Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

[Robittybob1]

Why would God's role be "diminished" in this sense?

If He is the Creator, it stands to reason that He had "in mind" an evolutionary process. This is why I believe faith is a not too distant cousin of science.

Role play for a moment, pretend to be God and create life in the Universe, what do you do? Is it just planned out in the mind of God, or does he get his hands dirty? I want to know how you link the spiritual with the physical.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

Of course. Many millions of people, including many evolutionary biologists, believe in God and accept Darwin's indea of natural selection.

The only inconsistency that I can see arising from that would come as the result of holding additional theological views in addition to simple belief in God, such as the belief that life is organized into "kinds" of organisms, originally ordered into being by God at creation, and necessarily unchanging ever since.

I'm not sure what you mean by ''simple belief in God'', the inconsistency is the actual point of the question you responded to.

It's certainly possible to believe in God without having to hold that additional premise.

How is it possible?

Many theists favor some version of theistic evolution, in which God exploits the natural processes of creation, among them biological evolution, to bring about his favored ends (such as the appearence of human beings or whatever it's supposed to be).

Why do they favour ''theistic evolution'', why don't they accept that God instructed the earth to bring forth the forms of life?
Why bother with the darwinistic notion of origin of species at all?

That idea might be kind of implicit in the enlightenment's faith in progress, which seems to assume that history has a direction (and perhaps some kind of ultimate destination) - such that new can simply be assumed to be better than old.

Sorry, but i'm not sure what you're getting at here.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

I think what's really going on with people like you is that you are so invested in a relationship with your own personal conception of god that even entertaining the possibility that god may in reality be somewhat removed that conception seems like something of a betrayal.

I have never given what could regarded as a ''personal conception'' of God. There is no personal conception of God, just as there is no personal conception of gravity (unless of course one just makes shit up).

This actually makes perfect sense with reference to the dynamics of human relationships. For example, when a guy is in love with a girl, he only wants to imagine romantic interactions with her. No other girl will suffice, even though there isn't necessarily anything that would preclude other girls from being the objects of similar affections given different circumstances. And if a guy tries to imagine romantic interactions with some other girl anyway, not only does it seem empty, it can seem like a betrayal. Some would say it is a betrayal.

This is a stupid analogy.

Take a typical Christian for example. He/she has a relationship with a conception of god who essentially has three unique but complimentary faces: that of a father, a son, and a holy spirit. In particular, the primary focus tends to be on Jesus, who is god manifest as man to facilitate both the intimate relationship in question (though his cleansing sacrifice) and our eventual salvation as a direct result of that relationship. Thus to a Christian, the act of conceptualizing god as a deity who never actually became a man, and never actually subjected himself to the tortures of crucifixion, would be a betrayal. Some would say a rejection. In other words, for such a person the god of Christianity is the only girl in town. No other god will suffice, even though there isn't necessarily anything that would preclude other gods from being the objects of similar affections given different circumstances.

Let's not take a typical Christian for example. The title of the thread is ''can a person believe in God and be a darwinist at the same time''. It is a question regarding theism, not religion.

Further, we are yet to touch on the variable ways in which the concept of god is fleshed out beyond scriptural parameters (or even in opposition to them) according to individual idiosyncrasies.

The ''concept of God'', in this day and age, comes from scriptures. All these debates, discussions, and arguments are based on the concept of God as portrayed in the scriptures. It appears that ''theistic evolution'', or the idea that darwinistic evolution is correct, is in opposition to them, not adjacent.

In fact I'd say that in many cases (if not most) it is these sorts of embellishments that give rise to the strongest emotional attachments because it is essentially the fabrication of personhood. So in the end you have an entity that is functionally analogous to a real person.
One that you can relate to. One that you can have an intimate relationship with. But if you could somehow materialize it (a la "Weird Science") while it might be the girl for you, it wouldn't be the girl for anyone else. Her hair isn't right. Her voice is lower in pitch. She has different quirks and mannerisms. She's a control freak and has a bad temper. And she doesn't even have the same family and friends! The reason for all this is obvious: she is, for the most part, you. Even if there is a god type character out there somewhere, the bulk of your relationship with it is actually with yourself.

Dude, show some example of your hypothesis with scripture, otherwise I have no idea what you're babbling about.

Your failure to recognize the god of deism as a real object of worship in the minds of it's practitioners needs to be attributed to something Jan. And if it's not willful ignorance, it probably has something to do with the above. After all, so many of your arguments seem to center on the idea that if we're not talking about your conception of god, then we're not actually talking about a god at all

There is no ''god of deism'', there is ''God'', or there are ''gods''. The Deists believe that ''God'' created the universe, then left it to it's own device. They do not worship God, and they don't believe in God (unless you think that to believe something is the same as ''believing in something)

And please don't bother to respond unless you can show where I present what could be considered ''my concept of God''.

But the reality is that there are people out there with different conceptions of both god and the nature of creation, who are just as "spiritual" (if not more so) as you are, who would insist that you are merely worshiping a facade of your own making by pretending to know more about the nature of god than you actually do. Deists are among them.

Even more importantly, the reality is that all concepts of God come from scripture. All I do is shut out the noise and concentrate on the source. Once we establish the source then we can venture outward.

Unlike you, i am not concerned with competition for spiritual advancement (must be your darwinistic level of consciousness), for anyone with a smattering of understanding of theism would understand that.

God's nature is defined in every scripture, and no one has to pretend to read them.



jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So is it that your issue is not that evolution occurs, but merely the mechanism by which it occurs?
After all, you're saying that the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is not a proven fact... which is correct... but you're not going so far as to say that evolution itself is not a fact?
If so, why does the fact of evolution not diminish God whereas you hold that the theories of evolution do?

The ''theory of evolution'' implies that life itself evolved by a purposeless, unguided, natruralist, unintelligent process.
The fact of evolution (micro) doesn't.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

Why would God's role be "diminished" in this sense?

God's sovereignty (not role) would diminish because ''nature'' would be acting randomly, without authority, without intelligence, and without purpose, meaning that these qualities are just as authoritative as their opposites. That being said ''what is the point of God''.
And that not a rhetorical question.

If He is the Creator, it stands to reason that He had "in mind" an evolutionary process. This is why I believe faith is a not too distant cousin of science.

Yes, but why use evolution to create forms?
Why not create forms and just use evolution to adapt the forms of life to the various situations that may occur? That makes more sense.
We know that life evolves, and we know that animals do not turn into completely different animals (unless you have real evidence).
Why bother with darwinian evolution? Is it not just a waste of time?

jan.

 

[origin]

Yes, but why use evolution to create forms?
Why not create forms and just use evolution to adapt the forms of life to the various situations that may occur? That makes more sense.
jan.

Why kill your son to forgive mankind why not just forgive them? That makes more sense.

Sense and the bible do not go together well.

The whole idea of God being omniscient is something that is not supported by the bible anyway.

 

[wegs]

wegs,


Yes, but why use evolution to create forms?
Why not create forms and just use evolution to adapt the forms of life to the various situations that may occur? That makes more sense.
We know that life evolves, and we know that animals do not turn into completely different animals (unless you have real evidence).
Why bother with darwinian evolution? Is it not just a waste of time?

jan.

Jan;

As we know, a theory in science doesn't mean a guess. It also doesn't mean a law.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is our best explanation if you will for the "fact" of evolution. It as close as we can get to fact. It has been tested for over 100 years and is supported by relevant scientific studies and observations.

A theory is an explanation of natural occurrences built up logically from hypotheses that have been tested.

So, to say why not just create forms doesn't make sense.

Faith in a Creator doesn't require me to abandon science. In fact, the two are close cousins, my opinion.
Faith is merely the belief in something not yet proven or seen.

If anyone honestly believes that man was created out of "nothingness" where does he get that idea? Genesis? A book that if we were to chronologically go from right now to Adam, we are to presume that man has only been around some 6000 years? Hmmm...faith doesn't mean we play dumb.

Now, there are those speculations about a/the "missing link" in the evolutionary process.
Could make for a very interesting thread.

I will address your other point later. Hope that clarifies my own personal stance.

 

[Jan Ardena]

sideshowbob,

As I said, Supreme Controller doesn't necessarily mean Supreme Micromanager.

Supreme Controller means He does what He likes.

God doesn't have to move every spider's foot one mllimeter at a time. He can just aim it at a fly and put it on autopilot. Similarly, he can create a system in which chemicals spontaneously form life and lifeforms spontaneously evolve into other lifeforms. It isn't less sovereign; it's just less anal.

How God creates can be found in scriptures.

jan.

 

[wegs]

How God creates can be found in scriptures.

jan.

Where?

I used to think this too, but it is near impossible to reconcile Genesis with science showing us that man existed long before the Adam/Eve timeframe. Our existence points to an evolutionary process.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

As we know, a theory in science doesn't mean a guess. It also doesn't mean a law.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is our best explanation if you will for the "fact" of evolution. It as close as we can get to fact. It has been tested for over 100 years and is supported by relevant scientific studies and observations.

Do you agree that one kind of animal eventually gives rise to another kind?

A theory is an explanation of natural occurrences built up logically from hypotheses that have been tested.

Why is the above idea an explanation of natural occurences? Where in nature do we see such occurences?

So, to say why not just create forms doesn't make sense.

From your perspective, how did life originate on this planet?

Faith in a Creator doesn't require me to abandon science. In fact, the two are close cousins, my opinion.
Faith is merely the belief in something not yet proven or seen.

Why do you have faith in God?
Who and what is God, to you?

If anyone honestly believes that man was created out of "nothingness" where does he get that idea? Genesis?

Where in genesis does it say ''man was created out of nothingness''?

A book that if we were to chronologically go from right now to Adam, we are to presume that man has only been around some 6000 years? Hmmm...faith doesn't mean we play dumb.

That is assuming Adam and Eve were the first humans ever, but the Bible doesn't say that. In fact there is nothing that indicates this idea at all, and loads of info that contradicts it.

As I said to Rav, this is about ''theism'' not ''religion''.

Now, there are those speculations about a/the "missing link" in the evolutionary process.
Could make for a very interesting thread.

There's no need to find a ''missing link'', as far as the pop science culture is concerned darwinian evolution is a fact. It's all over the tv programmes, billboards, books, movies, documentaries, light entertainment, etc..... All forms of theism is ridiculed publicly, without proper defensive representation.

jan.

 

[billvon]

That is assuming Adam and Eve were the first humans ever, but the Bible doesn't say that. In fact there is nothing that indicates this idea at all, and loads of info that contradicts it.

Genesis 2:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens . . . And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

The first man.

Genesis 2: "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

The first man was named Adam.

Genesis 2: " And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."

God created the first woman.

Genesis 3: "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

The first woman's name was Eve.

It is an odd paradox that the more religious someone is, the less familiar with the Bible they are.

There's no need to find a ''missing link'', as far as the pop science culture is concerned darwinian evolution is a fact. It's all over the tv programmes, billboards, books, movies, documentaries, light entertainment, etc..... All forms of theism is ridiculed publicly, without proper defensive representation.

Right. Which is why Christmas isn't allowed to be celebrated here in the US. It's why no one gets Sundays off. It's why no one in the US goes to church. It's why there are no threads about religion on any forums in the US. It's why Bill O'Reilly isn't allowed to broadcast. Because religious types aren't allowed to express themselves.

 

[wegs]

Jan;

Genesis states that God made Adam out of dust; eve out of his rib. So, no evolutionary process there.
Genesis is the story of the origin of man. The abrahamic faiths teach that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

You say ...this about theism not religion. Doesn't matter what we are talking about.
Genesis is a story about the origin of man. An atheist will see it as a potentially interesting story and nothing else. Some theists will see it as fact and other theists like me, see it as a metaphor for a variety of things, namely cause and effect and morality.

I believe in God, jan but I don't ignore science. We can't make up half truths to support our faith. We can't ignore that we are part of an evolutionary process. To me, a Creator is behind that.

I'm not trying to talk you into anything but there comes a point where you have to stop being vague and take a firm stand on what you know, and what you have faith in. If you deny that an evolutionary process exists, that doesn't make it so. That's all I'm saying.

And if you believe that Genesis is the true story of the origin of mankind, then you believe that we (mankind) have only been around for 6000 years, maybe 10,000 because historians account for mortality rates of that timeframe.

The bible doesn't state that, true. Biblical scholars do who have studied the lineage from Jesus to now. Accounting for all the generations, it adds up to no more than 10,000 years and that is being generous.

So hmmm! Lol

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, but why use evolution to create forms?
Why not create forms and just use evolution to adapt the forms of life to the various situations that may occur? That makes more sense.
We know that life evolves, and we know that animals do not turn into completely different animals (unless you have real evidence).
Why bother with darwinian evolution? Is it not just a waste of time?

jan.

Not every "form" makes sense in a given environment. Not every "form" can simply adapt to new surroundings, many go extinct. We do know that animals and plants and fungi turn into other ones, it's written into the very structure of their DNA.

 

[spidergoat]

The ''theory of evolution'' implies that life itself evolved by a purposeless, unguided, natruralist, unintelligent process.
The fact of evolution (micro) doesn't.

jan.

So in order to hold on to your precious beliefs, you will continue to deny the obvious. I think we can end this discussion with you right now, there's really no point in going further, you represent the definition of unscientific thinking. I'm sorry if reality contradicts your ideology.

 

[arauca]

Not every "form" makes sense in a given environment. Not every "form" can simply adapt to new surroundings, many go extinct. We do know that animals and plants and fungi turn into other ones, it's written into the very structure of their DNA.

A donkey and a horse produces a mule , and stops there and so if their number of chromosome are more the 4 in difference they just the hybrid don't reproduce

 

[wegs]

Not every "form" makes sense in a given environment. Not every "form" can simply adapt to new surroundings, many go extinct. We do know that animals and plants and fungi turn into other ones, it's written into the very structure of their DNA.

To this point, scientists believe we share a common ancestor with modern African apes that existed some 5 to 8 million years ago.
Shortly after, the species divided into separate lineages.

One evolved into gorillas, etc and the other into humans.

I'm being simplistic but it's a far cry from dust.


Jan, I'm just wondering what do you believe? I'm just looking for clarity because stuff gets lost in translation 'round here.

 

[wegs]

We don't know the mind of God.

Going with that, how could anyone write Genesis? I grew up with "the bible is divinely inspired." Well, now that I'm an adult, I ask myself, why would God then not tell the early church fathers (who compiled the bible!!) about evolution?

It stands to reason that Genesis isn't to be taken literally.

If you believe it as literal jan, can u tell us why at least?

 

[Jan Ardena]

So in order to hold on to your precious beliefs, you will continue to deny the obvious. I think we can end this discussion with you right now, there's really no point in going further, you represent the definition of unscientific thinking. I'm sorry if reality contradicts your ideology.

.....

The ''theory of evolution'' implies that life itself evolved by a purposeless, unguided, natruralist, unintelligent process.
The fact of evolution (micro) doesn't.

What obvious thing have I denied?

Why is anything in my quote ''unscientific?

And please stop trying to derail my thread, if you don't like it go elsewhere.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not every "form" makes sense in a given environment. Not every "form" can simply adapt to new surroundings, many go extinct. We do know that animals and plants and fungi turn into other ones, it's written into the very structure of their DNA.

What does this have to do with anything.

jan.

 

[billvon]

We don't know the mind of God.

Going with that, how could anyone write Genesis?

Well, one answer there is that they didn't - two people wrote it. Genesis 1 and the first few sentences of Genesis 2 were written by the Priestly source, and uses the term "Elohim" to refer to God. Most of Genesis 2 was written by the Jahwist source and uses the term "Yaweh" to refer to God. Both creation stories were likely based on earlier Sumerian creation stories.