Is Belief in a creator God compatible with evolutionary Naturalism?

[Badmusic]

Wow. The lack of English comprehension here is nothing short of astounding. Guess that explains your views.

Done indeed.

Yes. You should work on your comprehensive skills. It might make you more fit to survive, then you might please your god.

[brando]

LOL, thank you for that elementary description, but you failed to note the point of the question. Thanks anyway.

You're welcome. I've found over the years that's it's less about believing in Evolution as much as it's understanding it. The vast majority of people I come across who argue against it repeatedly show that they do not understand it in the first place.

[colossians323]

I'll give you a simple scenario that shows how the natural random mutation from breeding can lead to advantages and disadvantages:

There's a large field of grass where brown mice live and because this is a fairly dry climate, it's brown for a good chunk of the year. As predators stalk the grass or fly overhead looking for a mice to eat, they have a hard time picking the brown mice out most of the time as they are able to blend in with their environment quite effectively.

Among the generations of mice that live in this field, there are occasional offspring that are born with black fur or even white fur, which is just the normal result of reproduction's combining genes from both parents. Unfortunately, this high contrast fur stands out much more and predators are able to spot these mice easier and snatch them up. So they rarely survive long enough to reproduce and therefore the brown mice population continues staying mostly brown.

Then one day a fire scorches most of the field and suddenly the brown mice are easy for predators to pick off but the black mice are now well camouflaged. This shift gives an advantage to the black mice now and the mice with lighter colored fur now have a disadvantage. The result is over a few generations there are more and more black mice surviving, reproducing and increasing the population.

Evolutionary pressure comes in many different forms, but two of the key ones are: food source and predators. A minor random mutation that gives a minority an advantage can lead to big shifts in the genetic makeup of a population over a long period of time. If that mutation makes it easier to avoid being eaten or makes it easy to find food, the organism with that mutation will gain an advantage and be fitter for survival in that environment. Given centuries, millennia and more, part of a population can branch off from the group and face different pressures and therefore evolve differently. And these differences can be small but add up over all those hundreds, thousands, millions of years, leading to a completely different species.

thats no more evolution than a black dog or a white dog. It just means one gets eaten faster allowing the other to succeed. Albinos are still born and still survive and are found in the wild. Evolution doesn't demand color change but demands that species turn into other species. Lizards did not turn into birds, cows did not turn into whales, and monkeys did not turn into men. This is what you must believe if you are a devout evolutionist.

[Badmusic]

You're welcome. I've found over the years that's it's less about believing in Evolution as much as it's understanding it. The vast majority of people I come across who argue against it repeatedly show that they do not understand it in the first place.

Whats to understand about death? With evolution death is required. With Christianity, death is a choice. Evolution, God gives no choice. Christianity, God gives a choice. When one comes from the Christian worldview, what is "good" is defined by God. The Christian God repeatedly describes "life" as "Good". Therefore, if one is to be consistent, and not self contradictory, as a Christian, using Gods definition of good, one cannot claim God used evolution to create Man, because one cannot rationally explain a God who proclaims life is good, and by implication choice is good, (because He also gave us a choice) and then turns around and mandates death.

[hasserl]

You're welcome. I've found over the years that's it's less about believing in Evolution as much as it's understanding it. The vast majority of people I come across who argue against it repeatedly show that they do not understand it in the first place.

Well, at the risk of turning this into yet another thread on evolution, I find that most people who accept it as factual repeatedly show they do not understand it in the first place.

[Badmusic]

Well, at the risk of turning this into yet another thread on evolution, I find that most people who accept it as factual repeatedly show they do not understand it in the first place.

Oh, you meant accepting evolution as fact. Gotcha. Yeah, you are right, they never examine the necessary preconditions which render it absurd, or, if they do, they fallaciously argue the necessary preconditions are not necessary. They consistently demonstrate their lack of understanding, and parrot arguments they heard somewhere else, mistakenly thinking they "apply."

I don't want this to turn into another thread on evolution either. It's about the ontology of God with respect to how Christianity views Him, and how that view is opposed to how God would have to "be" (from a Christian understanding of His being) if He were to have "set evolution in motion", so to speak.

[e90bmw]

Well, at the risk of turning this into yet another thread on evolution, I find that most people who accept it as factual repeatedly show they do not understand it in the first place.

I would agree with that.
People will believe what they want, but, why would one fruit "evolve" into another. Why would a lizard grow wings?

The whole idea of life starting as primordial ooze and "evolving" into all the different life in the plant and animal kingdom defies any logic that I can think of.

[MotoriousRacing]

Amen, brother.

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

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.

[Badmusic]

I would agree with that.
People will believe what they want, but, why would one fruit "evolve" into another. Why would a lizard grow wings?

The whole idea of life starting as primordial ooze and "evolving" into all the different life in the plant and animal kingdom defies any logic that I can think of.

Why indeed? But my post has to do with necessary logical contradictions that arise when a Christian worldview assesses an evolutionary worldview, and finds no contradiction when contradictions are abundant. I started out with the ontology of God's nature as "good". But let's look at it from another angle. If in Genesis, God (from the Christian worldview) proclaims "life" is "good" , why then would He embrace "death" (of less suited individuals) as a means for accomplishing His ultimate purpose? (The communion with Man) If such a "God" cannot be trusted to mean that life is "good" when He proclaims life is good, how can we trust ANYTHING He says? What about justice? What about Love? What about Hope?

When we attempt to re-write the Bible according to the doctrines of evolution, we destroy EVERY aspect of God's nature that makes Him "God" to begin with.

People who claim Christianity as their religion, belief, faith, worldview, or any other name for a claim to TRUTH about the nature of REALITY, have no business or rational means of claiming Evolution is also true. It is one or the other folks, but not both.

[Badmusic]

Amen, brother.

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

Only if you equivocate on the definition of "evolution". Some people want to pretend "evolution" only means "change over time". We are not talking about variation within a species type of evolution, we are talking about "simple single cell organism to human complexity" evolution.

That being said, the focus of my argument then, is on the nature of God, not the nature of evolution, and some people's attempt to side step the issue.

[ArmedJackal]

I would agree with that.
People will believe what they want, but, why would one fruit "evolve" into another. Why would a lizard grow wings?

The whole idea of life starting as primordial ooze and "evolving" into all the different life in the plant and animal kingdom defies any logic that I can think of.

You probably don't understand how your cell phone works either. Your ability to comprehend the logic of a complex topic really has no bearing on its factual accuracy.

[MotoriousRacing]

Only if you equivocate on the definition of "evolution". Some people want to pretend "evolution" only means "change over time". We are not talking about variation within a species type of evolution, we are talking about "simple single cell organism to human complexity" evolution.

That being said, the focus of my argument then, is on the nature of God, not the nature of evolution, and some people's attempt to side step the issue.

Belief in God as Creator presupposes supernatural means.

1. Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside of nature.

2. Evolution is the belief that life and it's speciation occurred by natural means.

Therefore, it is irrational to make the claim "God created life through Evolutionary processes".

Discuss.

Are you tying 1 and 2 above together, as in Naturalism = No God and Evolution = Naturalism (even though you state natural means)? If so, then you are only allowing for one possible answer to you OP, and that is "NO", because by default, your Evolution = Naturalism= No God is without the possibility of God.

It could be that God created all mass and energy, and provided the space for growth, and provided a start time, i.e. The Big Bang. From there, God may have created all life forms on Earth, or it may be possible that microscopic organisms evolved into all species that have ever lived.

This is where you get arguments. God can be responsible for creation i.e. The Big Bang, and macroevolution can also be true. This is what I believe, but in your OP, as I explained above (bold items 1 & 2), you make a statement that appears to be macroevolution and the divine cannot co-exist, hence the arguments in this thread.

btw - heresy or not, I believe in some sort of divine intervention creating all matter and energy, just before The Big Bang. "God" watched the universe grow and may or may not have created the first living organism, which, either through help from God or macroevolution, "created" everything that has ever lived on earth.

Here is where I 'go astray' from common belief. I believe, other than creation of all matter and energy, and perhaps creation of all living species, God did not present himself in any way to the universe until the first species started to contemplate their own existence (i.e. why am I here? what else is out there?) At this point, God provided that species a soul to go along with the conscious; to distinguish right from wrong, etc. That species is represented by Adam and Eve, in the history book called The Bible. I believe in what is stated in The Bible, as God (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) has been revealing himself ever since we were granted a soul.

I don't have all the answers; nobody does, but for now, this works for me.

[Badmusic]

Are you tying 1 and 2 above together, as in Naturalism = No God and Evolution = Naturalism (even though you state natural means?

No. I was simply trying through colloquial rhetoric to eliminate arguments based on the idea "evolution" meant only simple "change", or "change over time" which are equivocations with respect to naturalistic Darwinism. Unfortunately, I discovered the many ways people can misinterpret written text, and take only a few words or phrases out of context and therefore I revised the presentation of my argument several times in an attempt to use more concise, logic centered, if not colloquial or common language.

AThis is where you get arguments. God can be responsible for creation i.e. The Big Bang, and macroevolution can also be true. This is what I believe, but in your OP, as I explained above (bold items 1 & 2), you make a statement that appears to be macroevolution and the divine cannot co-exist, hence the arguments in this ...

My argument allows for the possibility God used evolution to create life. The problem for Christians is that such a reality requires this God to be "not good" which is in contradiction to the traditional, orthodox teaching of Christianity on the nature of God. I never said God and macro evolution cannot co-exist. I am saying "God initiated" macro evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

[Badmusic]

You probably don't understand how your cell phone works either. Your ability to comprehend the logic of a complex topic really has no bearing on its factual accuracy.

This is an ad hominem argument. Do you have anything other than fallacies to contribute?

[MotoriousRacing]

My argument allows for the possibility God used evolution to create life. The problem for Christians is that such a reality 1. requires this God to be "not good" which is in contradiction to the traditional, orthodox teaching of Christianity on the nature of God. 2. I never said God and macro evolution cannot co-exist. I am saying "God initiated" macro evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

1. Why does God using macroevolution require God to be "not good". Do you mean something like, "it didn't happen the way The Bible states it did", therefore God is not good? My view basically states God could have used macroevolution, whether or not macroevolution is real, and I believe God is good.

2. I do not understand your contradiction. Again, this is why you are getting arguments. You have been told by others that "God initiated" macro evolution and Christianity can be compatible to the largest single group of Christians. Do you not believe this?

I'm really not sure what else you want people to say.