Evidence for God from Science

I would have to say, if I was told to pick a stance. It would be theistic evolution for me.

I have come to regard evolution the same way I now regard computers. My pc used to be my idol, so much of my time was spent at the altar of the pc, so much time wasted on my daily ritual of spending ages facing a screen. Now though it is just a tool to me. That's how Christ has altered me, a pc used to be my god. Now it is just a tool!

Now lets just say that many people think evolution is what made EVERYTHING. Well I disagree, to me it just seems to be a tool and by itself it is very able to make HUGE animals with massive body parts. But it is incapable of things like starting itself off!

I don't want to see this as a compromise, its still god's power of creation just like every tool it needs sharpening, maintenance and proper usage. I honestly would not know if this is the correct choice, perhaps OEC is something I should consider but how would that work?

Lets just have a gentle discussion,
Cheers

I would say I lean towards pregressive creationism although a very cautious perhaps on theistic evolution. I have said before that I think the term is the most vague of them all concerning God's role. SOme use theistic evolution in a more deist sense. I dislike this. MOst importantly I dislike the term when it includes the idea that God just started everything and let it go.

Genesis clearly shows that God was in charge and planned and orchestrated creation, so any theistic evolution would HAvE to include an invovled God and a God in control, intimately conducting the creation.

I have no problem with common descent as it pertains to the relationship between organisms, I really have a problem with saying that it happens without GOd.

Yes about genesis, it does say that god is clearly in charge. That is why I relegate evolution to the simple status of "tool", however you would expect a god's tool to be far more worth understanding than one made by human hands, god makes the rules of the universe not us!

I agree with this:

Most importantly I dislike the term when it includes the idea that God just started everything and let it go.

I say that evolution could not of started without god. Just how the development of the PC could not of started without human beings.

and this:

SOme use theistic evolution in a more deist sense. I dislike this.

The god of the bible is definitely, THE LORD. So I can immediately shoot down the thought that god just started it and left it to its own devices, it needs maintenance and it needs directing. I feel that it was intentionally used to make us. By itself is there any advantage to creating a being that has such incredible self-destructive power. Evolution on its own, would be a big mess...Perhaps the breath of god mentioned in genesis was spiritual life? I wouldn't know I wasn't around then, nor was I around to watch evolution happen either.(however I can see now, sort of useful!)

Well, scripture shows a God that is intimately invovled with His creation. I think this deserves very precise language and careful word choice. In the New Testament it talks of God sustaining creation...of holding things together. I don't think GOd "sits back and watches" and changes things when they aren't going well. I would disagree with the idea of God letting things go and only "changing" or "redirecting" if things aren't going the way He intended.

I'm not suggesting that that was the intent of your question, I am just being overly cautious. When God waits, the wait is intentional. He knows what will happen and it is decreed from HIm. And the changes that are made are not to correct an error but fully in HIs plan.

Progressive creationionism probably fits me better simply because TE is a much broader and usually meant in a more naturalistic application. But I would certainly be content with a PC that perhaps looks like TE from our perspective (fossil, endoviruses...etc)

Hope I am being clear...nervous about the game!! GO Ravens!! (I am having my brother and his family over for dinner and if the Ravens lose my nephew, who for some reason despises them, will be entirely too happy )

the environment changes, so things have to adapt with it... micro "evolution" or Natural selection is certainly a fact...to get bigger changes though you would need an entirely different kettle of fish...We can call it whatever we like, but it still is whatever it is.

You seem to be being entirely clear to me.

Yay! the Ravens won....

what ravens??

Cactus wrote:what ravens??

Baltimore Ravens!! Our football team!!

good for your football team, those revans must be well adapted to current conditions!

zoegirl wrote: I have no problem with common descent as it pertains to the relationship between organisms........

This sounds like evolution to me? Can you explain what you mean by common descent?

Common descent.That we could be DESCENDED from the same animal that modern chimps/other apes are...Just something happened to make us diverge from that line. What something? Well I know who I am blaming.

Basically eventually that means that ALL life forms on earth are from one individual ancestor(the first life form) and atheists would like you to believe that by some incredibly ridiculously impossible coincidence this just happened by itself for no reason.

Cactus wrote:Common descent.That we could be DESCENDED from the same animal that modern chimps/other apes are...Just something happened to make us diverge from that line. What something? Well I know who I am blaming.

Basically eventually that means that ALL life forms on earth are from one individual ancestor(the first life form) and atheists would like you to believe that by some incredibly ridiculously impossible coincidence this just happened by itself for no reason.

I mean that if God used previous organisms and events like endoviruses and mutations and chromosomal fusions to change genomes in order to effecvt changes in form, we would have elements of these previous forms refelcted in us. THis isn't a reflection of a natural cause, merely a reflection of how God did it.

I would differ from other theistic evolution models in that many who use the term (I can think of Keith Miller and Francis COllins) who are theistic evolutionists and are more deist in God's invovlement, that God was more uninvolved in the process. I am more convinced from scripture that God is intimately invovled in creation events and planned everything, nothing was unknown and nothing was a surprise.

Cactus,

Now lets just say that many people think evolution is what made EVERYTHING.

Evolution isn't Abiogenesis, there's a distinct difference between the biological changes and the origin of biological life.
Those 'many people' would be lying too themselves with a serious misunderstanding.

It just seems to be a tool and by itself it is very able to make HUGE animals with massive body parts.

Natural Selection provides animals with their huge frames and massive limbs.
Evolution either allows or doesn't approve of certain traits to be applied to several species.

it is incapable of things like starting itself off!

It's not an organism, it can 'start off' and 'end' whenever.
It is very capable, without a conscience force behind it.

its still god's power of creation just like every tool it needs sharpening, maintenance and proper usage.

'Creation' aside, it sharpens itself on those that it's effected,
it's maintained by a slow and not fast spasm of change on organisms,
it hasn't done anything improper in eliminating things that 'don't work' for certain species.
How God gets involved in this, I have no clue.
Whatever helps you get through the day, I won't rebel against it.~SC