Evidence for God from Science

Matthew_O wrote: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".

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

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

Kurieuo wrote: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.

Blob wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: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.

Elisa wrote: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."

Felgar wrote: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, ...

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

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