Is It Even Possible to Reconcile God with Evolution?

[Riverwolf]

Why not?

Because elitism involves singling people out for a single trait; in this case, intellectual ability. Those who have intellectual ability are regarded as superior by default to those who do not have that ability.

It's just as bad as the mindset that those who are physically strong are superior to those who are physically weak.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I am a theist. I wholeheartedly believe in God but I cannot accept theistic evolution. What I want is for theists to understand the theory and to accept it for what it is. God does not need to interfere with it, and why should God do so? It like if I were baking a pie, I have all the ingredients and it is baking well. Why would I need to include myself as one of ingredients? You already have natural selection and sexual selection baking that pie so why would you need to include you as an ingredient in it?

 

[LuisDantas]

You already have natural selection and sexual selection baking that pie so why would you need to include you as an ingredient in it?

Fair point. Then again, it is not really unusual for people who are well aware of agriculture and pecuary to nonetheless thank God for their food.

Doesn't the same general idea apply in biology? No matter how well understood the mechanisms and history might be, it is still possible to sincerely feel that God should be thanked for making it possible.

 

[Sapiens]

Because elitism involves singling people out for a single trait; in this case, intellectual ability. Those who have intellectual ability are regarded as superior by default to those who do not have that ability.

It's just as bad as the mindset that those who are physically strong are superior to those who are physically weak.

If you want a difficult and complex problem solved do you look for someone stupid? If you need a mile covered rapidly do you look for someone slow? If you need a weighty object moved do you look for someone weak? I know I don't.

 

[Riverwolf]

If you want a difficult and complex problem solved do you look for someone stupid? If you need a mile covered rapidly do you look for someone slow? If you need a weighty object moved do you look for someone weak? I know I don't.

Elitism doesn't involve people fulfilling tasks to which they are best suited. So, what you describe here is not elitism. In intellectual elitism, the fast and strong people you would look for would also have to be 100% literate, knowledgeable of a standardized set of information, and speak the standard form of the language without any vernacular; failing all three of these criteria, and more, and they would be regarded as not only equal in value and capability to the slow and weak, but effectively "untouchable."

In any case, here's the thing: I'm a fairly decent programmer, story/character/world developer, and game designer. I can't really do division without a calculator.

I'm quite intelligent, but that doesn't mean I'm capable of doing everything that society associates with intelligence.

 

[viole]

I am a theist. I wholeheartedly believe in God but I cannot accept theistic evolution. What I want is for theists to understand the theory and to accept it for what it is. God does not need to interfere with it, and why should God do so? It like if I were baking a pie, I have all the ingredients and it is baking well. Why would I need to include myself as one of ingredients? You already have natural selection and sexual selection baking that pie so why would you need to include you as an ingredient in it?

Because when you bake a pie, you have a goal in mind: the pie.

In natural evolution, as opposed to theistic evolution, there is no goal or teleology involved. It is not a variable of the theory.

Whoever thinks there is a goal in evolution (e.g. Humans or moral agents) is de-facto a supporter of theistic evolution or, more generally, of not natural evolution.

So, it does not really matter whether one believes that God created the Universe in six days, tinkers with evolution, guides the trajectories of huge meteorites or set all these things in motion at the beginning for a well specified goal. Whoever believes any of these things can be classified as a creationist. How this creation took place is just a minor detail compared with the total absence of a conscious creative act.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

I believe in God and evolution and I admit to giving the article only a very quick skimming.

First challenge I have to the article is it seems to think that all theistic evolutionists believe the whole point of evolution was to create human beings and if this didn't go so well then why think there was a God in evolution.

I think physical life on earth was fostered by higher beings/nature-spirits that worked with the elements of the earth. These beings are above us in knowledge and intelligence and abilities but not omniscient, omnipotent, etc.. The goal was to create life from the earth but any final goal was not foreseen. It happened as their fostering of life taught them what worked and didn't work.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I like Senator John McCain's quote-

"I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: Is It Even Possible to Reconcile God with Evolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you could say that God wrote the 'Creation/Evolution' program then snapped his fingers to start it, THAT was the Big Bang..

 

[Yerda]

Topic title: Is It Even Possible to Reconcile God with Evolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you could say that God wrote the 'Creation/Evolution' program then snapped his fingers to start it, THAT was the Big Bang..

Seems straight-forward to me.

Everything is always changing. Nothing is eternal. If God made all this he definitely made it liable to change.

 

[Aman777]

In this article: Why You Can't Reconcile God and Evolution | Alternet, writer Greta Christina makes a pretty good case that the two cannot be reconciled. But as a theist I have to disagree, it is not that I believe in theistic evolution or that God somehow influenced or guided the process of evolution. I don't, I find theistic evolution impossible and contradictory but what I do believe is that God simply let the chips fall were they may and I believe that is the only way you can reconcile God and evolution.

So what thinks you guys?

Dear Cynthia, TE is a False view because God tells us He made Adam with His own Hands Gen 2:4-7 and TE teaches that we evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. It's nothing more than a Satanic Lie which is being forced upon our children, since TE has NO evidence to support it's "willingly ignorant" ll Peter 3:5 ideas. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[McBell]

*inflates rubber raft*

 

[Castaigne]

But as a theist I have to disagree, it is not that I believe in theistic evolution or that God somehow influenced or guided the process of evolution. I don't, I find theistic evolution impossible and contradictory but what I do believe is that God simply let the chips fall were they may and I believe that is the only way you can reconcile God and evolution.

So what thinks you guys?

I think that if God is omniscient, He knew how it was going to end up in the first place, and therefore no guidance or influence was necessary.

The evolutionary process is blind, goalless and without purpose, so wouldn't that mean that the Horned God or any God that is identified with the process of evolution is also blind, goalless and without purpose?

1) No.
2) I disagree that the evolutionary process is blind, goalless, and without purpose.
3) The evolutionary process, as per current scientific data, acts to propagate beneficial (or effectively neutral) mutations for a population (NOT individuals).

Religions like these only deal in absolutes, compromising is a lack of belief. Kufr as a Muslim would say

That is not true. As a former Roman Catholic, I can tell you that the Church hasn't dealt in absolutes for the most part since its founding. Theology has always been divided between the orthodox, the heterodox, and the heretical. Anything in the orthodox and heterodox categories is perfectly acceptable. Look at the back and forth on Limbo for centuries.

For millenia Christians asserted Genesis as being real and historical.

That is also not true. It has been debated for millennia as to whether Genesis is literal or allegorical. You'll find this debate to even be included in the early councils of the Church.

I think you are ill-informed on the history of theology in Christianity.

When I say sincere I am referring to the sincerity of the scripture along with the person. The sincerity of the event and the person who witnessed the event, although in this case the event is actually just a book.

This...sincerity...has no theological meaning.Or meaning in terms of literature, either. Literature, religious texts....these aren't 'sincere'.
Explain. Your terminology is unclear.

The intent behind the Lord of the Rings is obvious, it is implied knowledge.

Uh, what? That is is not true. That was not Tolkien's intent at all. It doesn't even meet "Death of the Author" theory in postmodernist literature analysis.

There is no wiggle room which is why Islam has remained so unchanged over the years.

Except Islam has changed dramatically over hundreds of years. There aren't as many denominations in Islam as there are in Christianity, but give it another 1300 years and there will be.

You need to read some history books. And take literature classes.

I am asserting that a scripture cannot be taken as allegory when they specifically do not intend upon such things.

Your assertion is incorrect according to standard textual analysis. For either literature or theological texts.

 

[Riverwolf]

Dear Cynthia, TE is a False view because God tells us

Your God has told us nothing, far as I can tell.

 

[Pegg]

In this article: Why You Can't Reconcile God and Evolution | Alternet, writer Greta Christina makes a pretty good case that the two cannot be reconciled. But as a theist I have to disagree, it is not that I believe in theistic evolution or that God somehow influenced or guided the process of evolution. I don't, I find theistic evolution impossible and contradictory but what I do believe is that God simply let the chips fall were they may and I believe that is the only way you can reconcile God and evolution.

So what thinks you guys?

evolutionists could never imagine that their theory is in any way at all, the slightest bit wrong.

Thats the problem.

 

[Riverwolf]

evolutionists could never imagine that their theory is in any way at all, the slightest bit wrong.

Actually, yes we can.

All scientists worth their salt can do that. If they didn't, they wouldn't really be scientists, anymore. Stop questioning the accepted notions, and all experimentation stops.

 

[Ouroboros]

evolutionists could never imagine that their theory is in any way at all, the slightest bit wrong.

Not true.

 

[McBell]

evolutionists could never imagine that their theory is in any way at all, the slightest bit wrong.

Thats the problem.

classic case of transference.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Here's Dawkins summing up of how the eye evolved-

"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously. Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

So there you have it folks, according to him, a lump of jelly decided to spontaneously appear as if by magic out of nowhere, and then decided to magically shape itself into a lens.
He's left one thing out of the theory, namely who waved the magic wand?..

 

[McBell]

Here's Dawkins summing up of how the eye evolved-

"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously. Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

So there you have it folks, according to him, a lump of jelly decided to spontaneously appear as if by magic out of nowhere, and then decided to magically shape itself into a lens.
He's left one thing out of the theory, namely who waved the magic wand?..

You really should work on your reading comprehension.