How God can create through evolution:

[Audie]

For those familiar with Darwinian evolution or ToE, do they say that the evidence shows evolution is unguided?

I think there is indirect evidence that it is unguided.

I will think about this for a bit.

That's the impression I'm getting from a little reading of links by those who say they hold to Darwinian evolution or ToE.

Did Darwin teach it is unguided?

I have betimes perused some few of the books written in the tedious style that so characterized that time.
I can even do an imitation of it.

I never read "Origin of Species". I'd not have thought of Darwin's book as "teaching", but regardless, I
dont really know what he said on that.

What might you mean by "guided"? As in God having certain ends in mind, and tweaking here and there to achieve them?

[Audie]

Calling "fairy tale" is risky biz for those coming from the talking snake book as their
Fountain of Truth.

Just sayin'!

Give them long enough to evolve and they will eventually talk right?

Well, the book has it that the talking snake had legs, and was created ex n. thusly.

Then he "jumped"' in a process with no intermediate steps, to a legless condition which while presented as a curse, has actually proved a most marvellous thing, much to the serpents' advantage.

[Audie]

Audie: Calling "fairy tale" is risky biz for those coming from the talking snake book as their
Fountain of Truth.

Just sayin'!

And if I did not believe in God, if I believed everything has always been as perfectly explainable and understandable - to where certain things were not only improbable, but also impossible, I would likely be just as cynical and skeptical. But as we have a universe where none existed, where there are considerable evidences that Jesus did what Scripture says He did, then I can't just dismiss anything in Scripture. Do I understand it perfectly? Of course not. But I believe these things happened. And I know that no fiction writers could create the wisdom of Jesus from thin air.

I know that you don't just make up a God that shows His followers and favored nation to be such screw-ups, that this heroic God would be beaten and humiliated, humbled Himself, allowed treacherous men to beat him severely and then put Him through a most agonizing death, spit upon Him, punch Him, etc. And I know that all those scared disciples, who were in hiding immediately after the Crucifixion, suddenly, to a man, became bold, passionate and fearless spreaders of the Gospel - WHY???!!! Why would they risk the very same punishment if they knew Jesus to be a deluded fraud whom got himself pointlessly killed - a madman who thought He was God???!!! Nothing makes sense of this remarkable transformation of the disciples unless they had seen the risen Christ. NOTHING explains how fiercely monotheistic Jews - whom had been fully committed to the teaching of the Jewish authorities, suddenly believed this crucified Rabbi was actually God in the flesh, and that they had SEEN Him, as thousands became Christians in a very narrow window - none of that makes sense UNLESS, they saw the Risen Christ! The Apostle Paul, formerly Saul, an up and coming "rock star," zealous for Judaism and the most intense and relentless persecutor of Christians. One of the most intellectual and learned men of His day - he detested Christians. His fame and success had everything to do with being a zealous Jew and committed persecutor of Christians. Why did He JOIN his hated opponents? What did he have to gain? He traded prestige, fame and professional respect for being despised, beaten, jailed, always at risk of death, and he changed literally overnight, because something happened to him out on that road to Damascus - which he said was an encounter with the risen Christ. What else explains this incredible transformation - of the disciples and Paul?

Backing up a little bit.. you said

" it could have not have been an unguided one that only occurred given enough time and chance"

Which is most certainly an assertion of facts not in evidence. No data is presented to disprove the theory that it is the product of just that; no reason is given besides the untenable assertion that god leaves nothing to chance. Even should there be an omnipotent God, there is still "chance", it does not cease to exist.

I do wish to apologize a bit. The 'talking snake book" thing is a bit mean spirited of me. You may not have
been referring to evolution theory as a "fairy tale". If you were, then apology is cancelled. Some things in the bible are fairy tales, if taken literally.

But a different one is offered, to the extent that I may have hit a nerve, seemingly challenging your faith.
It was not my intent.

if I did not believe in God, if I believed everything has always been as perfectly explainable and understandable - to where certain things were not only improbable, but also impossible

"All things are possible in God". they say.

I cant imagine any educated person with the belief that 'everything has always been perfectly explainable etc."


All that said, my comment was not in any way intended to trample your faith, nor for that matter is, in my opinion, is there anything in science to challenge faith in God, the divinity of Jesus, any of that.

There are things in the bible that perhaps ought not be there. There certainly are readings of the book that are bonkers.

If you wish to feel that all happens because of God, and all is to a plan, that is certainly your deal, and
there is no reason for me to contest that.

Fair game tho, is forum statements about science that cannot be backed with any sort of data.

[Kurieuo]

Calling "fairy tale" is risky biz for those coming from the talking snake book as their
Fountain of Truth.

Just sayin'!

Give them long enough to evolve and they will eventually talk right?

Well, the book has it that the talking snake had legs, and was created ex n. thusly.

Then he "jumped"' in a process with no intermediate steps, to a legless condition which while presented as a curse, has actually proved a most marvellous thing, much to the serpents' advantage.

[Audie]

Can we please keep this on topic, about if God can create through evolution?

We have enough threads trying to convert people to the church of Gap.

I want to learn more about the topic.

To the extent that I see a god as possible and involved in life, I think His role
would have been to set up a universe that includes life as a possibility.

Guiding the development of life along the way, sometimes with the heavy hand
of asteroid impacts, that strikes me as being an unsupportable belief.

[Philip]

Rick: Did Darwin teach it is unguided?

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

The final paragraph of "The Origin of the Species" was changed, with reference to the Creator, in versions two through six, to read:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

But why did the first version not reference the Creator in this closing paragraph? It had to do with public pressure and perceptions over this radical (at the time) viewpoint - that and his wife. He later expressed regret over referring to a "Creator." He well knew the implications of pure materialism. Read about that here: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... ticle=1111

[Philip]

Audie: To the extent that I see a god as possible and involved in life, I think His role
would have been to set up a universe that includes life as a possibility.

Guiding the development of life along the way, sometimes with the heavy hand
of asteroid impacts, that strikes me as being an unsupportable belief.

Now, if God created ALL, He most certainly has control over all. I would agree that, for the most part, He allows things to develop naturally, but within the parameters of His plans, and with Him able to intervene and direct as He so wishes, sometimes interrupting the natural process, per His own reasons. It seems strange to not at least philosophically understand that a God capable of creating a universe and life itself could do anything He so desires, and HOW He desires it, and WHENEVER He so desires. The moment one mentions and all-powerful God, even in a theoretical thought, they must concede that all bets are off as to what He can and cannot do.

[Philip]

And Audie, when I used the word "fairy tales," ("Why all the fairy tales, especially as any theologian will tell you that the Creation and The Fall, are the foundational stories of the WHY of the Bible?"), I was referencing those who believe the Bible accounts are merely allegorical, but not historical/factual. So, I was referencing the Bible passages, not evolution. But thanks for showing sensitivity about that.

[Audie]

Audie: To the extent that I see a god as possible and involved in life, I think His role
would have been to set up a universe that includes life as a possibility.

Guiding the development of life along the way, sometimes with the heavy hand
of asteroid impacts, that strikes me as being an unsupportable belief.

Now, if God created ALL, He most certainly has control over all. I would agree that, for the most part, He allows things to develop naturally, but within the parameters of His plans, and with Him able to intervene and direct as He so wishes, sometimes interrupting the natural process, per His own reasons. It seems strange to not at least philosophically understand that a God capable of creating a universe and life itself could do anything He so desires, and HOW He desires it, and WHENEVER He so desires. The moment one mentions and all-powerful God, even in a theoretical thought, they must concede that all bets are off as to what He can and cannot do.

I think it reasonable to assume that an omnipotent and omnipresent God COULD direct
the vibration of every atom in the universe. But kinda weird to think he would.

Whether or not randomness even exists.. is that part of this discussion? If you feel nothing
whatever is random, then I wont convince you otherwise.

From a "philosophical" pov, I'd think it a rather bumbling sort of god who made a universe
that requires intervention, meddling and tweaking to keep it puttering along like a cranky old British sports car.

And, for those of us who spent the long hours in lecture and lab studying anatomy,
some of the "designs" present as extraordinarily clunky and inefficient.

Were it me, i'd think it more fun to just see what happens than force it to go this way or that.

But if forced design it must be, then for heaven's sake, put the trigeminal nerve somewhere else, and do some supporting braces for the lower back

[RickD]

For those familiar with Darwinian evolution or ToE, do they say that the evidence shows evolution is unguided?

I think there is indirect evidence that it is unguided.

I will think about this for a bit.

That's the impression I'm getting from a little reading of links by those who say they hold to Darwinian evolution or ToE.

Did Darwin teach it is unguided?

I have betimes perused some few of the books written in the tedious style that so characterized that time.
I can even do an imitation of it.

I never read "Origin of Species". I'd not have thought of Darwin's book as "teaching", but regardless, I
dont really know what he said on that.

What might you mean by "guided"? As in God having certain ends in mind, and tweaking here and there to achieve them?

I guess what I'm trying to find out, is if Darwin or those who hold to the ToE, teach that there is nothing guiding evolution. If it's not guided, why do things evolve the way they do? Life is evolving upwards, or life has evolved into more intelligent species. Not only more intelligent, but sentient and even spiritual. How does evolution lead to that kind of life, if not guided by an intelligent spiritual being? I hope it's safe to assume that those who believe evolution is unguided, believe that it's unguided because the evidence leads them to believe that. Not because they don't believe in God, so they assume evolution is unguided.

[Audie]

Rick: Did Darwin teach it is unguided?

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

The final paragraph of "The Origin of the Species" was changed, with reference to the Creator, in versions two through six, to read:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

But why did the first version not reference the Creator in this closing paragraph? It had to do with public pressure and perceptions over this radical (at the time) viewpoint - that and his wife. He later expressed regret over referring to a "Creator." He well knew the implications of pure materialism. Read about that here: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... ticle=1111

The course of and reality of evolution is unaffected by how life originated.

[Audie]

And Audie, when I used the word "fairy tales," ("Why all the fairy tales, especially as any theologian will tell you that the Creation and The Fall, are the foundational stories of the WHY of the Bible?"), I was referencing those who believe the Bible accounts are merely allegorical, but not historical/factual. So, I was referencing the Bible passages, not evolution. But thanks for showing sensitivity about that.

BW convinced me that I do need to try.

[RickD]

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.

[RickD]

Rick: Did Darwin teach it is unguided?

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

The final paragraph of "The Origin of the Species" was changed, with reference to the Creator, in versions two through six, to read:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

But why did the first version not reference the Creator in this closing paragraph? It had to do with public pressure and perceptions over this radical (at the time) viewpoint - that and his wife. He later expressed regret over referring to a "Creator." He well knew the implications of pure materialism. Read about that here: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... ticle=1111

The course of and reality of evolution is unaffected by how life originated.

How can you say that Audie?

If God created life, and guided evolution, it's certainly different than if there is no God, life began on earth by some purely naturalistic means, then just evolves with no real goal in mind.

Two completely different courses of evolution.

[Audie]

For those familiar with Darwinian evolution or ToE, do they say that the evidence shows evolution is unguided?

I think there is indirect evidence that it is unguided.

I will think about this for a bit.

That's the impression I'm getting from a little reading of links by those who say they hold to Darwinian evolution or ToE.

Did Darwin teach it is unguided?

I have betimes perused some few of the books written in the tedious style that so characterized that time.
I can even do an imitation of it.

I never read "Origin of Species". I'd not have thought of Darwin's book as "teaching", but regardless, I
dont really know what he said on that.

What might you mean by "guided"? As in God having certain ends in mind, and tweaking here and there to achieve them?

I guess what I'm trying to find out, is if Darwin or those who hold to the ToE, teach that there is nothing guiding evolution.

Guided maybe in the sense that a river is guided, tho the analogy wont hold up in all details. The gene pool of any organism can be expected to respond to the environment.

If it's not guided, why do things evolve the way they do?

Whatever there is on hand to work with*, altered by mutation and selected for by the environment.

Life is evolving upwards

A tinge of anthropomorphism there, the "upwards". In the event, life evolves in all
"directions". Of that 360 degrees, some arc is what people call upwards.

, or life has evolved into more intelligent species.

A minute fraction has.

Not only more intelligent, but sentient and even spiritual.

What is "spiritual"?

How does evolution lead to that kind of life, if not guided by an intelligent spiritual being?

In some cases, greater intelligence however defined, and greater mental capabilities is of great survival value. The little bat has quite the brain, to deal with echolocation as it does.

The process of evolving a more intelligent, capable mid is far from perfect. Like every other organ or organ system, there are oddities and glitches; frailties, "Unintended" consequences, incidental by products.

Psychology, normal and abnormal, is not my field, and I think it is safe to say it scarecely anyone else's either. Marvellous breakthroughs, overarching theories were being made in biology and physics a century and more ago, and looking through a psychology book one sees that the author hasnt a clue.

So who am I or anyone else to say why the mind works as it does?

I hope it's safe to assume that those who believe evolution is unguided, believe that it's unguided because the evidence leads them to believe that. Not because they don't believe in God, so they assume evolution is unguided.

I cant speak for others, but that is the case with me.


*gill arches, say. all manner of uses for those. woek with what you have

a pharyngeal pouch holds a bit of air for an air-gulping fish. do some work on it and you have lungs. Give that up as a bad job and you have a swim bladder, with or without a pneumatic duct. Or you can fill it with oil as a coelacanth does, and not have the disadvantages of an air filled buoyancy sac.

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