Can evolution and creation work together?

[metis]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Yes, as that's often called "theistic evolution".

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

Possibly yes. Matter of fact, I'll go as far as saying that if any religion and/or denomination rejects basic scientific axioms, such as the ToE is, then I would consider them to be bogus.

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.

Oh, you're no fun.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

So if you have no understanding or realization of it whatsoever... why do you believe it?

I believe I have seen the effects and manifestations of both.

Just because I do not understand exactly how they work doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?
Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?...................................

In Scripture I find God was ' before ' the very beginning because God is from everlasting ( No beginning ) - Psalms 90:2
God's spirit put everything in motion - Psalms 104:30
If God used evolution in any sense it was Not with human life.
Adam was fashioned or formed from the dust of the Earth.
Life-less Adam did Not come to life until his God and Creator breathed the ' breath of life ' into inanimate Adam - Genesis 2:7; 3:19.

 

[Valjean]

In Scripture I find God was ' before ' the very beginning because God is from everlasting ( No beginning ) - Psalms 90:2
God's spirit put everything in motion - Psalms 104:30
If God used evolution in any sense it was Not with human life.
Adam was fashioned or formed from the dust of the Earth.
Life-less Adam did Not come to life until his God and Creator breathed the ' breath of life ' into inanimate Adam - Genesis 2:7; 3:19.

Why do you believe this?

 

[Bear Wild]

In Scripture I find God was ' before ' the very beginning because God is from everlasting ( No beginning ) - Psalms 90:2
God's spirit put everything in motion - Psalms 104:30
If God used evolution in any sense it was Not with human life.
Adam was fashioned or formed from the dust of the Earth.
Life-less Adam did Not come to life until his God and Creator breathed the ' breath of life ' into inanimate Adam - Genesis 2:7; 3:19.

So what kind of dust are you talking about. silicon based? Carbon based? Iron based? Did adam get mouth to mouth resuscitation from god? Is this something like Pinocchio? So humans are not like any other form of life. We are not carbon base?. We do not have DNA?. Do we not reproduce like other life through sexual reproduction? Please explain yourself!

 

[Bear Wild]

Personally I believe it somewhat different the the question in the OP
My understanding is that the universe we are in now is only a series of universes that has existed. But yes a form of evolution do occur too

Do you see yourself as a product of evolution or something else?

 

[Milton Platt]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

Well, many things are possible. I would stick to what we can demonstrate is true.
We can demonstrate that evolution works. we cannot demonstrate the existence of a god, nor can we demonstrate that a god started evolution.

 

[sayak83]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

This assumes that God is an engineer like entity external to the universe that is the engineered device. I would like the analogy of the Higgs field to mass as a more closer match between the relation of God and the Universe. Mass is the gross manifestation of more subtle reality that is the Higgs Field that permeates this universe. Similarly the universe with all its processes is the outer observable manifestation of the more deeper and universal reality that one may call God.

 

[PearlSeeker]

OK.... How did you arrive at this insight?

It's all classical theism. There must be the Ground of being and it must be transcendent (and immanent) ...

For a Catholic Christian faith doesn't exclude reason. Creation ≠ young earth creationism because creation myth ≠ science or literal. Evolution must be accepted because of scientific facts.

That's why I see no conflict between creation and evolution.

The problem is when Darwin's theory of evolution becomes (neo)darwinism - when people think if something can be explained only with natural laws and processes then this proves all emerged by chance, all is just blind machinery...

When looking at night sky full of stars and Milky-way already intuition tells me it's not so. There must be something more... Second: mystical experience tells me it's all manifestation of God/Ultimate reality. Third: we know it from classical theism. Within this reference frame evolution in no way excludes a Creator.

"Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation."

(International Theological Commission in 2004)

A catholic scientist Kenneth R. Miller said:
" Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God's plan."

(Evolution and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, many things are possible. I would stick to what we can demonstrate is true.
We can demonstrate that evolution works. we cannot demonstrate the existence of a god, nor can we demonstrate that a god started evolution.

Nor can we demonstrate that in the metaphysical/ontological/philosophical sense that the universe in itself is natural or what not.
This is science in practice for what science can't do:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't make moral judgments:
So you can't use science to claim that is morally wrong not to accept science.

Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments.
So you can't use science to argue that there is a sort of beauty and what not in understanding the universe with science.

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge.
So you can't use science to argue that it is more useful to accept science than not to.

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Science doesn't do that, because science starts with the assumption that the universe is natural and it amounts to a contradiction to claim that science can say anything about the supernatural, because it only deals in the natural and thus as a methodology, it can't deal with supernatural.

Mikkel

 

[Valjean]

It's all classical theism. There must be the Ground of being and it must be transcendent (and immanent) ...

As I understand it,Tillich's "Ground of being" is Brahman -- God-Above-God -- not God as a being.
Immanent? Existing in our mind? This is more classical Hindu theism than classical Abrahamic theism.
Are you a secret Hindu?

The problem is when Darwin's theory of evolution becomes (neo)darwinism - when people think if something can be explained only with natural laws and processes then this proves all emerged by chance, all is just blind machinery...

I don't see emergence by chance as a problem, nor do I see combining selection with genetics as problematic. They're inextricable; different levels if selection.

When looking at night sky full of stars and Milky-way already intuition tells me it's not so. There must be something more... Second: mystical experience tells me it's all manifestation of God/Ultimate reality. Third: we know it from classical theism. Within this reference frame evolution in no way excludes a Creator.

Intuition, per se, is fine for individual faith, but it's not science and is not objectively supported. It seems to be largely determined by the cultural mythos one's raised with.
Mystical experience is also individual, though there's a certain universality to the experience. I'm surprised this led you to Christianity rather than a Perennial Philosophy.

"Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation."

Interesting. Could you expand on this?
And how do you derive an intentional plan from a non-being?

(International Theological Commission in 2004)

A catholic scientist Kenneth R. Miller said:
" Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God's plan."

This still seems to presuppose a divine plan. I'm not seeing evidence for this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now you don't even represent my argument in the correct manner.
Here is objective in its 3 different versions as relevant to your usage:

1. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
2. of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
3. having reality independent of the mind.

It is the 3rd one, where you are doing philosophy and aren't even aware of it.

So my objection is about the 3rd one, where as you focus on the 2nd one.

I'm obviously talking about empiricism where there always has to be an observer to observe the result.

All these things are a given.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe I have seen the effects and manifestations of both.

How could you possibly determine that, if there is zero understanding and realization of it?

Just because I do not understand exactly how they work doesn't mean they don't exist.

But you require understanding in order to be able to establish a causal link

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm obviously talking about empiricism where there always has to be an observer to observe the result.

All these things are a given.

No, you don't understand. The 3rd one as having reality independent of the mind is true, but empty in the following sense. It tells you that there is something there, but not what it is in itself, other than it apparently has consistency and regularity.
Example: If I imagine that I am a computer program running that was started 25 seconds ago and will stop in another 25 seconds, my experiences as happening in my mind would be the same as if I was in a universe as you assume, we are in. But there is no way to test that even in principle, because you can't get outside your own mind apparently, because you experience through your mind.
So for the 2 universes, the experiences of consistency and regularity are the same, but what they are as independent of the mind is different.

So we are once again playing the differences between methodological naturalism and metaphysical/ontological/philosophical naturalism and you assume the later, but you can't use evidence on that. And there is no evidence, proof, reason, logic and what not that can decide it.
You are apparently just of of those non religious humans, who don't understand the limit of evidence, proof, reason, logic and what not.
It is unknown, what the reality as independent of the mind is other than independent and that it appears to have consistency and regularity. When that was realized in philosophy, you got the split between philosophy and science. Science is without evidence, proof, reason, logic and what not in effect the belief that reality independent of the mind is, as it appears in the mind. But that is an acceptance of faith as for all the following definitions of faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof; complete trust and something that is believed especially with strong conviction.
Further it is supernatural in the following sense: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
That the universe is independent of the mind as it appears in the mind, is an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.

Hi TagliatelliMonster. I have been doing this for over 20 years now in company with primarily your sub-culture of believers and it took me some time to get. You are believers, you are just not aware of it.
BTW I am also a believer, I just know it.

Mikkel

 

[Thief]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

the short answer is ....yes

stands to reason

if you have what it takes to set an entire universe into motion

you can tweak molecules for evolution

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, you don't understand. The 3rd one as having reality independent of the mind is true, but empty in the following sense. It tells you that there is something there, but not what it is in itself, other than it apparently has consistency and regularity.
Example: If I imagine that I am a computer program running that was started 25 seconds ago and will stop in another 25 seconds, my experiences as happening in my mind would be the same as if I was in a universe as you assume, we are in. But there is no way to test that even in principle, because you can't get outside your own mind apparently, because you experience through your mind.
So for the 2 universes, the experiences of consistency and regularity are the same, but what they are as independent of the mind is different.

So we are once again playing the differences between methodological naturalism and metaphysical/ontological/philosophical naturalism and you assume the later, but you can't use evidence on that. And there is no evidence, proof, reason, logic and what not that can decide it.
You are apparently just of of those non religious humans, who don't understand the limit of evidence, proof, reason, logic and what not.
It is unknown, what the reality as independent of the mind is other than independent and that it appears to have consistency and regularity. When that was realized in philosophy, you got the split between philosophy and science. Science is without evidence, proof, reason, logic and what not in effect the belief that reality independent of the mind is, as it appears in the mind. But that is an acceptance of faith as for all the following definitions of faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof; complete trust and something that is believed especially with strong conviction.
Further it is supernatural in the following sense: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
That the universe is independent of the mind as it appears in the mind, is an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.

I always, by default, talk from an empirical standpoint, because it's the best we can do.
You're wasting a lot of webspace and energy with these tangents.

Hi TagliatelliMonster. I have been doing this for over 20 years now

Sorry you wasted so much time.

in company with primarily your sub-culture of believers and it took me some time to get. You are believers, you are just not aware of it. BTW I am also a believer, I just know it.
Mikkel

I believe plenty of things. You're going to have to be more specific. Try stating it in one sentence and to the point?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I believe plenty of things. You're going to have to be more specific. Try stating it in one sentence and to the point?

Do you know, if you are sighted/has vision, that the monitor in front of you, is there independent of you as the monitor in itself?
By know I mean strong proof, evidence, reason, logic and all that and not just that you believe it and it doesn't mean, that the monitor is there in itself, but that the belief appears to work?

 

[Hawkins]

Can it be that in the very beginning there was a God or at least a heavenly being who put everything in motion, but the rest is a form of evolution?

Would not that technically give both religion and science a correct answer to evolution vs creation?

PS: I am not going to jump on anyone who wish to discuss this OP.
So both believers and non believers alike are welcome to discuss

You need to first know what science can do and cannot do.

Science relies on falsifiability to address a truth. Falsifiablity subsequently relies on repeatability to work. If you can't make something repeat itself, all science can tell is that "if what you said is not true, we cannot tell" (i.e., not falsifiable). Simultaneously it means "if what you said is a truth, we cannot tell either". The scientific situation is, both Big Bang and the deceptively called evolution are a matter of the past, science can do nothing but to say that "if what you said is a truth, we can't tell", unless you make big bang and the evolution of a human (or any living organism) from a single cell organism repeats itself to subject to falsifiability. In a nutshell, science cannot tell a truth which is is one time historical event (as it's not falsifiable).

On the other hand, humans mostly get facts from testimonies. If there is no lying involved, if there is no decay in the process of conveying then a testimony conveys a truth. Humans mostly rely on such a testimony to get to a truth, even under the circumstance that such a testimony can convey a lie in the same way. That's what our history is made of. It is so because humans lack the capability to get to a past or a future. We are the creature of now. We can only be precise on something which is repeatable. That's why science can be very precise because it's about something which can repeat.

So creation is talking about how a research starting with a testimony. Evolution is about how a research starting with a giving-up saying that "we can't tell even when what you said is a truth as it's out of our capability to do so".

In a nutshell, creation is about whether we trust that the info involves no lies and no decay of info during conveying (only a God can guarantee so). Evolution simply says "we can't come to any conclusion as whatever said is not falsifiable (i.e., if what you said is true, we can't tell. if what you said is not true we can't tell either).

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

How could you possibly determine that, if there is zero understanding and realization of it?

You are misrepresenting what I initially said.

I did not say that there was "zero understanding and realization".

What I said was that I believed that evolution and creation work together "just not in the way that any of us realize or understand".

We knew the "effects and manifestations" of gravity long before we realized what it was or understood it.

But you require understanding in order to be able to establish a causal link

I believe that facts have been revealed by both the theory of evolution and the creation narrative.

Since I believe there is truth in both - there needs to be a link between the two.

 

[Brian2]

Technically, they could run parallel in theory. Modern Deism is unfalsfiable and faith-based.

Deism before the discovery of evolution was quite different. It was taken as a serious scientific hypothesis that explained the apparent design in biodiversity, and a solution for the hard problem of consciousness. Since then, science has marched on and disproven these explanations, which is why Deism is restricted to faith now.

Science has not eliminated God from anything really, it is just that science has changed and is more evidence based (and that does not mean historical evidence or philosophical evidence) and so God is not seen as an answer for anything since God has not been shown to exist through physical evidence. The only answers science can seriously come up with in a "scientific" way, have to be naturalistic answers.
But that does not mean that God is not a part of the answers, it is just that God is not part of the scientific answers. So God has not been disproven to be the creator and designer and nobody knows what consciousness is, so God has not been disproven there either.