Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: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?

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote: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?

Philip wrote:

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?

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

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

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote: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.

RickD wrote: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.

Rick: Did Darwin teach it is unguided?

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.

Philip wrote:

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.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: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?

Philip wrote:

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 wrote: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.

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

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

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.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: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.