How Can Evolution Destroy Faith In God?

[Willamena]

Are you an evolutionist who just remains in the micro evolutionary process theory.

They all are, if they're proper evolutionists.

I mean do you agree that evolutionists somewhere at one time believed that we came from inorganic matter and that all things came from the big bang.

I mean is that totally phased out now or are evolutionists just in denial

This is a reasonable extrapolation of the Theory of Evolution, but it is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean where did the big bang theory orginate, if not from evolutionists.

Fr. Georges Lemaitre, physicist and astronomer as well as Catholic priest, was the first to suggest what we now call the "Big Bang theory", though Johannes Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton, among others, noted the fact that the visible universe is spatially finite and expanding.

I truly understand the whole ToE ,at least where your coming from, variations of species etc.but what about the remaining theories that evolutionists ,at least on this site seem to stay clear of, that being,cosmic,chemical, stellar&planetary, organic,macro, things like that.

If you think that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" describe two different things, then you don't "truly understand the whole ToE".

If you think that "cosmic, chemical, stellar & planetary, organic, macro, things like that" have anything to do with evolution, then you don't "truly understand the whole ToE".

The big bang theory and origin of the universe is never mentioned much on this site by evolutionists and it seems they remain only in the micro aspect of evolution

The Big Bang Theory and the origins of the universe have no more to do with evolution than they have to do with any other discipline of science. The theory of evolution only concerns how life has changed, and will continue to change, over time on Earth. If anyone has told you that the Theory of Evolution concerns anything other than that, then they were incorrect.

 

[Willamena]

...Thus, it undercuts the strongest argument not just for YEC, but for the existence of any God other than the most remote, Deist one, and thereby threatens religious faith.

Just so.

There are other images of God, ones that are immune to it; the philosophical "foundation of existence" immanent creation types.

 

[Autodidact]

Just so.

There are other images of God, ones that are immune to it; the philosophical "foundation of existence" immanent creation types.

I think I understand what you're getting at here. Could you expound? Thanks.

 

[Willamena]

Could you expound?

Like this? :slap: (expound on you... expound on you...)

There are a few popular ideas the embrace an immanent creation. One, for example, relies on the realization attained through understanding that the world as we know it is just that --as we know it; hence a separation is created between the observer in a world he knows, and a world "beyond" that he can never know. The image of God then may become that "significant other."

 

[lunamoth]

IMO one of the strongest arguments for some kind of God is the argument from design/watchmaker type thing. The universe/world/life is so amazing, so complex and intricate, orderly and beautiful, that it could not have come about randomly or by chance; there must have been a correspondingly brilliant designer behind it all. I find this argument compelling, and I think that as a factual matter, not just apologetics but in terms of actual subjective persuasiveness, is probably the reason that many or most people do believe in God.

Autodidact,

First, just want to say how much I enjoy all of your reasoned posts on ToE and appreciate your patience and thoroughness in presenting the evidence here. Even though I'm a biologist by training it would take me a lot of time and research to present the case for ToE as well as you do. All I can say is that creationists need to willfully misunderstand the model of ToE, and willfully keep trying to confuse it with 'the big bang' and abiogenesis. I would never have your patience.

I find it interesting that you consider the clockmaker idea of God to be the most compelling. As a secular agnostic for many years I never felt the need to invoke a Creator to explain either the amazing complexities of life or the mind-bending workings of the cosmos. To me God is not about explaining the mechanisms of the universe, but about how we understand our purpose in it. Even if we choose meaninglessness as our place, we don't act as if our life has no meaning or purpose. Maybe that's what Tillech meant about the courage to Be, and the God beyond God.

Sorry, no real questions or points here, just a couple random thoughts provoked by your post.

 

[Thales of Ga.]

Lunamouth then you are in agreement with Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, that God is neither a being , an entity or a principle but the ulitmate explanation? If He is neither a being nor an entity , how can He be an explanation as explanations describe casuation among things? Tillich just obfuscates. There is no coherency to Ground of Being or Depth of Being as shown @ the ignostic -Ockham thread.
Such is theology - a series of obfuscations.