If God is omnipotent, God can create through evolution

[Matthew_O]

One of the principle aspects of the Godhead is the all-powerful nature of God. Thus, God can implement any system He wishes into His creation. This includes evolutionary mechanisms for organism development.

If this does not follow, then this violates a foundation of the Christian belief.

Yet, some individuals and/or groups deny the ability of an evolutionary system to obtain. Why is this so? Comments welcome.

Clarification: Note that I'm not necessitating that this did obtain. I'm asking why people view an evolutionary system as impossible. Be careful to demarcate "did not happen" with "cannot happen".

[Jbuza]

One of the principle aspects of the Godhead is the all-powerful nature of God. Thus, God can implement any system He wishes into His creation. This includes evolutionary mechanisms for organism development.

If this does not follow, then this violates a foundation of the Christian belief.

Yet, some individuals and/or groups deny the ability of an evolutionary system to obtain. Why is this so? Comments welcome.

Clarification: Note that I'm not necessitating that this did obtain. I'm asking why people view an evolutionary system as impossible. Be careful to demarcate "did not happen" with "cannot happen".

Because clearly that is not the nature of God. He says he did it a certian way, and can't happen another way because that is not the way he did it.

If your asking the more simple question could an omnipotent being do as you say. Sure.

[Kurieuo]

I see a great argument to be made from evolution for Theistic belief, and many use such arguments within philosophy. For example, Richard Swinburne uses it as apart of his probabilistic justification of Theism:

III. The Argument from the Evolution of Animals and Men
The other phenomena which I have mentioned are also phenomena best explained by postulating the existence and creative activity of God, and so add to the cumulative case for His existence. Consider now the evolution of animals and humans. In the middle of the last century Darwin set out his impressive theory of evolution by natural selection to account for the existence of animals and humans. Animals varied in various ways from their parents (some were taller, some shorter, some fatter, some thinner, some had beginnings of a wing, others did not; and so on). Those animals with characteristics which made them best fitted to survive, survived and handed on their characteristics to the next generation. But, although in general resembling their parents, their offspring varied from them, and those variations which best fitted the animal to survive were again the ones most likely to be handed on to another generation. This process went on for millions of years producing the whole range of animals which we have today, each adapted to survive in a different environment. Among the characteristics giving advantage in the struggle for survival was intelligence, and the selections for this characteristic eventually led to the evolution of man. Such is Darwin's account of why we have today animals and men.

As far as it goes, his account is surely right. But there are two crucial matters beyond its scope. First, the evolutionary mechanism which Darwin describes only works because there are certain laws of biochemistry (animals produce many offspring, these vary in various ways from the parents, and so forth) and certain features of the environment (there is a limited amount of food, drink, space, and so on). But why are there these laws rather than other laws? Perhaps because they follow from the most fundamental laws of physics. But the question then arises as to why the fundamental laws of physics are such as to give rise to laws of evolution. If we can answer this question we should do so. There is again available the same simple answer-that there is a God who makes matter behave in accord with such laws in order to produce a world with animals and men. To develop my earlier point-God has an obvious reason for producing men. He wants there to be creatures who can share in His creative work by making choices which affect the world they live in and the other creatures who live in that world. By the way we treat our environment and our bodies, bring up our children and influence our governments, we can make this world beautiful and its other inhabitants happy and knowledgeable; or we can make it ugly and its other inhabitants miserable and ignorant. A good God will seek other beings with whom to share in his activity of creation, of forming, moulding and changing the world. The fact of a mechanism to produce men is evidence of God behind that mechanism.[3]

Secondly, Darwinian theory is concerned only with the physical characteristics of animals and men. Yet men have thoughts and feelings, beliefs and desires, and they make choices. These are events totally different from publicly observable physical events. Physical objects are, physicists tell us, interacting colorless centers of forces; but they act on our senses, which set up electrical circuits in our brains, and these brain events cause us to have sensations (of pain or color, sound or smell), thoughts, desires and beliefs. Mental events such as these are no doubt largely caused by brain events (and vice-versa), but mental events are distinct from brain events-sensations are quite different from electro-chemical disturbances. They are in fact so different-private, colored or noisy, and felt-from public events such as brain events, that it is very, very unlikely indeed that science will ever explain how brain events give rise to mental events (why this brain event causes a red sensation, and that one a blue sensation). Yet brain events do cause mental events; no doubt there are regular correlations between this type of brain events and that type of mental event, and yet no scientific theory can say why there are the particular correlations there are, or indeed any correlations at all (why did not evolution just throw up unfeeling robots?). Yet these correlations which science cannot explain cry out for explanation of another kind. That is available. God brings it about that brain events of certain kinds give rise to mental events of certain kinds in order that animals and men may learn about the physical world, see it as imbued with color and smell making it beautiful, and learn to control it. Brain events caused by different sights, sounds and smells give rise to different and characteristic sensations and beliefs in order that men may have knowledge of a beautiful physical world and thus have power over it. Darwinism can only explain why some animals are eliminated in the struggle for survival, not why there are animals and men at all with mental lives of sensation and belief; and in so far as it can explain anything, the question inevitably arises why the laws of evolution are as they are. All this theism can explain.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html

I think if you really want to understand why people, particularly many Christians do not accept evolution, one can't ignore the other question also of why many accept evolution. I think you assume valid insights within your post (at least I sense them), that many Christians will undeniably reject evolution because it goes against the traditional Christian teachings they have grown accustomed to. If you don't believe such a thing, well I'd agree to it anyway. At the same time, I believe many also accept evolution because on the traditional modernist teachings they have grown accustomed to whether they are aware to it or not.

Is it really possible for any person to come to a conclusion regarding a particular belief devoid of any affectivity, disposition, or bias? I don't see it is possible. So I don't see that the issue is so much "why" or "what causes" one to accept or reject evolution, or any other belief for that matter. The issue rather comes down the plausibility and probability of a belief, and for that, judgement is always subjective. This idea that one can somehow drop all their gut intuitions to examine something objectively I think is evidently false. Thus, the issue quickly faces the post-modern dilemma of whether we can ever truly know something given our subjectivity and the dispositions that have been nurtured within us over time. An issue I believe anyone who prides themselves on their rational and empirical thinking should take very seriously.

Kurieuo

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Yes, but the Bible nor science says God did. (short and simple)

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Yes, but the Bible nor science says God did. (short and simple)

Did you read Kurieuo's post?

[Blob]

Is it really possible for any person to come to a conclusion regarding a particular belief devoid of any affectivity, disposition, or bias? I don't see it is possible. So I don't see that the issue is so much "why" or "what causes" one to accept or reject evolution, or any other belief for that matter. The issue rather comes down the plausibility and probability of a belief, and for that, judgement is always subjective. This idea that one can somehow drop all their gut intuitions to examine something objectively I think is evidently false. Thus, the issue quickly faces the post-modern dilemma of whether we can ever truly know something given our subjectivity and the dispositions that have been nurtured within us over time. An issue I believe anyone who prides themselves on their rational and empirical thinking should take very seriously.

Very well said, Kurieuo.

[August]

My 2 cents on this.....

God is omnipotent, yes, He can create through evolution. But that goes back to the basic problem of theistic evolution, namely front-loading. If we assume that God started the evolutionary process, and then just let it run, it means that all the information needed to produce complex life was inserted into the proccess up front. There is no proof for that, since we don't have good information about what the earliest life on earth looked like. A further problem is that it then has to get around the problem of mutation, which more frequently removes information, rather than add it.

Sure God could have done it. But then again He could just have opened His mouth and created by the power of His words alone too...

[aa118816]

God does and the Bible says he creates through evolution. Any one who reads the Bible understands this fact. The problem for strict evolutionists that the Bible says that Kinds do not cross. The reason that there is a lot of support for ID and creationists is that science has never shown one example of a kind crossing phylogenic lines. This is a fact. So, we have evolution underneath the level of kinds and special creation above the level of kinds.

[SpaceCase]

Is it really possible for any person to come to a conclusion regarding a particular belief devoid of any affectivity, disposition, or bias? I don't see it is possible. So I don't see that the issue is so much "why" or "what causes" one to accept or reject evolution, or any other belief for that matter. The issue rather comes down the plausibility and probability of a belief, and for that, judgement is always subjective. This idea that one can somehow drop all their gut intuitions to examine something objectively I think is evidently false. Thus, the issue quickly faces the post-modern dilemma of whether we can ever truly know something given our subjectivity and the dispositions that have been nurtured within us over time. An issue I believe anyone who prides themselves on their rational and empirical thinking should take very seriously.

Very well said, Kurieuo.

I agree, well said... Kurieuo

[Elisa]

Hello,
some of my ideas on this are that evolution is most likely to be a part of God's way.

Firstly, the philosopher Spinoza put it well when he said: 'If God is infinite, then there is nothing that God cannot be' ...I never really looked at it in this way, but quite smart.

Also, this issue ties-in with questions like: Was Jesus God? Did Jesus go to hell when He was on the cross? ...questions like these all actually centre around the core question of: Is Christianity about rebirth??
...my answer is: yes.
Jesus has even said that we must be prepared to die and be reborn again.
Christianity is about accepting evolution -being of the frame of mind and disposition to continuously adapt to a changing environment.
Also, "The Apocalypse" that Jesus refers to, to me is none other than (I believe it is Darwin's Natural Selection) when God's Chosen people arise. The species that learns to adapt does so after great struggle, and every so often one makes it. Jesus said, at this time it will be as with Noah: anyone who tries to save his own life shall lose it, and everyone who loses his life shall save it. ...The one who 'loses his life' adapts/changes.
Also, Jesus has said: "Foxes have holes, birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no where to lie down and rest."

[bizzt]

Hello,
some of my ideas on this are that evolution is most likely to be a part of God's way.

Firstly, the philosopher Spinoza put it well when he said: 'If God is infinite, then there is nothing that God cannot be' ...I never really looked at it in this way, but quite smart.

Also, this issue ties-in with questions like: Was Jesus God? Did Jesus go to hell when He was on the cross? ...questions like these all actually centre around the core question of: Is Christianity about rebirth??
...my answer is: yes.
Jesus has even said that we must be prepared to die and be reborn again.
Christianity is about accepting evolution -being of the frame of mind and disposition to continuously adapt to a changing environment.
Also, "The Apocalypse" that Jesus refers to, to me is none other than (I believe it is Darwin's Natural Selection) when God's Chosen people arise. The species that learns to adapt does so after great struggle, and every so often one makes it. Jesus said, at this time it will be as with Noah: anyone who tries to save his own life shall lose it, and everyone who loses his life shall save it. ...The one who 'loses his life' adapts/changes.
Also, Jesus has said: "Foxes have holes, birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no where to lie down and rest."

I am sorry Elisa but you are really pulling alot out of Scripture there.

[Felgar]

As for me, my rejection of evolution has nothing to do with contradiction to my faith. If 10 years after Darwin published his work it became immediately obvious that species had evolved then it would now be accepted and not questioned, and yes then that would reflect differently on some passages of scripture. It would NOT be irreconcilable.

What's lacking though is concrete scientific proof of evolution. There are no cross-species specimens as aa pointed out. Even if a few were found they'd be suspect. What they should be, if evolution were true, is prolific. They should be everywhere, all over the fossil record. And that record should progress at predictable rates showing change throughout. This is what evolution predicts but for which there is no evidence.

There's plenty of evidence for change within a species. But until you turn a population of fruit flies into a population of glowing pink frogs, there's just no reason to believe it. I've said this before: glowing pink frogs are more realistic than a soft-ball sized hunk of metal destroying an entire city, or a fixed-wing metal bird flying at will. At least we have animals that can glow, others that are pink, and some that change colour. The difference between flight/aerodynamics, nuclear fission, and evolution is that two are fact and one is not.

[sandy_mcd]

As for me, my rejection of evolution has nothing to do with contradiction to my faith. If 10 years after Darwin published his work it became immediately obvious that species had evolved then it would now be accepted and not questioned, ...

I as well do not believe evolution to be in contradiction to faith. I do not consider myself well versed enough in biology to have a valid scientific opinion. However, I accept evolution because it is accepted by an overwhelming majority of biologists, theistic and atheistic alike. [I can't believe they are all in a big conspiracy.] It is true that scientific beliefs change with time (consider the people who got a Nobel this year for showing the cause of most ulcers to be bacterial and what a struggle they had to overturn the established view). But while evolution is now the mainstream opinion, it was not in the past. It is difficult to see going back to a rejected view. Likewise, it is clear that many people who reject evolution do so on non-scientific grounds.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Likewise, it is clear that many people who reject evolution do so on non-scientific grounds.

Genetic fallacy.

Pull out article talking about how old the idea of evolution really is.

*clears throat* AUGUST, RELEASE THE HOUNDS

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

However, I accept evolution because it is accepted by an overwhelming majority of biologists, theistic and atheistic alike.

In reverse...

What do you expect atheists to believe in? They have to find a natural explanation to everything-to do otherwise contradicts one of their major assumptions.

And, Michael Behe brought this up...scientists do not believe it on their own authority-they believe it on someone else's authority in many cases. Michael Behe being a good example. He assumed that evolution had an answer to complex structures for a while early in his career. But, since you like the genetic fallacy :-p ....his thoughts are meaningless