How God can create through evolution:

[Audie]

RickD wrote: Did Darwin teach it is unguided?


Philip wrote:
What does it matter what Darwin taught about that. It's what most Darwinists assert that really matters

It matters because if that's what Darwinian evolution teaches, then first, if someone believes in Theistic Evolution, which is guided, then they don't believe in Darwinian evolution. And second, we have at least, two different kinds of evolution. Is ToE guided or unguided?

I think this stuff needs to be defined.

"Darwinina evoluion" is so 19th century, dont you think so?

And, while I am correcting the local grammar and usage tsar, I wish to point out
that a theory does not teach.

If you think that evolution is guided, is it like with periodic asteroid strikes to wipe out most existing life forms? Likewise with a flood? God guided filaria worms to do their thing?

Assuming that God sent a cosmic ray just so for this mutation that was needed at a certain moment?

HOW ABOUT a god, who seeth all things past and present in a universe that just is
and is so because of his great wisdom?

He didnt know that setting up the universe would lead to human beings, and had
to throw comets about, chastise the overzealous cave bears that were trying to
eat up his brood stock, and whatnot?

You have thought this through?

[Philip]

Sharks use modified body armor for teeth. It works, but its an odd thing for a designer to have done.

God the Creator is an artist. Many things look odd to us - especially at the microscopic levels. And, as any artist will tell you, they like to experiment and also try things of whimsy - as it so suits their fancy of the moment. A real artist doesn't like to conform to the pre-conceived notions of others as to what their art should look like. Also, God did not create THIS world, so that it would be perfect, as He knew bestowing free will would negate that. This world is a a marvelous place of contradictions, predators and prey, violence, war - all these things that are only temporary. How incredibly fascinated we are with the Creation and its details - with vast libraries of books and universities obsessed with understanding its countless nuances. So, the creation was not all about THIS world, but the next one. And as an Artist, God has our rapt attention! And He created things with hierarchies of importance as well as interdependencies.

And, are we to believe that evolution, out of the vast millions of species it supposedly produced, evolved only ONE creature to have the intelligence and capability to dominate all others, the only one to be able to impact the entire planet (whether for good or for bad)? The only one able to design awesome, complex things, to create and appreciate music, art, literature - only ONE???!!! Only one that can talk and sing, speak a multitude of languages. And why does only that one creature universally seek a spiritual understanding of the world, to seek some gods or God? And, make no mistake about it, at the core of the world's civilizations are spiritual beliefs that drive how they perceive how things are and ought to be.

Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with the origin of things - as what those things were (as opposed to non-functioning and irrelevant things) and how they were instantly created functioning and interacting with mind-blowing designs - these things and their precision made POSSIBLE everything which followed it. If random, chaotic, and undesigned things with inconsistent properties and undefined functions had first appeared, NOTHING that presently exists, would.

[Kurieuo]

RickD wrote: Did Darwin teach it is unguided?


Philip wrote:
What does it matter what Darwin taught about that. It's what most Darwinists assert that really matters

It matters because if that's what Darwinian evolution teaches, then first, if someone believes in Theistic Evolution, which is guided, then they don't believe in Darwinian evolution. And second, we have at least, two different kinds of evolution. Is ToE guided or unguided?

I think this stuff needs to be defined.

Darwin aside, two crowds have developed who are divided. One who like to affirm that evolution may have been guided (intelligently so), the other who wish to avoid any possibility of "guidance" altogether.

For example, take a read of this Rick: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... evolution/ I think you'll find a few answers to your question at that link (if you haven't read it already).

Despite what that author feels is a case of playing up to the "faithful", I think philosophy has had much influence. Those like Eugene Scott are in my opinion being purist scientists and understand the limits of science to not become a dogmatic philosophy declaring what is or isn't the case of God.

She was very big in making a strong stance against ID proponents many years back. And I suspect she understands through her experience debating against ID proponents, that those who declare that evolution is unguided have committed themselves to a secular naturalist philosophy which isn't science, but the philosophy of naturalism dressed up as science. This is in the same vein of ID which she no doubt saw as creationism trying to be dressed up as science.

[abelcainsbrother]

Today part of believing the theory of evolution requires one to reject or not worry about what Charles Darwin said in "The Origin of Species" because if one does? It reveals how dishonest scientists have been to keep the theory of evolution going for all of these years later.I mean sure a person could just read it and choose to believe it but if they actually researched evolution it reveals how dishonest scientists have beenb to keep it going. Evolution is a "faith" science and biologists are the High Priests of it and only they can say what is right about it or not and we must believe them as they hide behind their wall of peer review.

I would say Theistic evolutionists believe evolution was God guided but atheists who accept evolution believe what guides it are environmental pressures and random DNA copying errors,eventhough they don't actually know what drives evolution and have no real answer how life got started or how sex organs evolved for both males and females of each species so that they can breed.These things they have no real answers to and only assume and make up stories to explain them.

[Kurieuo]

RickD wrote: Did Darwin teach it is unguided?


Philip wrote:
What does it matter what Darwin taught about that. It's what most Darwinists assert that really matters

It matters because if that's what Darwinian evolution teaches, then first, if someone believes in Theistic Evolution, which is guided, then they don't believe in Darwinian evolution. And second, we have at least, two different kinds of evolution. Is ToE guided or unguided?

I think this stuff needs to be defined.

"Darwinina evoluion" is so 19th century, dont you think so?

And, while I am correcting the local grammar and usage tsar, I wish to point out
that a theory does not teach.

If you think that evolution is guided, is it like with periodic asteroid strikes to wipe out most existing life forms? Likewise with a flood? God guided filaria worms to do their thing?

Assuming that God sent a cosmic ray just so for this mutation that was needed at a certain moment?

HOW ABOUT a god, who seeth all things past and present in a universe that just is
and is so because of his great wisdom?

He didnt know that setting up the universe would lead to human beings, and had
to throw comets about, chastise the overzealous cave bears that were trying to
eat up his brood stock, and whatnot?

You have thought this through?

So 19th century and hung up on Victorian thinking with what God would or wouldn't design.

[Audie]

RickD wrote: Did Darwin teach it is unguided?


Philip wrote:
What does it matter what Darwin taught about that. It's what most Darwinists assert that really matters

It matters because if that's what Darwinian evolution teaches, then first, if someone believes in Theistic Evolution, which is guided, then they don't believe in Darwinian evolution. And second, we have at least, two different kinds of evolution. Is ToE guided or unguided?

I think this stuff needs to be defined.

"Darwinina evoluion" is so 19th century, dont you think so?

And, while I am correcting the local grammar and usage tsar, I wish to point out
that a theory does not teach.

If you think that evolution is guided, is it like with periodic asteroid strikes to wipe out most existing life forms? Likewise with a flood? God guided filaria worms to do their thing?

Assuming that God sent a cosmic ray just so for this mutation that was needed at a certain moment?

HOW ABOUT a god, who seeth all things past and present in a universe that just is
and is so because of his great wisdom?

He didnt know that setting up the universe would lead to human beings, and had
to throw comets about, chastise the overzealous cave bears that were trying to
eat up his brood stock, and whatnot?

You have thought this through?

So 19th century and hung up on Victorian thinking with what God would or wouldn't design.

That is not me, as I dont think a fictional god is likely to do much of anything.

im trying to find out what a believer in a meddler-god thinks his god would do to guide evolution


I am also not the one who makes up silly nonsense about evolution and presents it as reasons that Toe is false.

The one or ones who when asked to provide a single datum point contrary to ToE find they cannot do so.

[RickD]

audie wrote:
Darwinina evoluion" is so 19th century, dont you think so?

And, while I am correcting the local grammar and usage tsar, I wish to point out
that a theory does not teach.

I'm not equating Darwinian evolution with the Theory of Evolution. I don't know if the two are the same, or not.

I mentioned Darwinian evolution because evolutionists have mentioned it. And to correct your correction of me, I was referring to Darwinian evolution or Darwin himself, as teaching. Not the ToE. But really, you don't think the ToE is there to teach what evolution is? If not, then tell those who use it, to stop. You should be preaching to your evolutionist choir about that.

audie wrote:
If you think that evolution is guided, is it like with periodic asteroid strikes to wipe out most existing life forms? Likewise with a flood? God guided filaria worms to do their thing?

I don't think one thing or another about if evolution is guided. I'm assuming evolution is true for the sake of the conversation. And I'm trying to understand what those who believe in evolution, whatever kind, believe. Just like if you were to get into a discussion about what God does, you'd have to assume God exists, if only for the sake of the discussion.

Assuming that God sent a cosmic ray just so for this mutation that was needed at a certain moment?

HOW ABOUT a god, who seeth all things past and present in a universe that just is
and is so because of his great wisdom?

He didnt know that setting up the universe would lead to human beings, and had
to throw comets about, chastise the overzealous cave bears that were trying to
eat up his brood stock, and whatnot?

You have thought this through

Again,

I don't believe in the ToE, guided or unguided. I'm trying to understand what the implications of each are.

[Audie]

Sharks use modified body armor for teeth. It works, but its an odd thing for a designer to have done.

God the Creator is an artist. Many things look odd to us - especially at the microscopic levels. And, as any artist will tell you, they like to experiment and also try things of whimsy - as it so suits their fancy of the moment. A real artist doesn't like to conform to the pre-conceived notions of others as to what their art should look like. Also, God did not create THIS world, so that it would be perfect, as He knew bestowing free will would negate that. This world is a a marvelous place of contradictions, predators and prey, violence, war - all these things that are only temporary. How incredibly fascinated we are with the Creation and its details - with vast libraries of books and universities obsessed with understanding its countless nuances. So, the creation was not all about THIS world, but the next one. And as an Artist, God has our rapt attention! And He created things with hierarchies of importance as well as interdependencies.

Yes, behold the Filarial worm ye who see not aratistry!

And, are we to believe that evolution, out of the vast millions of species it supposedly produced, evolved only ONE creature to have the intelligence and capability to dominate all others, the only one to be able to impact the entire planet (whether for good or for bad)? The only one able to design awesome, complex things, to create and appreciate music, art, literature - only ONE???!!! Only one that can talk and sing, speak a multitude of languages. And why does only that one creature universally seek a spiritual understanding of the world, to seek some gods or God? And, make no mistake about it, at the core of the world's civilizations are spiritual beliefs that drive how they perceive how things are and ought to be.

The vast majority of animals are invertebrates.

Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with the origin of things

"Things"? EVERYTHING" to do with? Evolution is not even about the origin of life.
It is about how living things change over time.

as what those things were (as opposed to non-functioning and irrelevant things) and how they were instantly created functioning and interacting with mind-blowing designs - these things and their precision made POSSIBLE everything which followed it. If random, chaotic, and undesigned things with inconsistent properties and undefined functions had first appeared, NOTHING that presently exists, would

Not sure what this is about, but it is not about evolution.

[Audie]

Darwinina evoluion" is so 19th century, dont you think so?

And, while I am correcting the local grammar and usage tsar, I wish to point out
that a theory does not teach.

I'm not equating Darwinian evolution with the Theory of Evolution. I don't know if the two are the same, or not.

I mentioned Darwinian evolution because evolutionists have mentioned it. And to correct your correction of me, I was referring to Darwinian evolution or Darwin himself, as teaching. Not the ToE. But really, you don't think the ToE is there to teach what evolution is? If not, then tell those who use it, to stop. You should be preaching to your evolutionist choir about that.

A theory is a theory. The teach part is, well, never mind. A theory does not teach.
Pedantic of me, but there it is. A theory does not teach.

If you think that evolution is guided, is it like with periodic asteroid strikes to wipe out most existing life forms? Likewise with a flood? God guided filaria worms to do their thing?

I don't think one thing or another about if evolution is guided. I'm assuming evolution is true for the sake of the conversation. And I'm trying to understand what those who believe in evolution, whatever kind, believe. Just like if you were to get into a discussion about what God does, you'd have to assume God exists, if only for the sake of the discussion.

I find no evidence that evolution is guided by some supernatural power.

Assuming that God sent a cosmic ray just so for this mutation that was needed at a certain moment?

HOW ABOUT a god, who seeth all things past and present in a universe that just is
and is so because of his great wisdom?

He didnt know that setting up the universe would lead to human beings, and had
to throw comets about, chastise the overzealous cave bears that were trying to
eat up his brood stock, and whatnot?

You have thought this through

Again,

I don't believe in the ToE, guided or unguided. I'm trying to understand what the implications of each are.

Unguided implicates that while there may be a god, he is not meddling in evolution.

Guided has implications beyond anyone's ability to grasp.

[Mallz]

im trying to find out what a believer in a meddler-god thinks his god would do to guide evolution

Job:38-39

[Audie]

im trying to find out what a believer in a meddler-god thinks his god would do to guide evolution

Job:38-39

Lacking in specificity

[hughfarey]

Maltz and Audie both make interesting points, but they are perhaps as much philosophical as scientific. Just how and why can evolution be considered 'guided' or 'purposeful', and how would it look different if it were 'unguided' or 'purposeless.' If everything leads purposefully towards man, then mass extinctions seem a bit of a mistake along the way, which if God is all wise, seems a bit odd. If God is all loving, then all that suffering we hear about seems rather unkind. I don't myself like to anthropomorphise God in this way, however, and prefer Kurieuo's understanding that God is the instrument that maintains the functioning of the laws of science. The great axiom of science is that the universe is controlled by a set of laws that are fully coherent, universal and for all time, but there is no scientific reason why that should be so, it just seems to fit with what we observe. If a cup slides off a table, it accelerates towards the ground and eventually smashes on the floor - but why should it? Is it necessary that the laws of nature operate all the time, coherently? I think the answer is no. Nor is it necessary that there should be anything rather than nothing. The tongue-in-cheek comment (by Lawrence Krauss perhaps?) that "nothing" is unstable pre-supposes that "nothing" nevertheless contains laws, those which make it unstable. It is therefore not really "nothing". However, there clearly is something, not nothing, and the laws of nature do seem to operate coherently, everywhere and all the time. I think I am more likely to find God here, maintaining the laws of physics, rather than messing about creating elephants.

[Kurieuo]

That is not me, as I dont think a fictional god is likely to do much of anything.

Then perhaps aliens.

im trying to find out what a believer in a meddler-god thinks his god would do to guide evolution

That is not me, as i dont think a fictional evolution is likely to need much guidance by God.

I am also not the one who makes up silly nonsense about evolution and presents it as reasons that Toe is false.

The one or ones who when asked to provide a single datum point contrary to ToE find they cannot do so.

That is not me either, what's the point when it all leads back to God anyhow?

[Audie]

That is not me, as I dont think a fictional god is likely to do much of anything.

Then perhaps aliens.

im trying to find out what a believer in a meddler-god thinks his god would do to guide evolution

That is not me, as i dont think a fictional evolution is likely to need much guidance by God.

I am also not the one who makes up silly nonsense about evolution and presents it as reasons that Toe is false.

The one or ones who when asked to provide a single datum point contrary to ToE find they cannot do so.

That is not me either, what's the point when it all leads back to God anyhow?

If neither of us is here to whom is who talking to?

[Kurieuo]

That is not me, as I dont think a fictional god is likely to do much of anything.

Then perhaps aliens.

im trying to find out what a believer in a meddler-god thinks his god would do to guide evolution

That is not me, as i dont think a fictional evolution is likely to need much guidance by God.

I am also not the one who makes up silly nonsense about evolution and presents it as reasons that Toe is false.

The one or ones who when asked to provide a single datum point contrary to ToE find they cannot do so.

That is not me either, what's the point when it all leads back to God anyhow?

If neither of us is here to whom is who talking to?