Is Belief in a creator God compatible with evolutionary Naturalism?

[Badmusic]

Evolutionary theory simply doesn't deal with abiogenesis,

Yes it does. Evolution always demands an explanation of how the material universe from which it sprang came into existence. You may choose God, or you may choose the Big Bang, or some other theory.

The problem either way, is that every description of evolution presupposes the non- existence of God. I'll say it again since you refuse to address the actual issue...If you think Evolution allows for the existence of God, then describe an evolutionary system and it's processes that does not presuppose the non- existence of God, and see if you can get an academic scholar to agree with you that "God did it". Go ahead. Describe one. Just one. I'll wait here. Abiogenesis is necessary to Evolution, and God either created the materials or He didn't. You can't have it both ways.

[Badmusic]

Some evolutionary proponents will believe in natural abiogenesis and some will believe in supernatural creation.

And those who believe in "supernatural abiogenesis" are no longer talking about Evolution, because "supernatural abiogenesis" is just a fancy way to say "Creation". No serious scholar claims "God created" as an "Evolutionary" explanation, despite what texan wants you to think.People who "believe" in supernatural evolution are not evidence that the idea is valid dude. So, focus on the actual point I am making instead of your straw man. "Supernatural creation" is simply "creation", and not etymologically synonymous with "Evolution".

EX: How did sexual reproduction originate? Or, How did multicellular life and it's interdependent systems originate? (from single celled life) How did the first living cell originate?

Remember, your descriptive terms must presuppose God's existence. I'd say good luck, but I don't believe in luck.

"Evolution" is ALWAYS described in NATURAL terms. NATURALISM is the belief that only material (natural) things exist. There is no supernatural. Therefore, Evolution is a natural description of life. The natural description of life definitionally excludes a supernatural description.

So there you have it, use one of my examples as suggested, or use one of your own. I don't care. Just try and show how a natural description can include the supernatural, without conflating the ideas.

[texan]

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.

[bigmike82]

Just because you don't see the connections does not mean I am 100% wrong

No, what you believe about evolution is 100% wrong. Your attempts to bridge a science with a philosophy (especially in this case and the way that you're trying to do) are completely wrong.

[five.five-six]

Evolution is nothing but hocus pocus anyway. They even figured out a way to believe men being sexual attracted to men was somehow a reproductive advantage. .

[Badmusic]

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.

I see, so because I do not acknowledge you win, you run and hide your head in the sand while hurling ad hominem invective that I am not rational or respectful. What's respectful about that accusation? Have a good time with that. I'm all in.

[Badmusic]

Ok, some of you still don't get the point I am making, preferring instead to toss ad hominem accusations, so let me try this another way.

The Christian worldview teaches that God is "good". It can rationally assert this even in a reality filled with evil because the doctrine of free will teaches that "choice" is what assigns responsibility to 'entities' for the consequence of their actions. Make a poor moral choice and one can be considered evil. Make a correct moral choice and one can be considered good. (a paraphrase of doctrine so please don't be pedantic in your responses and pick apart my 'poor' word choice)

Since God gave his creation a "choice" to be good or bad, God is not "evil", because the creation is "responsible" for its behavior.


With the Evolutionary worldview, (Where "God" is the instigator of the process by which the world is populated) as we understand "Evolution" to proceed by means of Natural Selection, the "creation" has no "choice" but to play by the rules determined for it by the creator.

Natural selection necessarily requires competition between organisms for scarce resources, that frequently result in a bloody, violent, brutal, horror show of pain and suffering in the basic struggle for survival of the "creation" (creatures) locked within the parameters of life set up for it by its "creator".

There is no way to reconcile the progress of Evolution through the process of natural selection while describing the nightmarish struggle for survival as "Good".

Because the "creation" has no choice, it is not "responsible" for the evil it must engage just to survive, and since such a "God" did ontologically have the "choice" of means, He is responsible.

Therefore, The Christian "God" is "Good", and The "God" of Evolution" is "Not Good".

From reason, the laws of Logic inform us that ( First, 'Law of identity' and second, 'Law of non-contradiction') a thing cannot both be what it "is" and what it "is not", in other words, God cannot be both "Good" and "Not Good" at the same time.

Therefore one has a "choice" to make... ( here comes the third law, "Exclusion", the either/or law)

One must believe that EITHER God is "GOOD", and conforms to the nature of "God" as described by Christian doctrine, OR God is "NOT GOOD", and conforms to the nature of God as presupposed by Evolutionary 'doctrine' (Natural Selection)

One cannot RATIONALLY hold that both descriptions of God are true, in the same way at the same time. One must believe (if one claims Christianity) in the Christian God, or the Evolutionary God, but one cannot believe they are both the SAME God.

[WASR10]

Ok, some of you still don't get the point I am making, preferring instead to toss ad hominem accusations, so let me try this another way.

The Christian worldview teaches that God is "good". It can rationally assert this even in a reality filled with evil because the doctrine of free will teaches that "choice" is what assigns responsibility to 'entities' for the consequence of their actions. Make a poor moral choice and one can be considered evil. Make a correct moral choice and one can be considered good. (a paraphrase of doctrine so please don't be pedantic in your responses and pick apart my 'poor' word choice)

Since God gave his creation a "choice" to be good or bad, God is not "evil", because the creation is "responsible" for its behavior.


With the Evolutionary worldview, (Where "God" is the instigator of the process by which the world is populated) as we understand "Evolution" to proceed by means of Natural Selection, the "creation" has no "choice" but to play by the rules determined for it by the creator.

Natural selection necessarily requires competition between organisms for scarce resources, that frequently result in a bloody, violent, brutal, horror show of pain and suffering in the basic struggle for survival of the "creation" (creatures) locked within the parameters of life set up for it by its "creator".

There is no way to reconcile the progress of Evolution through the process of natural selection while describing the nightmarish struggle for survival as "Good".

Because the "creation" has no choice, it is not "responsible" for the evil it must engage just to survive, and since such a "God" did ontologically have the "choice" of means, He is responsible.

Therefore, The Christian "God" is "Good", and The "God" of Evolution" is "Not Good".

From reason, the laws of Logic inform us that ( First, 'Law of identity' and second, 'Law of non-contradiction') a thing cannot both be what it "is" and what it "is not", in other words, God cannot be both "Good" and "Not Good" at the same time.

Therefore one has a "choice" to make... ( here comes the third law, "Exclusion", the either/or law)

One must believe that EITHER God is "GOOD", and conforms to the nature of "God" as described by Christian doctrine, OR God is "NOT GOOD", and conforms to the nature of God as presupposed by Evolutionary 'doctrine' (Natural Selection)

One cannot RATIONALLY hold that both descriptions of God are true, in the same way at the same time. One must believe (if one claims Christianity) in the Christian God, or the Evolutionary God, but one cannot believe they are both the SAME God.

The basis of this argument is flawed. Christian doctrine does not assign the challenge of moral behavior to all creation. The covenant is only between God and Man. Only human beings have an eternal consequence to their choices. Therefore the assessment that the God of Christianity and the God of Evolution cannot be the same - because Natural Selection requires supposed evil actions by organisms - is not valid. The concept of evolution and the concept of creation are not mutually exclusive because humanity possesses the knowledge of Good and Evil and the animal kingdom possesses the instinct of survival.

[Badmusic]

The basis of this argument is flawed. Christian doctrine does not assign the challenge of moral behavior to all creation. The covenant is only between God and Man. Only human beings have an eternal consequence to their choices. Therefore the assessment that the God of Christianity and the God of Evolution cannot be the same - because Natural Selection requires supposed evil actions by organisms - is not valid. The concept of evolution and the concept of creation are not mutually exclusive because humanity possesses the knowledge of Good and Evil and the animal kingdom possesses the instinct of survival.

The argument is not flawed on the basis you suggest, because the argument applies to the RELEVANT part of creation inside either worldview, "Man". Just because you extend it into the animal kingdom does not make it irrelevant to man's brutal, bloody violent, pain and suffering filled struggle to survive. Nice try. Try again?

- because Natural Selection requires supposed evil actions by organisms -

^ I never said this, you have mis-characterized my argument, and this has led you to your straw man rebuttal. My argument has nothing to do with 'evil actions by organisms', it has to do with who is RESPONSIBLE for the evil. "Evil" is done in both worldviews, but CHOICE is the determining factor as to whom is responsible. Without choice, one cannot be held responsible for evil. CHOICE is the factor you ignored, by instead, focusing on the "evil" act itself.

[WASR10]

The argument is not flawed on the basis you suggest, because the argument applies to the RELEVANT part of creation inside either worldview, "Man". Just because you extend it into the animal kingdom does not make it irrelevant to man's brutal, bloody violent, pain and suffering filled struggle to survive. Nice try. Try again?

Both the concepts of Creation and of Evolution deal with the ENTIRE history of life, not just MAN. The only way the “Doesn't have a choice” scenario works is explaining the process of evolving from basic elements into intelligent conscious-aware beings, which would then necessarily include the animal kingdom. If that history is to be included, then the Creation process must include the idea that only Man is subject to morality and its consequences, but not the animal kingdom. With the argument, that only a “good” God creates with a choice of morality, and only a “not good” God creates with a natural instinct with no choice, is therefore flawed. It is evident that humans now possess the knowledge of right from wrong. Both scenarios include the natural instinct and freedom of choice in their scope. It is then not irrational to believe in a God that includes both concepts.

^ I never said this, you have mis-characterized my argument, and this has led you to your straw man rebuttal. My argument has nothing to do with 'evil actions by organisms', it has to do with who is RESPONSIBLE for the evil. "Evil" is done in both worldviews, but CHOICE is the determining factor as to whom is responsible. Without choice, one cannot be held responsible for evil. CHOICE is the factor you ignored, by instead, focusing on the "evil" act itself.

You just said that both include actions of evil. You stated clearly that the motivation behind these actions is what dictates either a “good” or a “not good” Creator. So, then, evil actions are indeed required in both scenarios. You say yourself, the whole point is is the question of who is responsible for the evil. If the creation doesn't have a choice, you said that would make that creator “not good.” How then is what I stated a mischaracterization? If a being does not know the difference between right and wrong, how can it be determined to be evil? The only way to determine evil is the ability to distinguish evil from good. Since both scenarios include the entire history of life, when you state that God is responsible for the evil actions of the beings of the evolution concept, that must include all life. Why would it just be Man? If its because man is the being that has the ability to separate right from wrong, then he indeed has a choice after all.

Because the "creation" has no choice, it is not "responsible" for the evil it must engage just to survive, and since such a "God" did ontologically have the "choice" of means, He*is*responsible.

Therefore, The Christian "God" is "Good", and The "God" of Evolution" is "Not Good".

[Badmusic]

.
How then is what I stated a mischaracterization?

I already explained that. Perhaps trying to see each worldview as a separate and complete concept, together as a complete and distinct understanding of nature and reality together with its NECESSARY PRESUPPOSITIONS will help you to figure it out. Until you wrap your mind around the idea that any belief about the nature of reality comes with necessary presuppositions that also must be true, I don't think there is anything I can say that will help you understand your error in thinking. Christian worldview God IS NOT responsible for evil. Evolutionary worldview God IS responsible for evil. There is no common ground between the two, (concepts of the nature of God) and they cannot be made into a single comprehensive worldview.

[Badmusic]

You stated clearly that the motivation behind these actions is what dictates either a “good” or a “not good” Creator.

No, I did not. I stated that whether or not the creature (Man) has a choice determines responsibility for evil. This concept is traditional Christian belief, and if you deny it, your argument is not with me, it is with Christianity. I made no statements about God's "motivation".

So even though I said I could think of nothing more to help you understand your misunderstanding... I'll show you this quote of yours where you re-wrote what I said in a way that allows for a different meaning to be drawn from what you claim are my words.

[ArmedJackal]

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 are making an incredibly abstract and specific argument. It is fun to watch the back and forth on this one.

[colossians323]

You are making an incredibly abstract and specific argument. It is fun to watch the back and forth on this one.

Hi friend......miss you

[RAMCLAP]

Since no intermediate species have been found in the fossil record after 160 years, then no claim of "God did it" can't be claimed since it does not exist. Natural Selection is in perfect keeping with the Bible. Evolution by mutation needs to be flushed as the turd that it is. If it cannot be reproduced by the Scientific Method then it is not valid and must be discarded. Yes I know. viruses mutate all of the time. They mutate into other viruses. They don't mutate into other species an in every case they kill the host and therefore commit suicide. Not evolution.