God and Evolution

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."-The following are just a few thoughts engendered by the above. -As far as the "elegance" of the mechanisms is concerned, I don't think many atheists, agnostics or Creationists would disagree. But even though I'm not a Creationist, I'm surprised by the description of direct creation as "crude" and "ham-handed". The universe and everything in it would be just as elegant and beautiful, whether a Creationist God, an evolutionist God, or godless Nature brought it and them into being. -The writer says Creationism demonstrates "a fundamental ignorance of Evolution". I agree, but interestingly this is also an argument frequently advanced by fundamentalist atheists against anyone who doubts the ability of chance to create the original mechanism. Evolution itself is a multiple theory, some aspects of which are accepted by most of us (e.g. all life descended from one or a few forms, advantageous characteristics are preserved by natural selection), while other aspects remain controversial (e.g. innovation, causes of sudden bursts of activity). 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. -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? -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 tweak here, a twiddle there, and the bits and pieces can produce new organs, new species...That would involve a degree of "direct creation" ... as presumably the original mechanisms and the fine-tuned universe did. If evolution really is the result of design, I don't think it would in fact make much difference to me whether it was all pre-programmed from the start, or programmed along with a bit of divine experimentation (God learning as he went along). 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.

Post reply

2953 views


> 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.

Post reply

2874 views

dhw,-I could be wrong in this, but I think David views the universe and God as an intertwining. God is an organizing force in the universe, but not outside of it. But God is a subtle force--he doesn't "place" things in the universe as the childish God I grew up with. As thoughts are organized and fleeting, so is life, and life is better looked at as God's "thoughts" rather than objects he picks up and plays with. He isn't a being that is separate from his "creation" and views it from within instead of without. -In this view, creationism is... a very very childish perspective on how life got here, but this isn't surprising since its view comes from when our collective knowledge was also quite childish. -When you couple the wonder of life's complexity with all the experiences that people throughout the ages have reported, this view of God is both holistic (pardon the pun) and a unifying consciousness that other beings can sometimes reach and experience. Since God is transcendant throughout the universe, tapping into its... "wavelength" for lack of a better term, explains many if not all the experiences documented by all the other religions. -Now of course after complimenting what I perceive to be David's view, I must question it. -If this view of God is more sophisticated, lets think about why we think so.-This view of God is based more on science and what we know about the world, but that said, it isn't different than the creationist view. -This new view of God is simply an adjustment of theology to respond to what science has shown us, exactly as the creationist view had done back when it was first invented thousands of years ago. Isn't this new theology simply a modern expression of God? How can we truly say its better than the creationist view when, forgive me, there is no way to objectively compare theologies? As my old friend Xenophanes of Colophon once said, "If oxen, horses, and lions could draw, their gods would look like oxen, horses, and lions."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

2880 views


> I could be wrong in this, but I think David views the universe and God as an intertwining. God is an organizing force in the universe, but not outside of it. But God is a subtle force--he doesn't "place" things in the universe as the childish God I grew up with. 
 
> 
> When you couple the wonder of life's complexity with all the experiences that people throughout the ages have reported, this view of God is both holistic (pardon the pun) and a unifying consciousness that other beings can sometimes reach and experience. Since God is transcendant throughout the universe, tapping into its... "wavelength" for lack of a better term, explains many if not all the experiences documented by all the other religions. 
> 
> This view of God is based more on science and what we know about the world, but that said, it isn't different than the creationist view. 
> 
> This new view of God is simply an adjustment of theology to respond to what science has shown us, -Matt: I am a panentheist. God created the universe and since he pre-existed it, He is both within and without. I use science to lead me to a belief in God, but one that does not fit any pre-existing theology, other than stating there is a God. You are right, God does conform to scientific findings as they study what He produced. I am certainly not sure that He is as perfect in all spheres as they claim.

Post reply

2870 views

Matt says that David's "new view of God is simply an adjustment of theology to respond to what science has shown us [...] Isn't this new theology simply a modern expression of God? How can we truly say it's better than the creationist view when, forgive me, there is no way to objectively compare theologies?"-David: "I use science to lead me to a belief in God, but one that does not fit any pre-existing theology, other than stating there is a God. You are right, God does conform to scientific findings as they study what He produced."-This is a stimulating dialogue. It seems to me that the established monotheistic religions are in an inescapable trap of their own making. All three are dependent on texts written by humans, translated by humans, and interpreted by humans. Hence the deep divisions between sects, and the impossibility of consistency in decision-making on moral issues ... like contraception, homosexuality, ordination of women ... and scientific issues like evolution. The creationist view of origins is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. There is, however, widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution in the established church. (It would be very helpful to get Mark in on this discussion.) In such cases, Genesis is taken more as an image than as the literal truth, which of course raises the problem of which sections of the Bible are or are not to be regarded as literally true. Who decides? I would say, then, that Matt's question concerning objective comparison between theologies is unanswerable, to the detriment of all institutionalized religion.-David, however, has provided his own answer, which is a real stunner. It amounts to a dismissal of all theologies. He believes in a designer called God, and science is the study of the world God created, but he does not go beyond the statement that God exists. This means that he can adapt to the findings of science as they emerge, and so long as he avoids attributing qualities to such a God, he remains free to follow his own instincts and principles in all other fields. This would never do for the established religions, and it may well be that it wouldn't do for the majority of believers. The fact is that society needs leadership, and just as we have to have a government ... even though we know our politicians are no cleverer and no more morally principled than the rest of us ... religions have to have their governing bodies, whose members are equally "human" with all that the word implies. David's form of faith works admirably for him, but without institutionalization there is no general authority, and with it there is often dubious or even downright harmful authority (e.g. papal, or fundamentalist). A case of the Devil and the deep blue sea?-However, while David's solution offers an admirable way of escaping this undesirable choice, I wonder how it is possible to form a relationship with a God of whom nothing is known except his existence.

Post reply

2879 views

dhw,-I'm glad to see I'm contributing something interesting!-> However, while David's solution offers an admirable way of escaping this undesirable choice, I wonder how it is possible to form a relationship with a God of whom nothing is known except his existence.-Hence my questioning of David's greater... meta narrative? (not sure if that's the right word.)

Post reply

2891 views

dhw,
> 
> I'm glad to see I'm contributing something interesting!
> 
> > However, while David's solution offers an admirable way of escaping this undesirable choice, I wonder how it is possible to form a relationship with a God of whom nothing is known except his existence.
> 
> Hence my questioning of David's greater... meta narrative? (not sure if that's the right word.)-
Back to Adler: God is a personage like no other person. We have no idea what to expect. But if He is the universal intelligence, my little intelligence can speak to Him in my form of prayer, as I am a tiny part of Him. And then remember Spenger's weird theory. Could he be right and as the universe expands it is travelling into a space with potential particles? In that case the universe intelligence can be on both sides of the curvilinear boundry of the universe, where the space-time curves back on itself. I know process theology states that God is bound by His own laws. By whose authority is that true? God may be able to move back and forth or be on both sides with differing laws on each side of the boundry. That boundry could be more like a semipermeable membrane in all living cells. My moral, as Dhw points out: be flexible, not rigid.

Post reply

2884 views

David,
> 
> Matt: I am a panentheist. God created the universe and since he pre-existed it, He is both within and without. I use science to lead me to a belief in God, but one that does not fit any pre-existing theology, other than stating there is a God. You are right, God does conform to scientific findings as they study what He produced. I am certainly not sure that He is as perfect in all spheres as they claim.-I guess our general ideas of God are divergent: Knowing what I know about the universe, there is no sound or valid reasoning that justifies an entity both being "in" and "out" of the universe; We know via the laws of physics that neither matter or energy can be two places at once. A being that is outside of the universe is outside of the laws of physics, but the moment it enters our universe it is constrained by all physical laws. So, then, in order to justify the kind of God you're describing--we need a valid explanation for the laws outside of our universe, as well as an explanation that describes how such a being can apparently "break" laws in order to "tinker."-There's far too much supposition in all of that for me to choke down. -A simpler and more harmonious view would be more in line with Process views that I've read (not necessarily Frank's) where the Creator exists as part of the universe, but is just as bound to it as we are. We could be viewed as expressions of its creative will, but one that must make iterative changes. It's "will" as it were is excessively subtle, and since it would be the energy of the universe itself, it would permeate everything. But just as things disperse and become less concentrated in water, so too would be this God. -It is this idea that generated my idea for a novel where the universe was created by the death of God, and we are the "life flashing before its eyes."

Post reply

2896 views

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."-
The chief Rabbi of the UK joins the battle against neo-Darwinist atheists"-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6507782/Europeans-too-selfish-to-have-children-says-Chief-Rabbi.html

Post reply

2827 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

God and Evolution (Evolution)