sky, rain, etc: all of which are part of NATURE. However air, rivers, rocks, and all the other stuffs have nothing to do with biology.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think you are confusing evolution with pantheism or even deism.

Hey now...

Deists see nature, (the biological, geological and astrophysical aspects), as subjective evidence of God. We do not worship "nature" is any way, shape, or form.


As to the OP, it seems the writer has fallen into the common mistake of attempting to bring the Scientific Method down to the level of faith based belief.

You see this with claims of "Atheism is a religion", and "You worship science", or "Evolution is an attempt to kill God!"

All ridiculously vain attempts to discredit objective empirical evidence by bringing it down to the level of purely subjective belief systems.

 

[Thief]

Hey now...

Deists see nature, (the biological, geological and astrophysical aspects), as subjective evidence of God. We do not worship "nature" is any way, shape, or form.


As to the OP, it seems the writer has fallen into the common mistake of attempting to bring the Scientific Method down to the level of faith based belief.

You see this with claims of "Atheism is a religion", and "You worship science", or "Evolution is an attempt to kill God!"

All ridiculously vain attempts to discredit objective empirical evidence by bringing it down to the level of purely subjective belief systems.

Been to a thread called...Atheistic Religion...?
just asking.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Been to a thread called...Atheistic Religion...?
just asking.

You mean the thread discussing religions such as non-theistic Buddhism?

Don't fall into the same pit as the author of this OP.

 

[McBell]

I've seen a myriad of clouds from both sides now to know that the theory of evolution is steeped in enough mystery as to be compared to any established religion.

Thank you for confirming Kilgore Trouts post.

 

[McBell]

The opening post was correct.
In discussion about evolution the word 'nature' comes up.
Nature was once believed to be a deity....mother of all.
Of course the 'scientist' has no thought about the word...he just uses it.
As the discussion of evolution continues the word 'creation' comes up.
Again there is little consideration to it's implication.

Then comes the misuse of the words...'need'......'unnecessary'.

I suppose, if the language we use every day was more....'discerning'...
then the crossover terms would not happen.

But to speak of complex chemistry as if it 'controlled' itself would be...'odd'.

To say the 'chaos' of the churning earth is completely random...yet productive.....
(Chaos was also a god).

And yes there are 'evolutionists', who say God does not exist.
and the theory of evolution strikes away...'creation'.....no God needed.

To speak evolution and assume it leaves God out is naive.
To speak creation without science is close minded.

God created Man.
Evolution is how He did it.
Genesis...Chapter One.

Chapter Two of Genesis is a story of manipulation...not creation.
Chapter Two is NOT a retelling of Chapter One.
A separate event.

Note: the terms with semi-quotes were noted as such because
these terms indicate intelligence.
Evolution is a 'controlled' item?
Not controlled?...and yet precise?

There is a great deal of chemistry on this earth behaving....'just like it should'.

Not everyone has a compelling need to put god anywhere and everywhere they can.

 

[Jose Fly]

What is interesting about following all of these Evolution vs. Creationism threads is the close ambiguous word play that evolutionists employ that comes close to admitting that they may have a deity called Nature. This nature judges what is good, bad, productive, purposeful and still they cannot explain why I do not have a neck like a giraffe, the same life span as a bug or why I cannot fly or live underwater even though my “cousin” could.

What is interesting about these gravitation vs. divine falling threads is the word play that gravitationists employ that comes close to admitting that they may have a deity called physics. This physics judges what is heavy, what is light, what orbits what, and they still cannot explain why I can't flap my arms and fly like a bird.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Now you know how your post sounded to me the first time I read it.

 

[Thief]

Not everyone has a compelling need to put god anywhere they can.

I don't know why you bother.

And when I respond....again...why bother.

I suppose now you will continue addressing me...rather than the content.

 

[Thief]

You mean the thread discussing religions such as non-theistic Buddhism?

Don't fall into the same pit as the author of this OP.

Could be...it's a 'definition' discussion....not important to this thread....
I was just asking

 

[McBell]

I don't know why you bother.

And when I respond....again...why bother.

I suppose now you will continue addressing me...rather than the content.

I did address the comment.

It is merely your ego that leads you to believe my comment was all about you.