God and Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, December 24, 2009, 20:35 (5257 days ago) @ dhw


> David has quoted a comment from a website, which fits his own world view (see under Science and Grants, 22 December at 16.36): "God has created this incredible universe with elegant mechanisms, Evolution being one of them. I am constantly astonished that Creationists attempt to diminish this with arguments for crude, ham-handed 'direct creation', rather than the truly elegant mechanisms for which God has provided more than ample evidence. They should be marveling at its beauty and working diligently to understand its subtle mechanisms. Instead, they waste everybody's time by perverting discourse in an attempt to promote their own (dangerously arrogant) assumptions about the meaning of the Bible.
>
> God speaks to all of us in many different ways. With all due respect, I think that you should listen to him more carefully."
 ->
>But even though I'm not a Creationist, I'm surprised by the description of direct creation as "crude" and "ham-handed". -As a wordsmith I think you are bit too narrow-minded in your interpretations of others' words. I know you are aware of implied nuances and underlying concepts with the choice of words the writer uses. That is why we sit in rapt attention (if so inclined) as a literary critic or English Professor explains the deeper means of a poem. 
 Thinking of crude and ham-handed brings to mind Zeus or Jupiter hurling thunderbolts from a mountaintop to create life or to readjust it. Deus ex Machina. How elegant however is a coded DNA prepared in advance to promote evolution. Exquisite planning.- >
> The theory does not tell us anything at all about the origin of life and of the mechanisms leading to evolution, and attribution of this origin to God or to chance is purely a matter of faith. -True.
 
> 
> The author says "God speaks to us all in many different ways", so how does he know that he is receiving the correct message, or that he is listening "more carefully" than people who disagree with him? -The author is talking about the beauties of nature, the beauty of the movement of animals, the beauty of the various arts as developed by humans. This is not a listening issue, in my eyes, as I read the entire statement.
>
> If I believed in a designer, I would share David's view that evolution was "coded into DNA from the beginning", but I would have no difficulty interpreting "punctuated" elements of the equilibrium either as part of the original programme or as God deciding sometimes to conduct experiments. 
 
A very reasonable observation.
>
> It would be interesting to know, though, David, whether as a believer you favour the God-knew-it-all-from-the-beginning theory, or the concept of a God who is himself continuously learning and developing.-I'm generally like Frank, but without all his twists and turns, which reasonably serve the purpose to fit his needs to agree with materialistic science and also recognize a form of God. Schroeder in his recent book has described a sort-of process God who learns from humans who argue with him. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect that some minor kinks turned up in the programming, or an alternative thought popped up that needed some investigation. And then again, humans have free will and free choice, and have the right to argue back. Some form of process theology, in the way I'm implying, is reasonable. Those attributes applied to God by religions: all-powerful, all-knowing, all love are man's ideas of an ideal deity. Hopeful, but none of us really know.