Theory of Evolution

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Oik']Still other times, the conclusions point to God's existence.[/quote]

Care to give an example?

[Oik]

Some empirical evidence points to God's existence. In fact, all of creation points to God's existence. This of course really has nothing to do with Science, so much as it has to do with the world God created. In this way, science and philosophy interconnect with Theology. We (can) study the empirical and it leads to God. the creation says something about its Creator.

I know that that wasn't exactly concrete, I hope that it helps.

God Bless,
Chelsea

[hierochloe]

I think it's a misnomer to say that science ever attempts to disprove God. It's far more accurate to state that certain people attempt to use science to disprove God (which is futile). I know, semantics, so what.. Well, this sort of thing drives a rift between science and philosophy which is extremely counter-productive.

I still don't see how evolutionary process, as well as other theories regarding how the universe came to be, can be accused credibly of attempting to refute God's existence. They may appear to contradict literal interpretation of the bible, which only makes them incompatible to certain biblical interpretation, NOT incompatible with the presence of a creator and arguably not incompatible with Christianity. But I think most can agree on this anyways, since logically a creation requires a creator, leading down the path to God's existence, so on and so forth.

The theory of evolution in itself makes no attempt to refute the presence of an external, continuously guiding hand as it were. Certainly, I agree that man is not merely empirical. Nevertheless, evolutionary theory is not meant to explain the non-empirical. So it does not attempt in the least to define the body-soul relationship nor the creation of this relationship. It's a scientific theory, not a philosophical tenet.

I agree that evolution, when considered a process actively and lucidly guided by God qualifies as creationism. The breakdown is in the assumption that evolution requires that God does not play an active (non-passive) role in the process. Evolutionary theory makes absolutely no claim whatsoever as to whether or not it is a process that is actively driven by God. That is merely an interpretation added on by people, mainly the same people who would attempt to use science to refute the existence of God or erode the credibility of Christianity. Likewise, the same interpretation is assumed by those who take issue with the contradictions of such a theory and a literal translation of the biblical account of creation.

If a person finds evolution unbelievable because it does not agree with their interpretation of biblical account, it's better for them to state that than attempt to prove that evolution and other theories of origins discount a very active and personal involvement by God in natural process. The fact is that these theories, by nature, do not make any statements about God’s relationship with His creation.

I often wonder what God’s response would be to our assertion that He would never create something using a certain process. Many would say that free will itself is "inefficient" yet there it is. If God could just make us pure, why not just do it? Why a complete life-span to grow into relationship with him if He could make it happen in an instant?

[Brother Adam]

"If a person finds evolution unbelievable because it does not agree with their interpretation of biblical account, it's better for them to state that than attempt to prove that evolution and other theories of origins discount a very active and personal involvement by God in natural process. The fact is that these theories, by nature, do not make any statements about God’s relationship with His creation."


After reading both Oik's and your posts I don't see how you are addressing the valid points he brings up about evolution. You are attempting to remove God's actions in the physical world. Evolution does indeed ultimately make statements about the nature of God, because it is God who is responsible for all creation. As Oik already pointed out, even thiestic evolution is incompatible with Christianity. There is no need to restate what he has already stated, unless someone could directly show where his logic is somehow flawed.

Evolution attempts to address origins, especially the origins of [i]bios[/i], life. That most certianly does fall back into theology, even if some scientists who propose the theory of evolution attempt to stay merely in a scientific realm.

[hierochloe]

Well, I'm afraid I may be missing both of your points - please forgive my hard-headedness. Evolution does not, in fact, make any attempt to explain away God, the spiritual nature of life, nor anything else theological (which Oik pointed out). I don't attempt to remove God's actions in the world. I just stated that evolution does not make such an attempt, niether explicitly nor implicitly. Any such conclusion is a personal augmentation and therefore a straw man in a debate over the theory itself.

Evolution is compatible with the concept of God actively creating and maintaining His universe. It's also compatible with the concept of a God doing the same passively. It's even compatible (although less sensical imho) with the concept of no God. How? Because it makes no claims whatsoever about who God is or how he interacts with his creation. Period. It's complete fallacy to say that in and of itself it denies God in any way.

Obviously, [b]evolution is [i]not[/i] compatible with a literal biblical translation.[/b] No disagreement there. Naturally, as translations approach a figurative sense rather than literal, slightly more possible credibility in evolutionary theory and a whole host of other scientific concepts is allowed. Still, it is not evolitionary theory speaking of God and His specific involvement with creation. In the case of Christianity, it's the bible and a person's translation of scripture, etc that determines this. Depending on the person's conclusions regarding these spiritual lexicons, they may put more or less stock in evolutionary theory.

Who is to say that [i]what appears to us to be a passive process affected by numerous environmental variables over long periods of time[/i] could not be a very active and deliberate action by God? Couldn't God's very will be driving each and every one of these vectors? You don't think God could manipulate so many factors precisely enough to exactly produce the fruit of his will in the very same sense that a potter would use his hands to intricately mold a jar from clay? Would this not qualify as direct involvement by God (and thereby fall under creationism according to Oik)? Evolutionary theory does not deny God, and aside from disagreeing with a literal translation of Genesis, it is compatible with a Christian God as well. Unless I somehow fell off the truck ten years ago.

[Oik]

[quote]Who is to say that what appears to us to be a passive process affected by numerous environmental variables over long periods of time could not be a very active and deliberate action by God? Couldn't God's very will be driving each and every one of these vectors? You don't think God could manipulate so many factors precisely enough to exactly produce the fruit of his will in the very same sense that a potter would use his hands to intricately mold a jar from clay? Would this not qualify as direct involvement by God (and thereby fall under creationism according to Oik)? Evolutionary theory does not deny God, and aside from disagreeing with a literal translation of Genesis, it is compatible with a Christian God as well. Unless I somehow fell off the truck ten years ago. [/quote]

I think your conclusion is directly in line with what Brother Adam was saying. There is no such thing as the Evolutionary process, only God's direct involvment in creation, ie Creation.

[quote]Who is to say that what appears to us to be a passive process affected by numerous environmental variables over long periods of time could not be a very active and deliberate action by God? Couldn't God's very will be driving each and every one of these vectors?[/quote]

This is de facto Creationism.

[quote]Evolutionary theory does not deny God, and aside from disagreeing with a literal translation of Genesis, it is compatible with a Christian God as well.[/quote]

If science leads to de facto Creationism, there is no such thing as evolution or evolutionary theory.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:53 AM']This is de facto Creationism.[/quote]
Yes, and in that statement it would seem it doesn't make sense for one to say that an explanation of the physical process itself denies God's direct involvement in it's execution.

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:53 AM']If science leads to de facto Creationism, there is no such thing as evolution or evolutionary theory.
[right][snapback]714245[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm starting to see where you're coming from now, yet I'm inclined to think this is nothing more than semantics. I say potaytoh, you say potahtoh. Evolutionary theory, as well as big-bang and others, can indeed explain the physical processes involved in a creative process directly controlled by God. So evolutionary process fits within the larger umbrella of creationism, as long as one recognizes that God actively drives this process - the physical process itself is still labelled evolution.

[Oik]

[quote]Yes, and in that statement it would seem it doesn't make sense for one to say that an explanation of the physical process itself denies God's direct involvement in it's execution.[/quote]

I understand and agree on the logic here. The problem is that science, at least when it comes to non-christian sources, specifically avoids this conclusion. The obligation falls on the part of science and scientists to accept and diseminate this information. Frankly, they don't.


[quote]I'm starting to see where you're coming from now, yet I'm inclined to think this is nothing more than semantics. I say potaytoh, you say potahtoh. Evolutionary theory, as well as big-bang and others, can indeed explain the physical processes involved in a creative process directly controlled by God. So evolutionary process fits within the larger umbrella of creationism, as long as one recognizes that God actively drives this process - the physical process itself is still labelled evolution.[/quote]

IT agree, is can seem as semantics. It takes time to see the argument thorugh. It's of course more of a theo-philosophical arguement (Science is merely concerned with emperical questions).

The ramification here though are that if God is directly controlling a thing, it is not really a process. Evolutionary analogy is a kin to a modern day worker (in this explanation, God) who sits at a chair and pushes buttons (except for all Eternity) to make the computer (evolution) tell the machines (physical processes, volcanoes, earthquakes, animals) what to do to produce (here, man comes in) and continue life.

Where is Gid's involvement? I suppose a better anaology is that God is the worker and the machine and the means by which man comes to be. However, this is really Creationism in a sense.

If God designs a physical process and then lets it unfold without any real interaction, He is reduced by theory, to the Clockmaker. Faith then is reduced to Deism.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:24 PM']I understand and agree on the logic here. The problem is that science, at least when it comes to non-christian sources, specifically avoids this conclusion. The obligation falls on the part of science and scientists to accept and diseminate this information. Frankly, they don't.[/quote]
Hmmm, in my experience (bias here), professional scientists will be the first to point out that their scientific conjecture on origins is not meant to bare on anything in the supernatural realm. It seems to be the people with an alternate agenda (such as atheism or anti-Christianity, etc) that add the spiritual aspect. And in case I am misunderstanding you and you mean that scientists indeed shoulder a responsibility to make added conclusions as to the spiritual nature, I must say I wholeheartedly disagree. That would be like having a mechanic attempt to diagnose a human ailment.
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:24 PM']The ramification here though are that if God is directly controlling a thing, it is not really a process.
...
If God designs a physical process and then lets it unfold without any real interaction, He is reduced by theory, to the Clockmaker. Faith then is reduced to Deism.
[right][snapback]715816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I see your point. Yet, I think that what appears to be and is scientifically defined by humans as a "process" (much like human conception and gestation is labelled a "process") can be something far greater and not limited by our own conception and labels. For example, when I prepare a meal for myself, I go through a process. All phases of this process can be very directly controlled by none other than me. The same is true for a potter molding clay into a jar. There is a process involved in all of these things yet the "creator" of these things is still directly and actively involved.

I think the very same can apply to evolutionary theory. Evolution does not logically necessitate that it be a passive process that unfolds, initiated and managed passively by a "clockmaker" figure, so to speak. It [i]could[/i] be a passively controlled process, but nowhere is passive operation [i]required[/i] either explicitly or implicitly. I think evolutionary theory (as well as many other theories on origins) allows itself to be executed more along the lines of a potter or cook, every phase intricately, directly controlled. Inasmuch, evolution would still be a process directly controlled by God by which certain aspects of our reality come to be, thus qualifying as creationism.

[Oik]

[quote]Hmmm, in my experience (bias here), professional scientists will be the first to point out that their scientific conjecture on origins is not meant to bare on anything in the supernatural realm. It seems to be the people with an alternate agenda (such as atheism or anti-Christianity, etc) that add the spiritual aspect. And in case I am misunderstanding you and you mean that scientists indeed shoulder a responsibility to make added conclusions as to the spiritual nature, I must say I wholeheartedly disagree. That would be like having a mechanic attempt to diagnose a human ailment.[/quote]

Science intentionally limits itself to empirical observation.

Where is the fault? Man is not merely empirical.

Why is this important? Science is authoritative, that's why. Should they bear that responsibility? Yes. Theology does, Psychology does, Philosophy does. Why not science? It can't be because science limits itself. Why? Siceince is autoritative, so it has the obligation to go where it may, even if it goes beyond empirical evidence. Why? Becuase human beings are not merely empirical. The world is not merely empirical. Science must choose to either admit the non-empirical aspcet of life or give up speaking authoritatively and start issuing assumptions.

[Oik]

[quote]For example, when I prepare a meal for myself, I go through a process. All phases of this process can be very directly controlled by none other than me. The same is true for a potter molding clay into a jar. There is a process involved in all of these things yet the "creator" of these things is still directly and actively involved.[/quote]

I see your point. The distinction here though it that God created everything he molded. He created that which is used to create. God is Creation itself (NOT in the universalist mentality, mind you!).

When you do something, you are using what has been given you. Furthermore, you are wroking in the limits that God has set. You, in this sense do not create out of nothing.

[quote]I think the very same can apply to evolutionary theory. Evolution does not logically necessitate that it be a passive process that unfolds, initiated and managed passively by a "clockmaker" figure, so to speak. It could be a passively controlled process, but nowhere is passive operation required either explicitly or implicitly. I think evolutionary theory (as well as many other theories on origins) allows itself to be executed more along the lines of a potter or cook, every phase intricately, directly controlled. Inasmuch, evolution would still be a process directly controlled by God by which certain aspects of our reality come to be, thus qualifying as creationism.[/quote]

I agree with your conclusion. I do however, disagree with the logic you employ to arrive at it (wierd, huh? ).

Man is God's creation, not evolution's creation in accordance with God. In a way, evolution separates the inherent hu8manioty of man from the moment he is created. It asserts that a possess (albiet, in your sense, a process controlled by God) creates man's body.

I believe there is a disconnect here. I think that evolution fundementally separates the goodness and humanity of man from the creation of man's body.

If a process creates man's body (even a process controlled by God), the ramifications are that man's body is made in a inhumane way. Man's body becomes the object of animals. What them becomes the redemption of this animal body is that God injects into it a soul. This equates humanity for the Theistic Evolutionist.

Non-Theistic Evolution (whether it is non-Chrisitian or anti-Christian) does not even account for the soul. It doesn't nor can it account for consciousness. So the explaination of man and humanity takes a purely empirical approach. This is problematic because man is not merely empirical, man is Body-Soul.

Science has the duty to either attempt to account for this or to stop proporting Evolution.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:34 PM']Science intentionally limits itself to empirical observation.

Where is the fault? Man is not merely empirical.

Why is this important? Science is authoritative, that's why.
[right][snapback]716139[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Science should only be authoritative on scientific matters based on empirical evidence, IMHO. Otherwise we are presented with a situation akin to my example of a mechanic performing medicine. That's not to say; science is science, philosphy is philosophy, and ne'er the twain shall meet. The point is, once scientists bare witness to philosophical tenets, they are no longer practicing science. Likewise when operating in reverse. Practitioners of a field may participate in a cross-over into another field, yet it is another field than science one steps into when making philosophical claims using evolutionary theory as supporting evidence. So I disagree, science is most definitely not responsible for explaining things of a non-physical, spiritual nature.

Edited September 8, 2005 by hierochloe

[Oik]

If science wants to make empirical observations about empirical things, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

Man isn't just empirical, so Science must make a choice: Stop talking about humanity or admit that there is more to Science than empirical observation.

I believe that one day science will admit this, though I highly doubt that it will be in the direction consistant with Chrisitanity.

As for evolutionists, there actually has been a non-Christian attempt to use empirical observation to account for the soul. There is a growing opinion that man's consciousness arises from the lack of man's ability to survive among the other speices. We can't run faster, we aren't really bigger, we don't have claws or wings, we have soft "shells."

So the empiricists have said that man's consciousness "evolved" as a way for humanity to survive as a species. This is such an errror. However, if you take the evolutionist appraoch it is compatible.

This is yet another illustrastion of however evolutionary theory, the process, creates a larger disconnect between God' interaction in creation and Science.

Essentially, this theory strips a way man's consciousness from his soul. This undermines so many different things, Christianity, Philosophy, Theology.

The Soul is where man's consciousness lies. If consciousness "evoloved," then the soul unnecessary. Why? Because consciousness becomes empirical and material.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']I see your point. The distinction here though it that God created everything he molded. He created that which is used to create. God is Creation itself (NOT in the universalist mentality, mind you!).

When you do something, you are using what has been given you. Furthermore, you are wroking in the limits that God has set. You, in this sense do not create out of nothing.[/quote]
Lol, I realize my examples using human roles are not pure - and how could they be since it's arguable that humans can even begin to comprehend God's creative action.
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']I agree with your conclusion. I do however, disagree with the logic you employ to arrive at it (wierd, huh? ).

Man is God's creation, not evolution's creation in accordance with God. In a way, evolution separates the inherent hu8manioty of man from the moment he is created. It asserts that a possess (albiet, in your sense, a process controlled by God) creates man's body. [/quote]
What about a "process" that [i]is[/i] God? Could not God be [i]within[/i] all of the environmental variables that interact in that which we label evolution?
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']If a process creates man's body (even a process controlled by God), the ramifications are that man's body is made in a inhumane way. Man's body becomes the object of animals. What them becomes the redemption of this animal body is that God injects into it a soul. This equates humanity for the Theistic Evolutionist.[/quote]
Ironically, the biblical story of creation in it's literal translation does indeed outline a process - night/day, followed by gathering of waters, exposure of dry land,etc up to man molded from the dust of the ground after which life is breathed into him, "and man became a living soul". Following that Eve is created from a rib taken from Adam while he is sleeping in the garden God placed him in after creating him. Though I must admit I'm not prepared at this point to make any statements regarding the physical division between a human body and that of any other animal and how it relates to this whole discussion.

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']Non-Theistic Evolution (whether it is non-Chrisitian or anti-Christian) does not even account for the soul. It doesn't nor can it account for consciousness. So the explaination of man and humanity takes a purely empirical approach. This is problematic because man is not merely empirical, man is Body-Soul.

Science has the duty to either attempt to account for this or to stop proporting Evolution.
[right][snapback]716168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As soon as one classes evolutionary theory within a framework of specifically "non-theistic" or "theistic", they are no longer within the realm of empirical science. Science does not have a duty to account for things of a spiritual nature, because an empirical (aka scientific) approach [i]cannot[/i] account for such things.
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:47 PM']So the empiricists have said that man's consciousness "evolved" as a way for humanity to survive as a species. This is such an errror. However, if you take the evolutionist appraoch it is compatible.[/quote]
Aha, I think I see the root of discontent now. Disregarding intelligent design for a moment to play devil's advocate as it were, I think it's far more likely that survival features such as hide, claw, fang, and brute strength were reduced as increased intelligence rendered them obsolete. I could debate that further using purely physical evidence but it's not necessary. Evolutionary theory may allow for all kinds of crazy conclusions - that doesn't make them true in the least, nor does it discount the theory. The important point is that science cannot account for what Christians define as a human soul. It's scientifically impossible to develop sound empirical statements about that which is not physical - period. No, not even with evolutionary theory.

I do agree that evolutionary theory is applied by some scientists to support non-scientific conclusions, which can indeed be destructive when they fall on fertile ground. However, this is no different than people spinning scripture to their own misleading ends, which is just as destructive imo. You will find abuse in every field. Honestly, I would encourage willing scientists to attempt to explain away the soul, and God for that matter, every chance they get because for every theory they may develop that flops (and they all do), my faith is actually tempered to even stronger conviction.

[White Knight]

If Evolution were true, we'd still be having experiments today, yet we dont see anything, and even after a few hundred years there would be differences, yet we see none, we dont see any apes beginning the evolution process into men.


We'd have hundreds of thousands of human fossils labeling our link to our ape hertiege, but since we do not, it is dismissed as a forgery.


Evolution is wrong, and it needs to be taught still, but it needs to be taught in the way that students can actually understand the Flaws of it and completely dismiss it entireally.