How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[gnostic]

Excuse me, but that's a whole lot of words you just tried putting in my mouth. I never stated nor even vaguely implied that I accept the Genesis account of the creation as an accurate account of what took place. Please don't lump me in with the folks who do.

I am sorry.

 

[blü 2]

That is correct. I made no mention of the Bible in the OP or the creation story it tells.

Then why would anyone think the theory of evolution was more a problem for the existence of God than germ theory, quantum theory, or tectonic plate theory?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, strictly speaking, being the originator of this universe (that is, this physics, which causes this universe) would not rule out subsequent interventions later in time, so one could have both nature created and unfolding naturally without interventions, yet also have some interventions anyway also. In scriptures part of the stories are about instances where God intervenes in discrete instances in human affairs and alters what would have been the natural outcome to a different outcome.

I see what you mean that later interventions would be possible. What I refer to is the astonishing evidence of gradual change which looks exactly like cruel experimentation as well as the obvious weaknesses and throwbacks causing extinctions as well as suffering. The full tree of species represents millions of years of suffering and death which overall is good for us, since we exist. Overall its in our favor but doesn't look like a pleasant process. Rather to me it speaks of the physical world as separate from spiritual. It doesn't rule out miracles, but it is incompatible to me with planning a perfected species. In William Blakes poem The Tyger he asks "...did he who made the lamb make thee?" Its chilling to consider someone would have created the world like ours with so much suffering on purpose. I don't mean occasionally there is a problem. I mean that the path through the tree to our species is full of agony, fear, murder etc. There are reasons that I can't connect this with a God called 'Love' by NT authors. Millions of species exist, and they clearly fit into a tree of life; and that tree has required quintillions of painful lives and deaths on its way to making humans. Here at the apex of time we stand. All of that death just for us? It is too horrible. A wise man cares for his animals. Would a merciful God, more merciful than a man, plan such a terrible path or cruel experimentation? I can't think that.

 

[blü 2]

And I served mine on iidb in the late 90's.

Then you're an elder elder statesman than I am!

 

[Skywalker]

I would like to understand from members how they would think or believe that the existence of God negates Darwinian evolution. Does it?

The issue with evolution is explaining the origin of the first life. Life didn't generate spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then you're an elder elder statesman than I am!

Just elder elder ...

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then why would anyone think the theory of evolution was more a problem for the existence of God than germ theory, quantum theory, or tectonic plate theory?

That's what I was hoping to learn when I posted the OP.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The issue with evolution is explaining the origin of the first life. Life didn't generate spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.

Are you sure? How much research and study have you done on abiogenesis?

 

[Skywalker]

Are you sure? How much research and study have you done on abiogenesis?

Small changes within a species can exist. But you cant go from one kind of being to another kind of being. Microevolution can happen-macro evolution can never happen.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Small changes within a species can exist. But you cant go from one kind of being to another kind of being. Microevolution can happen-macro evolution can never happen.

I think you missed the second question.

 

[Skywalker]

I think you missed the second question.

Abiogenesis is macro evolution. DNA is too complex to have evolved from primordial soup.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Abiogenesis is macro evolution.

No, actually its not. Evolution is a theory that does not assume where the first species comes from. It can come from anywhere.

DNA is too complex to have evolved from primordial soup.

I don't know what primordial soup is, but the DNA in any given species is made the same way as DNA in other species, and it is now known that the DNA is copied from parents to child. The DNA in any creature is a copy from previous creatures. Its made of the same sugars and has the same helical structure. There are very few species which don't have DNA.

 

[JustGeorge]

 

[Skywalker]

No, actually its not. Evolution is a theory that does not assume where the first species comes from. It can come from anywhere.
I don't know what primordial soup is, but the DNA in any given species is made the same way as DNA in other species, and it is now known that the DNA is copied from parents to child. The DNA in any creature is a copy from previous creatures. Its made of the same sugars and has the same helical structure. There are very few species which don't have DNA.

DNA is too complex to evolve from primordial soup. Life from Life...or Not?

Life from Life...or Not?
by David Demick on December 1, 2000
Life only comes from life. This was the law established by the Author of Life, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ.

Once Darwin, in 1859, advanced the idea (not really new, even then) that God was not needed to explain the diversity of life on Ear th, the next question was 'Where did life come from, if not from God?' Darwin was too cautious to overtly promote the spontaneous origin of life in his Origin of Species. But this implication of his evolutionary theory was clearly understood by his followers, particularly Thomas Huxley. In 1870, Huxley, known as 'Darwin's bulldog' for his aggressive and successful efforts to promote Darwinism, boldly proclaimed the ability of life to come from non-life.

Ancient Greek philosophers had preached this error of 'spontaneous generation' and it had set in men's minds like concrete.
Again, this was not a new idea. Until very near that time, it was generally believed that life not only could come from non-living matter, but that this was occurring under our noses all the time. Ancient Greek philosophers had preached this error of 'spontaneous generation' and it had set in men's minds like concrete. One could see fish and frogs coming from pond slime, and flies from rotting meat. True, the fine cellular structure of living things was beginning to be widely observed through the microscope, but without the intricacies of modern biochemistry and molecular biology, cells just looked like tiny gooey blobs. So it was easy to believe that microscopic cellular life could spring up from non-living sludge.

However, Louis Pasteur was in the very process of proving that spontaneous generation of cellular life was even more illusory than the flat earth. So Huxley had to change the name of the process, and push it into the remote past, in order to keep it credible. He changed the name to 'abiogenesis' (see aside below), cleverly evading the fact that it was no longer observable:

'. . . if it were given to me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the Earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancey [sic], I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter.'1
Huxley's overt intention was to oppose the teaching of the Bible on the origin of life. Genesis says clearly that God created space, matter and energy in the beginning, and that He made all living things in the first six days, to reproduce after their own kinds thereafter. The creation was finished after those six days, so we should not expect to see any more life starting from non-life.

However, current scientific literature continues on the path Huxley laid down, building on the Greek thought before himóthat life arose in the past from a 'primordial soup', and evolved to its present state of complexity over billions of years.

There is much speculation about life arising in many places in the universe in an on-going fashion. But what does scientific observation and experiment tell us? We never see evidence for anything like a 'primordial soup', nor any life arising spontaneously. We only see living things reproducing 'after their own kinds' (with variation, even 'speciation' possible within each kind).

Nowadays most scientists and teachers take a somewhat 'schizophrenic' approach. They deny spontaneous generation, recognizing Pasteur's proofs against it. At the same time they say life arose spontaneously in the past, when we weren't around to observe or measure the process.

Christians are the ones usually accused of 'blind faith', and of refusing to face facts. How ironic that many sceptical scientists demand that God show Himself to their measuring instruments before they will believe, yet they accept the unproven, unscientific idea of 'abiogenesis' without a qualm!

To appreciate the immensity of this, consider the times around 1860. The microscopic world of the cell was just beginning to be understood. Single-celled organisms had been recognized for some time, but the fact that all living things are made of reproducing cells was just vaguely being recognized. The role of microorganisms in causing disease was not yet understood. Their role in fermentation was just being elucidated, and was the subject of Pasteur's now-famous experiments.

Pasteur's proofs
Fermentation had been studied before Pasteur, by such eminent scientists as Lavoisier, Gay-Lussac, and Schwann. The prevailing view then was that fermentation was a peculiar type of chemical reaction inherent to non-living organic residues. However, Pasteur performed many experiments with fermentable materials in specially sealed flasks. When the flasks were sufficiently heated, they would no longer ferment. But if the seal was broken, they would.

Thus, the agent of fermentation was living, and could be killed by heat. Moreover, this agent was unable to regenerate itself from its constituents. Pasteur used a microscope to see the microorganisms responsible for fermentation, and showed that they can be air-borne. He concluded correctly that spontaneous generation, even of microbes, is a fallacious concept, without experimental justification. He showed that the failure of earlier scientistsóeven great namesóto reach this conclusion was due to their failure to control outside contamination of their flasks.

Establishment fights back
The proponents of spontaneous generation thought they had a large body of experimental data (now known to be faulty and misinterpreted) to support them. This 'old school', led by eminent French botanist/zoologist Félix Pouchet, opposed Pasteur vigorously for years. An interesting summary of these disputes is given in Nordenskiöld's 1926 book:

'In a series of investigations he [Pouchet] tried to prove that the micro-organisms arising upon fermentation and putrefaction are spontaneously generated . . . . In the view of such a theory Pasteur's fermentation experiments were, of course, pure irrational nonsense, and thus began a lengthy controversy between these two experimental scientists. . . . The two antagonists were allowed to carry out their experiments before the French Academy of Science, and Pasteur succeeded at once in convincing some of its foremost members . . . . Pouchet likewise had his supporters, andespecially among the scientifically educated and the half-educated public he gained many adherents who regarded spontaneous generation as a 'philosophic necessity', indispensible for a natural-scientific explanation of the origin of life, which Pasteur, faithful Catholic that he was, naturally felt himself compelled to explain dogmatically. Thus argument opposed argument, and party faced party. In these circumstances the solution of the problem would never have become possible had not Pasteur been able to put his ideas into practice on a large scale. . . .Pasteur's views on the origin of the micro-organisms received splendid practical confirmation as a result of the development of modern medicine; antiseptics and asepsis during surgery, disinfection, and the treatment of infectious disease. Owing to these facts, which found fresh confirmation daily, spontaneous generation has entirely ceased to exist as a possibility to be reckoned with in modern biology, nor does it come into serious question when we have to explain actual phenomena.2 (Emphases added).'
Pasteur's scientific legacy is immense. He is rightly honoured as one of the greatest biologists of all time. The spontaneous origin of life would have long ago become a disproved myth of the past, if not for supposedly objective scientists clinging tenaciously to the dogma of naturalistic evolutionism.

 

[rational experiences]

If science as just humans thinking quote if the first law heat historic as one original mass state then evolution to stone coldest creative mass in space would not be present.

As one. Origin of status one. First law one.

Entity O mass planet stone highest natural form released its gases. Science false sexual comparison to male self. How heavens spirit was conceived.

Male thoughts. Male human owner of the thoughts then false claims by my say so. Theme greed false status ownership thinking. Warning to self.

Science quotes consciousness in life identified self via sexuality.

Humans are not a one planet. Are not stone. Are not mass.

No man is God real.

Argument God is a male by male scientific thesis about God.

Evolutionist says as the same thinker hence I am right. Looks at an ape producing where he lives as a human procreating human babies. Closest info to self as a bio life.

Yet refers to old human mutated irradiated bones. Monkey like as nature left the garden support and genetic mutated. A human looked monkey like.

As a human we healed from a monkey looking human.

Science to think wrong. Status warning group egotism conditions.

Science proved it practiced radiation science before by talking about a beginning. When stone evolved it owned no beginning it had been completed. Owned no stone beginnings. Is not a reaction. Is a cause effect. Cooling condition of body of energy mass.

Hence science asked if cooling after burning is exact. Then what once existed was not burning. To stop the burning effect.

Spirit higher state that answer. History where did anything and everything come from.

Ask a self who quotes all highest states owned in space are a body X mass conditions owned and formed as each end. Mass he says is spatial created evolution.

Water its highest mass.

Science says chemical power reaction before water is not water inferred to hydrogen status as a lesser not evolved higher form.

Human says I use to imply taught as a baby to adult by memories of previous adult.

Proven real in believed reincarnation adult past lived experiences. Baby sexually conceived proved parent memories. Memories of parent past history true.

Atmosphere proves condition to record life X image and voice conditions.

Parent memory. Pre owned eternal spirit forced released from eternal body not in space due to atmosphere that filled in emptied space owned by planet that had caused it.

Body planet named as the creator in storytelling. The creator. Earth therefore changed the eternal by contact.

Gases put back where burnt out eternal historic had been removed.

Body human androgynous. Both human changed into sexual being as each spirit owned their own sounds. By body presence. Body presence separation condition. As a spirit body.

Memory recorded by the atmosphere shows them entering on this side as a pre owned spirit self. Living inside the atmosphere we see by vision memory on atmosphere side that spirit walked through. Converted their body.

Why bio form has to replace water in our bodies to remain alive.

Why we know.

Ask science how could you know reactive converting from highest natural form that goes into destruction unless you came out of the eternal body being the spirit who Sung out creation. The status change in its owned previous natural body.

The memory quotes space is now a hole within its body. The hole the loss once never existed. Space defined as the hole. Space however owns holes as a continued loss of pre existing mass.

The argument science is about an inventor by thinking claiming I created everything as I claim to copy first law. Yet thinking also includes inference to mass as first powers in the same quote.

Yet he never created the mass.

If you ask him why he ignores this advice. The reason spirit history. I was the spirit who changed the eternal body. Why I claim wisdom to first law.

Male science self.

Science applies first law as converting condition. Which they copy as destructive not creative reasonings.

Science as a human therefore did not create creation. No argument in reality. Science thinking did not invent my life.

If all bodies did not exist part of theorising. Then the thinker could not ponder upon the body they study.

Human warning. Egotism lies.

Science already stated evolution theory is just a belief.

Science says God evolution human from stone mass just a belief.

Humans teaching quote everything originally was released from pre existing spirit body taught as the eternal.

Space was taught to be infinite. Owned no measure. Could not be size quantified which is what science does. Composed a measure to quote quantified.

Space by infinite said space is a space by its finite description missing what once was quantifiable. Presence.

The argument. Where did everything come from. We know we are not mass evolution in space.

 

[blü 2]

That's what I was hoping to learn when I posted the OP.

Oh.

Well, thanks for the clarification and good luck!

 

[sayak83]

Which? Evolutionary theory or the history of life?

In broad strokes:

Evolutionary theory is founded on the idea that three unguided processes - inheritance, random mutation, and natural selection - are responsible for the history and diversity of life on Earth. If any factors other than these three are responsible in a significant way, then evolutionary theory is wrong.

As for how we know it's right... well, it works. It's confirmed by observation and experiment, and has excellent predictive value, This supports the idea that the understanding behind the theory is sound.

The problem here is that today designers regularly use evolutionary search algorithms to find the optimum design for specific problems. These search algorithms proceed like evolution with pseudo-random mutations and selections. Our methodology is not entirely undirected because we try to save time in design projects and because getting true randomness in traditional computers is impossible. But it is possible that a highly advanced designer can choose an idealized version of such an evolutionary design system that will look like random and undirected from within.

 

[McBell]

The issue with evolution is explaining the origin of the first life.

Only for those who make it so.
Evolution does not even address the beginning of life.
It has always been about the diversity of life already here.

Abiogenesis deals with the beginning of life.

Life didn't generate spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.

prove it.
And I mean with objective empirical evidence, not with "GodDidIt"

 

[McBell]

Small changes within a species can exist. But you cant go from one kind of being to another kind of being. Microevolution can happen-macro evolution can never happen.

Define "kind"?
I ask because it is not a term used in science to describe a classification of anything.
AND....
Because I sincerely hope you will be the first one ever to define it in a meaningful productive manner.

 

[McBell]

Abiogenesis is macro evolution.

No it isn't.

DNA is too complex to have evolved from primordial soup.

Prove it.
And no, that video you presented does not prove anything.
At best it reveals the ignorance of the speaker.
At worst it reveals just how dishonest the speaker is.