Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:My son is a high school junior this year. What I've said is, don't' get combative but be able to articulate the material. One doesn't need to believe in evolution (I don't) to accurately state what the the theory encompasses or what various people believe about it. Also, I think it's important to note that supposedly "proving" evolution does not disprove God, as many Christians (and those of other faiths) also believe in evolution, as they believe that it was God's creative mechanism. Also, I've encouraged him is to also note that when it comes to debates over the existence of God, arguments over evolution are somewhere around 10 billion years after the FAR greater FACT - meaning that one must explain how a universe "exploded" into existence where there was none. And, where did the singularity come from? Where did the many, complex guiding processes and sophisticated, precise laws come from - laws that were there at the very beginning? So, I say, explain THOSE miraculous things (which mainstream science agrees occurred) and THEN we can argue the less important creation issues surrounding evolution. (emphasis added)

According to this logic, until science has completely explained the universe, let's also eliminate school courses that teach the "controversial" finding that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

PaulSacramento wrote:The thing is that it is clear that the notion of ALL mankind being from two people a very close time ago, is being shown over and over to be very very unlikely.
We would have to take into account VAST migrations of masses of people to repopulate the earth after the flood.
The math really isn't there, nor is the geography of it.

Of course, I agree completely.

PaulSacramento wrote:Two views:
1) Adam and Eve were special creations, so that isn't an issue there.
2) Adam and Eve were the first fully evolved humans and thus received a spirit OR the first human to be born with a spirit.
In option 2, that God decided to give them a spirit and not their parents isn't an issue because God decided the appropriate time for things.

If you don't want to question why God seems to have arbitrarily made a massive jump from spirit-less animal parents, to the biggest-ever jackpot-winner offspring, viz., Adam and Eve, then I'm happy that works for you. But with only an evolutionarily infinitesimal difference between Adam/Eve and their parents, what will be God's explanation in heaven to the bewildered parents as to why they received the same shaft as the family dog?

PaulSacramento wrote:Refer back to the Noah and flood view for repopulation.
As for Adam and Eve's children bringing back someone without a spirit ( I know you said soul but that has been cleared up already, I hope), well, I addressed a counter to that view in my earlier post, so...

What does "The Noah Eight" have to do with my point that the children (of the first two spirit-people, Adam and Eve) would have to have mated with spiritless "humans"? (Noah, et.al., are descendants of Adam and Eve, yes?) Modern genetics shows that the human population never went through a bottleneck of a single mating pair.

Morny wrote:
If you don't want to question why God seems to have arbitrarily made a massive jump from spirit-less animal parents, to the biggest-ever jackpot-winner offspring, viz., Adam and Eve, then I'm happy that works for you. But with only an evolutionarily infinitesimal difference between Adam/Eve and their parents, what will be God's explanation in heaven to the bewildered parents as to why they received the same shaft as the family dog?

I hate to break the bad news to you Morny, but Adam and Eve didn't have parents.

RickD wrote:I hate to break the bad news to you Morny, but Adam and Eve didn't have parents.

Irrelevant. But in the plausible case that you're not joking, I stated in a post in this topic from 4 days ago that my comments/questions are directed at people who believe both in evolution and divine intervention (spirits, souls, whatever) for a real life Adam and Eve. Evolution says Adam and Eve had parents.

But feel free to reject my premises.

Morny wrote:

RickD wrote:I hate to break the bad news to you Morny, but Adam and Eve didn't have parents.

Irrelevant. But in the plausible case that you're not joking, I stated in a post in this topic from 4 days ago that my comments/questions are directed at people who believe both in evolution and divine intervention (spirits, souls, whatever) for a real life Adam and Eve. Evolution says Adam and Eve had parents.

But feel free to reject my premises.

You are speaking about theistic evolution. There's such a huge spectrum of beliefs within theistic evolution. Saying, "Evolution says Adam and Eve had parents." Is just not accurate. Some TEs do believe Adam was a special creation, without parents.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Two views:
1) Adam and Eve were special creations, so that isn't an issue there.
2) Adam and Eve were the first fully evolved humans and thus received a spirit OR the first human to be born with a spirit.
In option 2, that God decided to give them a spirit and not their parents isn't an issue because God decided the appropriate time for things.

If you don't want to question why God seems to have arbitrarily made a massive jump from spirit-less animal parents, to the biggest-ever jackpot-winner offspring, viz., Adam and Eve, then I'm happy that works for you. But with only an evolutionarily infinitesimal difference between Adam/Eve and their parents, what will be God's explanation in heaven to the bewildered parents as to why they received the same shaft as the family dog?

PaulSacramento wrote:Refer back to the Noah and flood view for repopulation.
As for Adam and Eve's children bringing back someone without a spirit ( I know you said soul but that has been cleared up already, I hope), well, I addressed a counter to that view in my earlier post, so...

What does "The Noah Eight" have to do with my point that the children (of the first two spirit-people, Adam and Eve) would have to have mated with spiritless "humans"? (Noah, et.al., are descendants of Adam and Eve, yes?) Modern genetics shows that the human population never went through a bottleneck of a single mating pair.

There are a few issues here and it is best to focus on one at a time.
You seem to be jumping from one view to another to another and implying they are the same view.
Some believe that Adam and Eve were special creation, some do not, some believe that Adam and Eve were the first "fully evolved humans" and as such they were specially blessed by God with a spirit, some do not.


Lets address your issue with Adam and Eve having a spirit and their children also having spirits and mating with "spiritless" humans:
First, where did you get the view that other humans had no spirit?
It may will be that by the time Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden that MANY generations would have passed and there were many other humans with a spirit already.
Genesis 1 states that Man and Women were made in God's image and told to multiply.
Genesis 2 speaks of TWO specific people, Adam and Eve and then subsequent Genesis chapters speaks about some of their kids.
Some view these as two distinct stories:
Humans in general - Genesis 1
Adam and Eve and the future nation that would known as Israel - Genesis 2 and onward.
That allows God to have two very special people, perhaps the first ever, to exist AND more people to exist outside of the Garden in Eden.


The really issue isn't even Adam and Eve but Noah and his family and the global flood.

Philip wrote: My son is a high school junior this year. What I've said is, don't' get combative but be able to articulate the material. One doesn't need to believe in evolution (I don't) to accurately state what the the theory encompasses or what various people believe about it. Also, I think it's important to note that supposedly "proving" evolution does not disprove God, as many Christians (and those of other faiths) also believe in evolution, as they believe that it was God's creative mechanism. Also, I've encouraged him is to also note that when it comes to debates over the existence of God, arguments over evolution are somewhere around 10 billion years after the FAR greater FACT - meaning that one must explain how a universe "exploded" into existence where there was none. And, where did the singularity come from? Where did the many, complex guiding processes and sophisticated, precise laws come from - laws that were there at the very beginning? So, I say, explain THOSE miraculous things (which mainstream science agrees occurred) and THEN we can argue the less important creation issues surrounding evolution. (emphasis added)

Morny: According to this logic, until science has completely explained the universe, let's also eliminate school courses that teach the "controversial" finding that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

What are you talking about? I'm not even remotely suggesting that the accepted age of the earth isn't billions of years old or that this understanding by most scientists shouldn't be taught. In fact, I and many other progressive creationist Christians believe the earth is in fact very ancient, as is the universe (about 13.73 billion years old). Do you not understand that rejecting evolution does not necessarily equate that one must believe the earth and universe are merely in the thousands of years old? And my suggestion to my son about where the real argument is (at the very beginning of the Big Bang event) had to do with his debates with his classmates and peers, as so many mistakenly think that: 1) disbelieving in macroevolution means that one necessarily believes in a very young earth and universe and 2) that IF evolution is true, then that proves God does not exist. Neither of these are true, but both are widely believed.

The problem I have is that schools falsely frame the debate with unproven scientific speculation ONLY, and that they refuse to also show the many problems pointed out concerning evolution - of which a great many of such problems are scientifically based upon what we DO know to be scientifically true. But they are on a mission to ram evolution down every kid's throate without also showing credible scientific challenges to the theory. Even Christian Theists will often acknowledge that UNGUIDED (no God involved) evolution IS impossible. And schools and their boards also falsely believe that the debate is ONLY between the Darwinist supporters and young earth creationists - another falsehood. Progressive Creation theories that also roughly parallel the accepted scientific ages for an ancient universe are never mentioned. Why?!!! Because such beliefs have to do with God. So, one side gets to show what they think, and they falsely frame the true parameters of the debate whilst also ignoring and shutting down all scientific challenges to it. And while there are many Christians who believe that evolution was God's utilized mechanism for creation, that is never mentioned either. Truly, any philosophy or societal norm - even perverse ones - are readily accepted topics of conversation and debate, but so many find any mention of God to be a dangerous, threatening, negative, insidious thing. Hypocrites!

So a real and honest debate in a public school should present ALL theories - and that can be done without getting into theological debates - as Creationists also have a range of SCIENTIFIC views - which are ignored. But as long as the theories - God-based or not - ALSO have a scientific basis to them, why should they not be discussed and presented?!!! Is it not because that many of those believing in evolution are also anti-God - so much so that they fear anyone even suggesting that the evidences for unguided, random evolutionary processes have very serious problems. Many such unbelieving people realize the one thing they most fear is finding out that some form of macroevolution is impossible - as what (or WHOM) is the alternative explanation? They want to shut down ALL such discussions - even if they are SCIENTIFICALLY based - that might open the door to the possibility that there actually HAS to be a God responsible for the universe. That is what they seem to fear the most. And so they label all holding any Theistic or Creation views (young earth or old earth models) as being only believed by the scientifically naive and ignorant simpletons. It's one thing to find scientific problems with scientific views held by Creationists, but to simply prevent all evidences for such views from being aired - that's not having an honest debate!

If they're going to teach evolution in class, then I believe that they should also teach creation"ism" or however that can be termed

RickD wrote:You are speaking about theistic evolution. There's such a huge spectrum of beliefs within theistic evolution. Saying, "Evolution says Adam and Eve had parents." Is just not accurate. Some TEs do believe Adam was a special creation, without parents.

No, I'm speaking about evolution.

The evolution in high school and college textbooks.

The evolution taught in quality Catholic high schools. (OK, maybe just the one I'm familiar with.)

The evolution in practically every science-based journal article and biology book. The evolution held by the vast majority of biologists, 40% of whom are Christians (according to Newsweek).

The evolution of the world-famous devout Christian scientist, Francis Collins, who says that the common ancestry of all animals, including humans, "is unquestionably correct."

The evolution of the world-famous devout Christian biologist, Kenneth Miller, who rejects the term "theistic evolution" for the same reason Christian chemists don't call their work "theistic chemistry".

The evolution that is strictly evidence-based, and nothing about faith-based claims.

The evolution that says that for at least the last 600 million years, all animals, including any Adam and Eve, had parents.

That evolution.

Philip wrote:

Philip wrote: My son is a high school junior this year. What I've said is, don't' get combative but be able to articulate the material. One doesn't need to believe in evolution (I don't) to accurately state what the the theory encompasses or what various people believe about it. Also, I think it's important to note that supposedly "proving" evolution does not disprove God, as many Christians (and those of other faiths) also believe in evolution, as they believe that it was God's creative mechanism. Also, I've encouraged him is to also note that when it comes to debates over the existence of God, arguments over evolution are somewhere around 10 billion years after the FAR greater FACT - meaning that one must explain how a universe "exploded" into existence where there was none. And, where did the singularity come from? Where did the many, complex guiding processes and sophisticated, precise laws come from - laws that were there at the very beginning? So, I say, explain THOSE miraculous things (which mainstream science agrees occurred) and THEN we can argue the less important creation issues surrounding evolution. (emphasis added)

Morny: According to this logic, until science has completely explained the universe, let's also eliminate school courses that teach the "controversial" finding that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

What are you talking about? [...]

I'm specifically critiquing this part of your previous post:

So, I say, explain THOSE miraculous things (which mainstream science agrees occurred) and THEN we can argue the less important creation issues surrounding evolution.

What a strange notion. What if I demanded that you explain the entirety of God, before I'll consider any evidence for a historical Jesus or the reliability of the construction of the Bible's autographa?

But my specific teaching comparison with a 4.5 billion year old Earth is also appropriate and relevant, because that age is agreed upon among scientists as much as common ancestry is, i.e., near universal acceptance. You can disagree with scientists about evolution, but you cannot disagree with the previous sentence.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Two views:
1) Adam and Eve were special creations, so that isn't an issue there.
2) Adam and Eve were the first fully evolved humans and thus received a spirit OR the first human to be born with a spirit.
In option 2, that God decided to give them a spirit and not their parents isn't an issue because God decided the appropriate time for things.

If you don't want to question why God seems to have arbitrarily made a massive jump from spirit-less animal parents, to the biggest-ever jackpot-winner offspring, viz., Adam and Eve, then I'm happy that works for you. But with only an evolutionarily infinitesimal difference between Adam/Eve and their parents, what will be God's explanation in heaven to the bewildered parents as to why they received the same shaft as the family dog?

PaulSacramento wrote:Refer back to the Noah and flood view for repopulation.
As for Adam and Eve's children bringing back someone without a spirit ( I know you said soul but that has been cleared up already, I hope), well, I addressed a counter to that view in my earlier post, so...

What does "The Noah Eight" have to do with my point that the children (of the first two spirit-people, Adam and Eve) would have to have mated with spiritless "humans"? (Noah, et.al., are descendants of Adam and Eve, yes?) Modern genetics shows that the human population never went through a bottleneck of a single mating pair.

There are a few issues here and it is best to focus on one at a time.
You seem to be jumping from one view to another to another and implying they are the same view.
Some believe that Adam and Eve were special creation, some do not, some believe that Adam and Eve were the first "fully evolved humans" and as such they were specially blessed by God with a spirit, some do not.


Lets address your issue with Adam and Eve having a spirit and their children also having spirits and mating with "spiritless" humans:
First, where did you get the view that other humans had no spirit?
It may will be that by the time Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden that MANY generations would have passed and there were many other humans with a spirit already.
Genesis 1 states that Man and Women were made in God's image and told to multiply.
Genesis 2 speaks of TWO specific people, Adam and Eve and then subsequent Genesis chapters speaks about some of their kids.
Some view these as two distinct stories:
Humans in general - Genesis 1
Adam and Eve and the future nation that would known as Israel - Genesis 2 and onward.
That allows God to have two very special people, perhaps the first ever, to exist AND more people to exist outside of the Garden in Eden.


The really issue isn't even Adam and Eve but Noah and his family and the global flood.

I don't know where to begin correcting your misunderstanding of what I said. Have a nice day.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Two views:
1) Adam and Eve were special creations, so that isn't an issue there.
2) Adam and Eve were the first fully evolved humans and thus received a spirit OR the first human to be born with a spirit.
In option 2, that God decided to give them a spirit and not their parents isn't an issue because God decided the appropriate time for things.

If you don't want to question why God seems to have arbitrarily made a massive jump from spirit-less animal parents, to the biggest-ever jackpot-winner offspring, viz., Adam and Eve, then I'm happy that works for you. But with only an evolutionarily infinitesimal difference between Adam/Eve and their parents, what will be God's explanation in heaven to the bewildered parents as to why they received the same shaft as the family dog?

PaulSacramento wrote:Refer back to the Noah and flood view for repopulation.
As for Adam and Eve's children bringing back someone without a spirit ( I know you said soul but that has been cleared up already, I hope), well, I addressed a counter to that view in my earlier post, so...

What does "The Noah Eight" have to do with my point that the children (of the first two spirit-people, Adam and Eve) would have to have mated with spiritless "humans"? (Noah, et.al., are descendants of Adam and Eve, yes?) Modern genetics shows that the human population never went through a bottleneck of a single mating pair.

There are a few issues here and it is best to focus on one at a time.
You seem to be jumping from one view to another to another and implying they are the same view.
Some believe that Adam and Eve were special creation, some do not, some believe that Adam and Eve were the first "fully evolved humans" and as such they were specially blessed by God with a spirit, some do not.


Lets address your issue with Adam and Eve having a spirit and their children also having spirits and mating with "spiritless" humans:
First, where did you get the view that other humans had no spirit?
It may will be that by the time Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden that MANY generations would have passed and there were many other humans with a spirit already.
Genesis 1 states that Man and Women were made in God's image and told to multiply.
Genesis 2 speaks of TWO specific people, Adam and Eve and then subsequent Genesis chapters speaks about some of their kids.
Some view these as two distinct stories:
Humans in general - Genesis 1
Adam and Eve and the future nation that would known as Israel - Genesis 2 and onward.
That allows God to have two very special people, perhaps the first ever, to exist AND more people to exist outside of the Garden in Eden.


The really issue isn't even Adam and Eve but Noah and his family and the global flood.

I don't know where to begin correcting your misunderstanding of what I said. Have a nice day.

Well, gibberish begets gibberish, sorry.

Morny wrote:

RickD wrote:You are speaking about theistic evolution. There's such a huge spectrum of beliefs within theistic evolution. Saying, "Evolution says Adam and Eve had parents." Is just not accurate. Some TEs do believe Adam was a special creation, without parents.

No, I'm speaking about evolution.

The evolution in high school and college textbooks.

The evolution taught in quality Catholic high schools. (OK, maybe just the one I'm familiar with.)

The evolution in practically every science-based journal article and biology book. The evolution held by the vast majority of biologists, 40% of whom are Christians (according to Newsweek).

The evolution of the world-famous devout Christian scientist, Francis Collins, who says that the common ancestry of all animals, including humans, "is unquestionably correct."

The evolution of the world-famous devout Christian biologist, Kenneth Miller, who rejects the term "theistic evolution" for the same reason Christian chemists don't call their work "theistic chemistry".

The evolution that is strictly evidence-based, and nothing about faith-based claims.

The evolution that says that for at least the last 600 million years, all animals, including any Adam and Eve, had parents.

That evolution.

Morny,

You made it clear here:

Irrelevant. But in the plausible case that you're not joking, I stated in a post in this topic from 4 days ago that my comments/questions are directed at people who believe both in evolution and divine intervention (spirits, souls, whatever) for a real life Adam and Eve. Evolution says Adam and Eve had parents.

That you were talking about those who "...believe both in evolution and divine intervention...". That is what theistic evolutionists believe. They believe in a God, and evolution.

It always comes back to what happened before evolution. How did life get here? Did God create life, then it evolved? Or, did life just come to be on its own?

There are basically TWO views on TE:
God directly directs evolution.
God has instilled in living cells/organisms the ability to evolve.
The differences is the view on how random the mutation process is in evolution.
These two are typically, the main views on TE in regards to God involvement in evolution and it must be noted that NO TE view supports the deistic viewpoint.