Is Belief in a creator God compatible with evolutionary Naturalism?

[hasserl]

Might want to specify that next time you post a thread. If you only want the evangelical, born-again Protestant sects to respond, it'll help to cut down on all these different perspectives.

Your second premise IS wrong. Your specific belief structure may not say it is, but there are plenty of forms of Christianity that believe otherwise.

No, I believe it is YOU who is wrong. You've displayed huge misunderstanding, and though Badmusic has patiently explained it to you repeatedly you can't or wont get it (I suspect it is the latter). It is not "evangelical, born-again Protestant", it is basic Christianity 101.

[bigmike82]

No. It isn't. The biggest Christian church in the world agrees that evolution happens. So no...it's not Christianity 101.

[hasserl]

...
Clearly, if you have even a smidgen of faith in the bible, God is the cause of pain and suffering since He planned all this. Or are you saying that God's creation diverged from His plan?

Answer that question please. Seriously. Is everything that happens part of God's plan? Including the pain and suffering?

This is what I was referring to. You clearly do not have a basic understanding of the Christian faith, and though people have tried to explain things to you, you'd rather just argue with them. It's pointless trying to discuss anything with you, you either are incapable of logic and reason and being able to follow a train of thought, or you're just being obstinate and argumentative.

[bigmike82]

Or maybe your idea of basic Christianity isn't so basic or widespread as you mistakenly think it is.

[texan]

No. It isn't. The biggest Christian church in the world agrees that evolution happens. So no...it's not Christianity 101.

There is no automatic logical conflict between evolution and Christianity except where one demands enough special requirements to manufacture one, for instance demanding evolution require abiogenesis. Evolution is a scientific theory explaining biological diversity and has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life itself, this has been pointed out previously by multiple thread participants.

Many millions of people believe in some brand of 'evolutionary creationism' and there are many theologians who've expounded on the topic. Indeed the term really covers a small spectrum of beliefs, what this thread represents is the wholesale dismissal of their reasoning based on premises which are already rejected by their adherents. Given there doesn't seem to be any bridging that gap through discussion, there's no reason to post further refutation to the OP's argument IMO.

[RAMCLAP]

There is no automatic logical conflict between evolution and Christianity except where one demands enough special requirements to manufacture one, for instance demanding evolution require abiogenesis. Evolution is a scientific theory explaining biological diversity and has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life itself, this has been pointed out previously by multiple thread participants.

Many millions of people believe in some brand of 'evolutionary creationism' and there are many theologians who've expounded on the topic. Indeed the term really covers a small spectrum of beliefs, what this thread represents is the wholesale dismissal of their reasoning based on premises which are already rejected by their adherents. Given there doesn't seem to be any bridging that gap through discussion, there's no reason to post further refutation to the OP's argument IMO.

This is reasoned. I burned out on this weeks ago. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Lets get after some theology.

[Bill Carson]

I will say it again, pearls before swine, my brothers.

[bigmike82]

That kind of sarcastic nonsense cuts both ways.

[hasserl]

There is no automatic logical conflict between evolution and Christianity except where one demands enough special requirements to manufacture one, for instance demanding evolution require abiogenesis. Evolution is a scientific theory explaining biological diversity and has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life itself, this has been pointed out previously by multiple thread participants.

Many millions of people believe in some brand of 'evolutionary creationism' and there are many theologians who've expounded on the topic. Indeed the term really covers a small spectrum of beliefs, what this thread represents is the wholesale dismissal of their reasoning based on premises which are already rejected by their adherents. Given there doesn't seem to be any bridging that gap through discussion, there's no reason to post further refutation to the OP's argument IMO.

Evolution fails scientifically, as we've pointed out several times in previous threads in OT. I think the OP presents a very good argument though, that nobody has really effectively refuted yet, yourself included. But then again, this thread, as outlined in the OP, is supposed to be for Christians (Christians that believe in evolution making an effective argument FOR holding both creation AND evolution to be true). Am I to assume that by your participation here that you consider yourself a Christian? That is somewhat surprising to me, pleasantly surprising, but confusing. I've never seen you present yourself before as a believer in God, or in Christ. So, if this is true, why haven't you refuted the premise made by Badmusic?

[texan]

Evolution fails scientifically, as we've pointed out several times in previous threads in OT. I think the OP presents a very good argument though, that nobody has really effectively refuted yet, yourself included. But then again, this thread, as outlined in the OP, is supposed to be for Christians (Christians that believe in evolution making an effective argument FOR holding both creation AND evolution to be true). Am I to assume that by your participation here that you consider yourself a Christian? That is somewhat surprising to me, pleasantly surprising, but confusing. I've never seen you present yourself before as a believer in God, or in Christ. So, if this is true, why haven't you refuted the premise made by Badmusic?

A) You evidently haven't read all my responses to this thread then. I suggest you read the thread in entirety before asking people to repeat themselves.

B) This thread is not limited to Christians participating, nor was his original assertion limited to the Christian religion or any particular denomination.

D) More than one Christian has already agreed with my refutation: the additional requirements the OP needlessly places on the opposing point of view in order to make it illogical are just that.

If you'd like to refute anything I've said in this thread, please do so. There's no need to try and limit who you think should and shouldn't be able to participate in the discussion.

[hasserl]

A) You evidently haven't read all my responses to this thread then. I suggest you read the thread in entirety before asking people to repeat themselves.

See below:

Evolutionary theory explains speciation via natural means, so it is necessarily falls within the philosophy of naturalism (as does all scientific theory really). The error in in the OP is requiring that evolutionary theory also require naturalism in abiogenesis. That is an entirely independent concept which has no generally accepted scientific explanation. For people of faith who don't take the Bible literally, for example those treating Genesis as allegory, it doesn't automatically follow that belief in the Christian God precludes evolution driving the diversity of life.

No, this doesn't refute it.

Evolution doesn't flow from 'lower' to 'higher' states of being. There's no reason organisms can't become smaller and simpler over time to exploit new environments or that adaptation must be an additive process. Many of the most successful and widespread organisms on this planet are also the simplest.

This, besides being wrong, doesn't refute it.

Why do you keep insisting that evolutionary theory demands no supernatural abiogenesis? You're conflating two separate ideas, just because it's common for individuals to see the world this way does not make it necessary.

I know individuals who believe God is responsible for life itself while natural selection is a process which shaped all or part of life's diversity. There is no rational contradiction to that viewpoint.

Not here

Then you just have a limited understanding of evolutionary theory and the true nature of genetic diversity as it pertains to life.

It is true that more complex multicellular structures have appeared over time in eukaryotes. But evolution didn't drive things into greater complexity through any required lower to higher flow... new adaptations simply allowed for exploitation of existing environments in ways that can favor new abilities. The nature of the fossil record and our own self interest also skews our phenotypic view things toward large, bony forms of life existing in specific types of environments. But this leads to a deeply flawed understanding of the theory, because two of the three branches on the tree of life don't even have nuclei. Evolution has been diversifying them all along as well, life simply doesn't look like anything requiring more complexity over time from a domain perspective.

That old view also ignores genetic complexity itself; many of the largest and most information rich genomes are found in much 'simpler' organisms than ourselves. For example our own genome is many times smaller than many protozoa. A particular species of lungfish (an ancient family of creatures) has a genome 40 times the size of ours. The genome of common rice has more than double the number of protein encoding genes than ours. Genetic expression, genetic information and organism complexity actually have surprisingly little to do with one another.

When the database of life is genetics and its size can't tell you much about an organism's phenotypic complexity, when most forms of life are single celled, and when two of the three domains of life don't even possess nuclei... you can scrap the notion that evolution = complication.

Not here either

You keep requiring that creation be antithetical to evolution even though multiple people have succinctly explained why this is untrue. Evolutionary theory simply doesn't deal with abiogenesis, it in no way speaks to the origin of life itself and in fact requires biogenesis for heredity to fuel adaptation in successive generations. There's no room for discussion when flawed prerequisites for further debate become implacable, yet this is where you've steered your thread.

So yes: from your pov requiring that evolutionary theory adherents by some unknown mandate believe in natural abiogenesis, your worldview is incompatible with theirs.

For all those who don't recognize such a mandate, the two worldviews have the potential to overlap. Some evolutionary proponents will believe in natural abiogenesis and some will believe in supernatural creation.

Not here

Wow, it seems you're more interested in a sounding board for your own thoughts than a rational and respectful discussion with others.

Have a good time with that, I'm out.

Not here either, and I guess you decided to come back in...

There is no automatic logical conflict between evolution and Christianity except where one demands enough special requirements to manufacture one, for instance demanding evolution require abiogenesis. Evolution is a scientific theory explaining biological diversity and has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life itself, this has been pointed out previously by multiple thread participants.

Many millions of people believe in some brand of 'evolutionary creationism' and there are many theologians who've expounded on the topic. Indeed the term really covers a small spectrum of beliefs, what this thread represents is the wholesale dismissal of their reasoning based on premises which are already rejected by their adherents. Given there doesn't seem to be any bridging that gap through discussion, there's no reason to post further refutation to the OP's argument IMO.

Still no refutation.

B) This thread is not limited to Christians participating, nor was his original assertion limited to the Christian religion or any particular denomination.

D) More than one Christian has already agreed with my refutation: the additional requirements the OP needlessly places on the opposing point of view in order to make it illogical are just that.

If you'd like to refute anything I've said in this thread, please do so. There's no need to try and limit who you think should and shouldn't be able to participate in the discussion.

The purpose for this forum is for people of faith to have a place to discuss it apart from Off Topic, where non-believers would routinely ruin every thread on the topic of faith or religion.

1. This forum is for Calguns members of faith and those who would like to ask questions in a civil manner.

2. This forum is to give our members a place to share their testimonies, share and ask questions among each other as well as answer serious questions from the membership.

If you're not a believer, please stop entering threads here with the intent of stirring angst. If we can't have that cooperation, than there is no difference here than the Off Topic forum. Please, just be a gentleman about it. Allow us to have this space.

[bigmike82]

where non-believers would routinely ruin every thread on the topic of faith or religion.

Apparently some of you folks also have problems with people of other faiths. Perhaps you should ask Kes to create a 'born again only' forum? That might get you the philosophical cohesion you're looking for.

[dieselnut]

Not trying to be a troll(I'm an open and non judgmental atheist/agnostic). Is the Christian God still omnipotent even though it took him/her/it multiple days to "create" basically everything if that's what really happened?

[Not a Cook]

Not trying to be a troll(I'm an open and non judgmental atheist/agnostic). Is the Christian God still omnipotent even though it took him/her/it multiple days to "create" basically everything if that's what really happened?

I'm attempting to avoid this thread, but this post intrigues me and merits a response.

First, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob always has been, is, and always will be omniscient. He could have created everything in a microsecond if that had been what He desired. He did NOT take six days because He couldn't do it faster. He created it the way He did because it served His purpose and set the pattern for His prescribed Sabbath. Please read Exodus 20:8-11 (NKJV), "8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.". The Lord took six days and rested on the Sabbath in order to teach us to work six and rest on the seventh. He is our example.

Secondly, your self-description intrigues me. Do you believe that God does not exist? If so, you are an atheist. Or do you say you don't know if God exists? Then you are an agnostic. You can't be both agnostic and atheist at the same time.

Either way, I encourage you to read the Bible for yourself, starting with John or Mark. You will find the answer to not only the question I just answered for you, but also the answer to the greatest questions of all which concern what will happen to your soul - will you be destroyed as a consequence for your sins, or will you live forever enjoying fellowship (friendship) with omnipotent God?

[dieselnut]

First, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob always has been, is, and always will be omniscient. He could have created everything in a microsecond if that had been what He desired. He did NOT take six days because He couldn't do it faster.

Secondly, your self-description intrigues me. Do you believe that God does not exist? If so, you are an atheist. Or do you say you don't know if God exists? Then you are an agnostic. You can't be both agnostic and atheist at the same time.

That makes sense.

I just use both because they are similar but different and some people get bent out of shape if you show you are not open to change your perspective with proper evidence.