What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you, @Heyo , for getting my attention. I’ve had some responsibilities to attend to...



Like what?

CD (Common descent) evolution is the only facet of evolution I take issue with. It is a philosophy which intends to ultimately relegate Jehovah God as being unnecessary. Not just to remove Him as Creator, but to make Him a non-entity. Like He’s only been a product of men’s minds.

You don’t consider that a threat?

Say you made many things....how would you like it if someone said “it all arose by itself”, denying you had any part in it?


And the ones here on RF, who support the idea of there being a Creator....I feel there’s a need to reinforce those rational beliefs by exposing common descent’s flawed and unproven suppositions.

The mechanisms of evolution are reality, but they have limits.

What do you think?

I simply do not see the threat to God in the theory.

It is a theory that has massive evidentiary support. It does not deny that God had a part in it. There is just no evidence of the actions of God found in the evidence and include in the theory as explanatory. That is true of all scientific theories and the evidence they explain. Are you claiming that Newton and Einstein should attribute aspects of gravity to God in the theories they formulated. By not doing so, that they are rejecting God or claiming he had no part. For I know of no reference to God in those theories.

 

[Windwalker]

But evolution does imply that we are here do to a chaotic and indirect process, at least intrusively this is not what we would expect from a perfect being

Why wouldn't we expect this from a perfect being? Are you defining God according to what you think a perfect being should be? In other words, measuring the truth of God according to your concepts about God?

Personally, the underlying realities of our existence defy everything we would expect. When you encounter the quantum realm, this system of rules and order are far more chaotic and unpredictable, yet arising out of all that, is the ordered universe. God by definition, transcends our comprehension. Yet, I'm quite sure the issue is the limitations of our minds, not the limitations of Reality.

God doesn't fit into our ideas about God. We can't take an idea about God and draw a box around the Divine and say, "If God exists, he'd look a lot like what I'd expect". Really? Do you think any of us can say that about God?

 

[Windwalker]

Common biological forms just means we have a common Creator.

Yes, we are all related to other animals as God created them. Science proves this in the theory of evolution. We have shared DNA and ancestors of common decent. How does that threaten your faith in God, if God made all of this, including evolution?

The Bible teaches the three parts of man – body, spirit and soul – in 1 Thessalonians 5:28.

A dragonfly has other parts. That doesn't mean it's not an animal like humans are with their own distinct parts.

Nowhere does the Bible speak of animals being saved or going to heaven. Solomon indicates that the soul of Man rises but animals return to the Earth.

Why does that matter, when the issue is weather or not we are all related biologically, being all created by God through evolution? That has nothing to do with the topic of salvation.

But to answer that question, "all dogs go to heaven", according to many.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In Europe that boat has sailed. It's no longer a 'threat' but a reality and those who are Christians also generally subscribe to the ToE. It doesn't threaten my faith since my religion doesn't really have a focus on this and comes with at least 4 creation myths.

So...God creating is a myth to you?
Why does the Bible call him the “Grand Creator”? (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

 

[Windwalker]

So...God creating is a myth to you?
Why does the Bible call him the “Grand Creator”? (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

God creating is not myth. Stories about God creating are.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you claiming that Newton and Einstein should attribute aspects of gravity to God in the theories they formulated.

In the General Scholium in the Principia, concerning the Solar System, Newton stated, “Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves by those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

(Incorporating God into one of his most famous documents!)

Regarding Einstein, you might find this interesting, I did. In fact, I downloaded the entire book to my 'ibooks'.
(Keep in mind, not believing in a "personal" God, does not mean Einstein didn't think God is a higher intellect. It only means he thought God wasn't interested in any person.... Or us, as people.)
Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals **Himself** in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Double asterisks are mine, to highlight.)


Life, especially with self-awareness and instinct, is more than the sum of itself; it is combined with all the fine-tuned forces, along with the cycles and systems, that help it flourish. Antony Flew referred to this as "integrated complexity."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

God creating is not myth. Stories about God creating are.

Then how do you know that “God creating” is itself not a myth?

What convinces you that it is fact?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We can't take an idea about God and draw a box around the Divine and say, "If God exists, he'd look a lot like what I'd expect".

“Look” like? No, of course not.
But from the pages of the Bible, I can tell you what He would “act” like.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the General Scholium in the Principia, concerning the Solar System, Newton stated, “Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves by those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

(Incorporating God into one of his most famous documents!)

Regarding Einstein, you might find this interesting, I did. In fact, I downloaded the entire book to my 'ibooks'.
(Keep in mind, not believing in a "personal" God, does not mean Einstein didn't think God is a higher intellect. It only means he thought God wasn't interested in any person.... Or us, as people.)
Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals **Himself** in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Double asterisks are mine, to highlight.)


Life, especially with self-awareness and instinct, is more than the sum of itself; it is combined with all the fine-tuned forces, along with the cycles and systems, that help it flourish. Antony Flew referred to this as "integrated complexity."

There you have it. I stand corrected. Of course, he is expressing an opinion based on no data at all and his own incredulity, but he still does what I asked for.

 

[Windwalker]

Then how do you know that “God creating” is itself not a myth?

What convinces you that it is fact?

I don't think of it as a fact. I just accept it is because I feel it. Reason cannot penetrate it. That's why they call it faith.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am just asking questions about your claim. I am avoiding nothing. What reasoning are you claiming for other branches of science that evolution gets a pass on? I have yet to see your reasoning. Hence my questions.

I already explained. In archaeology if we find something that appears to be designed we don't suppose it simply evolved itself.

 

[Windwalker]

“Look” like? No, of course not.
But from the pages of the Bible, I can tell you what He would “act” like.

I read the same scriptures as you, but I don't see God as you apparently are. I don't see limitations placed upon him that makes him have to conform to our expectations of what sounds reasonable to us. That it doesn't make sense to you, is a good sign it's probably right.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why does that matter, when the issue is weather or not we are all related biologically,

Being similar biologically doesn't prove evolution.
And it matters because being spiritual beings separates us from animals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I already explained. In archaeology if we find something that appears to be designed we don't suppose it simply evolved itself.

Yes. I know. You never explained how we can take our knowledge of human creations and apply that to nature to show that something there is created too.

We know that man makes many things. It is so pervasive, it is common knowledge. There is much evidence to support that finding a rope, a brick, a car, a house, jewelry, pottery, weapons, etc. is finding something that is created.

If we find a Timex on the beach we can know it was created. If we go further down the beach and find a Rolex, are you saying this is evidence of polytheism?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Being similar biologically doesn't prove evolution.
And it matters because being spiritual beings separates us from animals.

Nothing proves anything in science. Why wouldn't biological homology be evidence supporting evolution?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nothing proves anything in science. Why wouldn't biological homology be evidence supporting evolution?

Why would it? You have to suppose evolution is correct first to make that connection.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes. I know. You never explained how we can take our knowledge of human creations and apply that to nature to show that something there is created too.

Yes I did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why would it? You have to suppose evolution is correct first to make that connection.

You are the one claiming it isn't and I want to know the basis and support for your claim. You aren't just repeating some dogmatic mantra are you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes I did.

Can you point that out or reiterate it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why would it? You have to suppose evolution is correct first to make that connection.

Why do you have to consider evolution to be correct to draw relationships from biological homology? You don't think there are other possible relationships that this might be demonstrating?