Is Belief in a creator God compatible with evolutionary Naturalism?

[Just Dave]

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.

None of that has been observed or proven.
Evolution has always taught the we came from a lower (simple single cell) to a higher and more complexed form of life.

Dave....perhaps you have no understanding of the many Sciences and discoveries that prove an old earth and yes, even evolution.

This lack of understanding doesn't mean a magical god of a tribe of remote people created the vast Cosmos by speaking it into existence my friend.

Look back time proves a very old planet; the mapping of the genome proves evolution. Among other things.

This sand found on the beach is made up almost entirely of the exoskeletons of ancient tiny creatures. From long, long ago...

I don't lack understanding in this, as a matter of fact I know more than most people do about this subject.
Take a look at the bold emphasis of your comment.
In one single sentence you have demonstrated that people do not change, that even some of the most ancient civilizations recognized a higher being, even to this day people still build churches, temples and mosque in recognition of deity.

God (of the Bible) spoke the universe into existence, even the word "universe" bears witness to this.

Uni (one)
Verse (word)

[texan]

None of that has been observed or proven.
Evolution has always taught the we came from a lower (simple single cell) to a higher and more complexed form of life.

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.

[brewdickle]

Some folks try to mix the word of God with man's philosophy.

Here's something to ponder.
If man evolved over millions of years from a lower form of life where is the evidence of this lower form's existence?
Shouldn't we be up to our elbows in millions of years worth of bones?
Given the rate that animals/humans multiply we should have millions of years worth of skeletal evidence to back these evolutionary claims up but we don't.

Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.

The fossil record is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no role.

[Just Dave]

The topic is whether or not evolution and the existence of God can be reconciled and the answer is no.

Genesis 1:26-27 God creates man in His image.

[Badmusic]

Why do you keep insisting that evolutionary theory demands no supernatural abiogenesis?

Because as soon as you say "supernatural", you are no longer describing evolution. You are describing a "step" in the process of creation. Besides that, never, and I mean never, is an evolutionary explanation given that presupposes the existence of God. If you think one exists, go ahead and take my challenge and make a description of an evolutionary process that presupposes the existence of God, and see if you can get an academic scholar to agree with you.

You're conflating two separate ideas, just because it's common for individuals to see the world this way does not make it necessary.

There is no conflation here. I am SEPARATING the ideas. Those who believe Creation and Evolution are compatible philosophies are doing the conflating.

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.

And whom do they think is responsible for the stuff from which abiogenesis sprung?

[Badmusic]

They absolutely do not go hand in hand. Any respectable scientist would not conflate the two. They are separate ideas. If you believe otherwise, I'm curious to know where you're getting your info.

.

Since logic demands steady state theories to be irrational, Big bang cosmology is the accepted theory. The Big bang happened at some point in the past, before which there was "nothing". Since "ex nihilo nihil fit" is the accepted viewpoint of the day with respect to material things, the Big bang implies a non-material cause. It just so happens a "non-material cause" is one way to describe "God". In other words, logically, the Big bang implies the existence of God. This is why so many theorists are trying so desperately to replace it. However, what I meant by "Secular Big bang cosmology", was the assumption made on behalf of Atheistic worldviews, that the universe did not need a cause. These folks, when discussing Origins, conveniently ignore the logical implications of the theory as described above, because so much else of it can be made to support their overall worldview, making it 'appear' as if they go hand in hand. Perhaps I was not clear in my original comment to which you refer... personally (not that I want to bring my personal beliefs into the discussion) I believe that the Big bang is philosophical corroboration of God's existence, and have no problem with it on this point. You see, a person's presuppositional worldview determines whether or not one sees the Big bang as corroborating for Evolution, or corroborating for God. It is evidence for neither.

[Badmusic]

And a word to those of you who are debating whether or not evolution is VALID...

The topic of this post is not validity...it is whether or not the philosophy of Evolution is compatible with the philosophy of Christian Monotheism.

Do try to stay on point.

[WASR10]

Because as soon as you say "supernatural", you are no longer describing evolution. You are describing a "step" in the process of creation. Besides that, never, and I mean never, is an evolutionary explanation given that presupposes the existence of God. If you think one exists, go ahead and take my challenge and make a description of an evolutionary process that presupposes the existence of God, and see if you can get an academic scholar to agree with you.




There is no conflation here. I am SEPARATING the ideas. Those who believe Creation and Evolution are compatible philosophies are doing the conflating.



And whom do they think is responsible for the stuff from which abiogenesis sprung?

The existence of God is completely outside the scope of evolutionary description. The reason there is no presupposition of God in evolution is because God is neither required nor exempted for the theory to be described. To claim that the lack of presupposition is proof that both God and evolution cannot exist together isn't separating the ideas.

You don't need to have a position on God to describe gravity, time travel, genetic mutations. Neither do you need one to describe evolution. The idea that evolution is a completely natural process that excludes the existence of God isn't necessary to describe the theory accurately, either.

Sent from my tappy device thingy

[bigmike82]

it is whether or not the philosophy of Evolution is compatible with the philosophy of Christian Monotheism.

It clearly is. Unless you try to attach some definition of evolution that says "evolution is the anti-belief in God", which is what you appear to do. Naturalism? Really? What scientific study is that again?

It just so happens a "non-material cause" is one way to describe "God". In other words, logically, the Big bang implies the existence of God.

No. If you truly follow that logic, the Big Bang *could* imply the existence of God. It could also imply that, given a bajillion years of time, the weird quantum probabilities do end up creating something out of nothing. Remember that the physical laws we all know so well don't exist at all in the sub sub atomic world.

Again...none of this precludes the existence of God. It's a way of describing how things *are* (or at the very least, how the physical evidence would suggest things are). It doesn't cover the metaphysical...the why.

Finally, the Big Bang has *nothing* to do with evolution. Those are completely different theories dealing with completely different branches of science.

[Badmusic]

The existence of God is completely outside the scope of evolutionary description...

Sent from my tappy device thingy

Which is my point. Evolution cannot be described while claiming "God did it". Therefore, if one was to describe it while claiming "God did it", one would no longer be describing Evolution. The Philosophy of Creation is exclusive of the Philosophy of Evolution, and vice versa. One cannot believe BOTH are true and real at the same time and in the same way and be logically consistent.

[Badmusic]

It clearly is. Unless you try to attach some definition of evolution that says "evolution is the anti-belief in God", which is what you appear to do.

No, i appear to do that in your opinion.

Naturalism? Really? What scientific study is that again?

Your sarcasm aside, you missed the point. Badly. I did not say it was a science. I said it was a philosophical belief about the nature of reality and the universe.

No. If you truly follow that logic, the Big Bang *could* imply the existence of God. It could also imply that, given a bajillion years of time, the weird quantum probabilities do end up creating something out of nothing.

No, 'quantum probabilities' cannot create something out of nothing, because where nothing exists, quantum probabilities do not exist as well.

Remember that the physical laws we all know so well don't exist at all in the sub sub atomic world.

This misses the point of what "nothing" is. I think you need to re-examine what you think 'nothing' means.

Again...none of this precludes the existence of God. It's a way of describing how things *are* (or at the very least, how the physical evidence would suggest things are). It doesn't cover the metaphysical...the why.

My post does not cover the topic of "how things are", it covers the topic of "why" things are. Again, you have missed the point. Badly.

Finally, the Big Bang has *nothing* to do with evolution. Those are completely different theories dealing with completely different branches of science.

Setting aside the fact that we are not talking about *science* with respect to my OP, I'll go ahead and knock this softball out of the park for you. The Big Bang has EVERYTHING to do with Evolution. It HAS to. For *Evolution* could not have been started without the *stuff* from which it began, EXISTING in the first place. One cannot have an evolutionary theory of life, when there is no MATTER from which the life may spring. Therefore, one must EXPLAIN how the *stuff* got there. But then, you could only understand this if you were looking at this from a philosophical point of view, which you don't seem to be doing, being stuck in a scientific frame of mind, and most likely assuming matter just always existed, despite the evidence of the Big Bang.

[bigmike82]

'quantum probabilities' cannot create something out of nothing

Correct. I should have said 'seemingly' nothing. Like turning an apparently empty void into the Universe we know today.

it covers the topic of "why" things are.

No. You don't. Evolution doesn't give a hoot about 'why'. It describes the how.

But then, you could only understand this if you were looking at this from a philosophical point of view

The two are totally incompatible. You can't have a reasonable discussion about a scientific concept if you start trying to apply subjective philosophical reasoning to it.

To you, the big bang shows God's work. To an Atheist, it illustrates the functioning of the laws of nature. To a Hindu it shows the great cosmic egg. To a Norse, it shows the creation of Muspell. All of those are equally valid and equally unprovable.

One cannot believe BOTH are true and real at the same time and in the same way and be logically consistent.

You are 100% wrong. There is no philosophical aspect of Evolution. It's Science. Period. It's a description of how. The why is a completely separate argument.

[Badmusic]

Correct. I should have said 'seemingly' nothing. Like turning an apparently empty void into the Universe we know today.


No. You don't. Evolution doesn't give a hoot about 'why'. It describes the how.


The two are totally incompatible. You can't have a reasonable discussion about a scientific concept if you start trying to apply subjective philosophical reasoning to it.

To you, the big bang shows God's work. To an Atheist, it illustrates the functioning of the laws of nature. To a Hindu it shows the great cosmic egg. To a Norse, it shows the creation of Muspell. All of those are equally valid and equally unprovable.


You are 100% wrong. There is no philosophical aspect of Evolution. It's Science. Period. It's a description of how. The why is a completely separate argument.

it is apparent you have never studied philosophy. Just because you don't see the connections does not mean I am 100% wrong, so, until you get back on the actual topic, I will no longer respond to you, because steering for someone else just does not work.

[WASR10]

Which is my point. Evolution cannot be described while claiming "God did it". Therefore, if one was to describe it while claiming "God did it", one would no longer be describing Evolution. The Philosophy of Creation is exclusive of the Philosophy of Evolution, and vice versa. One cannot believe BOTH are true and real at the same time and in the same way and be logically consistent.

I agree the idea of Creation and the idea of Evolution do not need to include the other to be considered. Evolution simply does not address creation. As I stated in my previous post, God is outside the scope of the description of evolution.

I can describe how dinosaurs became birds without including God in the process. But that does not rule out the existence of God, and/or whether He created the universe. They can both be believed, logically, as far as I can see.

[texan]

Which is my point. Evolution cannot be described while claiming "God did it". Therefore, if one was to describe it while claiming "God did it", one would no longer be describing Evolution. The Philosophy of Creation is exclusive of the Philosophy of Evolution, and vice versa. One cannot believe BOTH are true and real at the same time and in the same way and be logically consistent.

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.