Is Belief in a creator God compatible with evolutionary Naturalism?

[Whiterabbit]

When one says something to the effect of "God used evolution to create..." one is essentially saying "God used a process which precludes himself from the process", and that, is Logically impossible.

Disagree. Are you saying that belief in God is incompatible with the concept of Free Will? (let me rephrase: You are saying exactly that belief in God is incompatible with Free Will). Free Will implies choice without the direct control of God (that seems to happen all the time in the Bible, actually). No Free Will also implies no accountability for your decisions or actions, since God is in control of your destiny at all times, as long as you believe in God. That is starting down a VERY dangerous path.

Seriously, I do not understand your logic. You are saying that if Genesis is true, then nothing can happen without God's direct intervention? Why would he tell Eve not to eat from the tree of life? Seems that would be unnecessary, since her movements, blood flows, breathing, talking, and interacting are all done via God's intervention? Each of these things are a process. They all must surely (using your logic) be incompatible with belief in God, who controls these processes every moment? (which he can do in belief, being omnipresent and omnipotent). Original Sin could never have happened, since if the beginning of genesis is true, we know that God forbade Eve to eat from the Tree of Life and yet commanded all physical movements at all times, since He could not have produces a process that would allow for activity that precludes Himself from being there.

Thus Genesis is incompatible with itself and we can disprove God. All we have to do is posit your statement up there is correct.

OR........ We consider your statement as disproven. one of the two....

[sdkevin]

I've had this discussion many times.

Science has proven there have been many things living on the planet before Man showed up - even cave man. So much for Creationism.

Do you think NASA made all these fossils found across the globe to put in museums?

Animals Man has never seen before? Name the pre-historic species that we get to look at today, plants, birds or reptiles.

[Not a Cook]

I've had this discussion many times.

Science has proven there have been many things living on the planet before Man showed up - even cave man. So much for Creationism.

Do you think NASA made all these fossils found across the globe to put in museums?

Animals Man has never seen before? Name the pre-historic species that we get to look at today, plants, birds or reptiles.

I think you may misunderstand the beliefs of those of us that take the Genesis account literally. We believe all creatures were created during that first week. Because of the great flood, we expect fossils of all types of creatures - of both living animals and extinct animals. Just because a type of animal has become extinct, it does NOT mean it predated man. I'm not sure why you seem to think it would. As history has observed, man is often the cause of an extinction. Rather, the fossil record supports the Genesis account, thanks to the very lack of transitional forms which must be necessary if evolutionary theory were true.

I'm not sure why you referenced NASA in respect to fossils. However, it is worth noting that all "fossils" which purport to show transitional stages have been scientifically debunked as either outright hoaxes or otherwise exposed as having been badly misinterpreted. FWIW, some of the debunking has been thanks to Christian scientists (such as those at ICR), but much debunking has also been done by atheistic and agnostic secular scientists. Funny thing: when a supposed fossil of a supposed transitional form shows up, it is widely announced and becomes popular knowledge. However, when that same supposed fossil is shown to either be a fabrication or else badly misinterpreted, only a relatively small number of people ever seem to hear about it.

And no - science has not been able to prove anything lived on earth before the appearance of man. Please remember that science, or more properly the scientific method, cannot prove either the Genesis account nor evolutionary theory simply because it cannot test either "origin theory" under controlled, repeatable conditions. Whether you are an atheist or a Buddhist or a Christian or a whatever, you exercise faith in believing whichever "origin theory" to which you may subscribe. You cannot prove any of them scientifically.

[1GunLover]

Look up "The Big Bag Theory", scientist have proven we started from a primeval atom or the "Cosmic Egg"'.

Now I ask what came 1st the Chicken or the Egg???

[Not a Cook]

Look up "The Big Bag Theory", scientist have proven we started from a primeval atom or the "Cosmic Egg"'.

Now I ask what came 1st the Chicken or the Egg???

Again, "scientists have proven..."? By its nature, the scientific method cannot prove any "origin theory". No respectable scientist would claim otherwise.

[Magazineman]

What's this about "transitional" fossils?

Nearly every creature (& plant) on earth, current or extinct, has had fossils found of it's earlier versions.

Earlier examples trend to the more simplistic side. Later or current ones being more sophisticated.

What exactly do you require to acknowledge this process to be evolution?

Or are we going with Demons on this one?

[Not a Cook]

What's this about "transitional" fossils?

Nearly every creature (& plant) on earth, current or extinct, has had fossils found of it's earlier versions.

Earlier examples trend to the more simplistic side. Later or current ones being more sophisticated.

What exactly do you require to acknowledge this process to be evolution?

Or are we going with Demons on this one?

I'm not sure whether or not you're intimately familiar with creationist theory based upon the Genesis account. Perhaps the very short article at this link might serve you as a very light primer on the subject: http://www.icr.org/article/should-we...rms-fossil-re/

What this very short article does not address is change within "kinds". The Genesis account fully allows for changes within "kinds", and does not at all exclude them. Some refer to this as micro-evolutionary change. The question of transitional forms is concerned with what is referred to as macro-evolutionary change, or a case in which one "kind" transforms into a different "kind". This macro-evolutionary theory is what Genesis excludes. For example, yes the canine "kind" may differentiate into everything from grey wolves to chihuahas, but they are all still canines. They will never differentiate into something altogether different. There are no "transitional fossils" supporting such macro-evolutionary theory of inter-species (or rather inter-"kind") changes.

I suggest you read some of Dr. Morris' works on the topic if you want to become more familiar with creation theory based on the Genesis account.

[brewdickle]

And no - science has not been able to prove anything lived on earth before the appearance of man. Please remember that science, or more properly the scientific method, cannot prove either the Genesis account nor evolutionary theory simply because it cannot test either "origin theory" under controlled, repeatable conditions. Whether you are an atheist or a Buddhist or a Christian or a whatever, you exercise faith in believing whichever "origin theory" to which you may subscribe. You cannot prove any of them scientifically.

The theory of evolution is not meant to explain the origin of life. It explains changes in species over time. Evolution can be proved by the scientific method. That is why it is so widely accepted as much as gravity is a theory.

Creationism, however, is merely a hypothesis for the origin of life and there is not a shred of evidence for it. All we have are stories that have been passed down by word of mouth, then written down by bronze-age people who knew very little about the world they lived in. Word of mouth is considered hearsay. And there is a very good reason why hearsay evidence is inadmissible in a court of law... because it is unreliable.

[MotoriousRacing]

This Discussions of Faith forum seems to boil down to Protestant versus Catholic views.

[brewdickle]

I'm not sure whether or not you're intimately familiar with creationist theory based upon the Genesis account. Perhaps the very short article at this link might serve you as a very light primer on the subject: http://www.icr.org/article/should-we...rms-fossil-re/

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

[Magazineman]

Change within "kinds" is a given. The oldest (over 3 billion years old) life forms in the fossil records are single-cell ocean dwelling specks.

They pre-date EVERYTHING. So of course there were changes within kinds. They are our grandparents.

[pbsmind]

... And no - science has not been able to prove anything lived on earth before the appearance of man. Please remember that science, or more properly the scientific method, cannot prove either the Genesis account nor evolutionary theory simply because it cannot test either "origin theory" under controlled, repeatable conditions. Whether you are an atheist or a Buddhist or a Christian or a whatever, you exercise faith in believing whichever "origin theory" to which you may subscribe. You cannot prove any of them scientifically.

I know it's not saying much, but even the Catholic Church has recognized evolution as a scientific theory (i.e. fact)...

As Not a Cook said, it's a theory and they can not be tested by the scientific method. Also the odds of the big bang and evolution are so bad from a pure mathematical view they're considered impossible.

brewdickle, theory does not equal fact, hence why it's called a theory.

The biggest problem with evolution for me as a Christian is original sin. When did sin enter the world if we evolved? When did man start having souls?

[WASR10]

In Genesis 30, Jacob bred superior livestock through intentional selection, this is akin to the process of natural selection. The idea of Intelligent Design suggests a higher, or supernatural power behind the origin of the universe. This doesn't necessarily mean creationism, or a literal understanding of the Genesis creation model, but essentially that 'God did it.' The OP's definition of evolutionary naturism excludes the possibility of God, but the process in the theory of evolution does not. An interesting part of the Big Bang theory is in Hawking's cone of experience, meaning that anything that occurred or happened prior to the big bang and the beginning of time is irrelevant. I think this leaves open the possibility of intelligent design within its boundaries.

Personally, I believe in an omnipotent God who could choose to create the Universe over a period of billions of years or create the Universe as though it appears to have billions of years of history. I believe the account in Genesis fits to either possibility from certain points of view. My faith and the practice of my religion is not affected either way.

[brewdickle]

As Not a Cook said, it's a theory and they can not be tested by the scientific method. Also the odds of the big bang and evolution are so bad from a pure mathematical view they're considered impossible.

brewdickle, theory does not equal fact, hence why it's called a theory.

The biggest problem with evolution for me as a Christian is original sin. When did sin enter the world if we evolved? When did man start having souls?

[Bill Carson]

Belief in God as Creator presupposes supernatural means.

Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside of nature.

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.

Nope