Scientific American weighs in -15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[Sunstone]

I've always thought the notion of evolution and the notion of God were compatible for precisely the reasons you mention, Dinogrrl.

 

[Scuba Pete]

fredm596[/url] vbmenu_register("postmenu_147729", true); ]I would like to ask you just a simple question as how can you believe in God AND evolution?
i am rather confused with these 2 conditions being one?

And I am confused as how one could look at the beautiful simplicity of evolution and NOT believe God designed it.

Hey Pah,

YEC and OEC??? Can we define these acronyms??? vbmenu_register("postmenu_147729", true);

 

[Dinogrrl]

YEC: Young-earth creation
OEC: Old-earth creation

 

[Sunstone]

I've never met another so called "scientific theory" that had less substance than Creationism.

 

[Majikthise]

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms.

Sweet.

A true oxymoron.

 

[Pah]

NetDoc ,

Sorry, those were common expressions at the last board
Old Earth Creationist - generally, accepts the fossil record and the geological age of the earth. Sees evolution as the means whereby God created the earth
Young Earth Creationist accepts the Biblical genealogoical age (basically, a Biblical literalist)

 

[fredm596]

ok, so by using "real science" can you please tell me how a rock can produce living organism's.
This question has been puzzling me for some time.

Thank You

 

[Pah]

ok, so by using "real science" can you please tell me how a rock can produce living organism's.
This question has been puzzling me for some time.

Thank You

Aboigenesis does not procede from rock. So, I guess, there is no answer in science for that specific question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've always thought the notion of evolution and the notion of God were compatible for precisely the reasons you mention, Dinogrrl.

But, to say that 'evolution and the notion of God are compatible' is but a polite way to say that, with respect to evolution, God is wholly irrelevant. Dawkins wrote:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. [Out of Eden, quoted by Victor J. Stenger]​

Those who appeal to the compatibility of God and evolution either appeal to some God-of-the-gaps or to some teleological distortion of evolution.

 

[michel]

But, to say that 'evolution and the notion of God are compatible' is but a polite way to say that, with respect to evolution, God is wholly irrelevant. Dawkins wrote:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. [Out of Eden, quoted by Victor J. Stenger]​

Those who appeal to the compatibility of God and evolution either appeal to some God-of-the-gaps or to some teleological distortion of evolution.

Sorry Deut (I'm going to regret this, I can feel it coming on), but my belief in God is that however far back you go, on the 'evolution ladder' there still has to be a starting point-inexplicable scientifically-and, for me, that is where God 'comes in'.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry Deut (I'm going to regret this, I can feel it coming on), but my belief in God is that however far back you go, on the 'evolution ladder' there still has to be a starting point-inexplicable scientifically-and, for me, that is where God 'comes in'.

OK. If you choose to call this presumed catalyst 'God' instead of 'something as yet not understood', that is your right. But I suspect that you do far more: attributing qualites and purpose to this 'God' with neither reason nor justification. Otherwise, to say 'God did it' is to say absolutely nothing whatsoever.

 

[michel]

OK. If you choose to call this presumed catalyst 'God' instead of 'something as yet not understood', that is your right. But I suspect that you do far more: attributing qualites and purpose to this 'God' with neither reason nor justification. Otherwise, to say 'God did it' is to say absolutely nothing whatsoever.

So you'd be prepared to accept theism in the context of a belief of something as yet not understood ? - I mean, as far as I am concerned, that is what God is - but saying 'God' is much shorter!!- I don't think you are right in saying that I attribute qualities and purposes to this 'God'- can you give me an example ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think you are right in saying that I attribute qualities and purposes to this 'God'- can you give me an example ?

I'm just walking out the door, Michel. If needed, I'll scan past posts in an effert to substantiate my statement later. But, is it needed? Do you honestly maintain that by 'God' you mean no more than 'something as yet not understood'? This seems more than a little disingenuous.

 

[michel]

I'm just walking out the door, Michel. If needed, I'll scan past posts in an effert to substantiate my statement later. But, is it needed? Do you honestly maintain that by 'God' you mean no more than 'something as yet not understood'? This seems more than a little disingenuous.

Having tought about it long and hard Deut I am 100% happy with no more than*except what I have added* 'something as yet not understood'- (with one reservation - that being that 'this something' promotes growth or acts as a catalyst for growth). To explain myself further, obviously, I can have no conception of what 'God' is - I don't see how anyone can; maybe I've been calling the 'wrong thing' God all my life, just to fit in line with others. Maybe we actually believe in the same thing. Help!!!!!!

You've really confused me now.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Those who appeal to the compatibility of God and evolution either appeal to some God-of-the-gaps or to some teleological distortion of evolution.

Pure rubbish.

 

[Dinogrrl]

Er...yeah. Agreeing with NetDoc here .
I believe evolution progressed as we have an understanding of it today (although, of course, our understanding of it is not perfect, so there's room for interpretation and such). I believe God set it in motion, and God ultimately had a hand in which direction it went, but He did not interfere with how it progressed.
If we humans had evolved from, say, canids instead of primates, we would still be His children, made in His image.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Pure rubbish.

Apparently I touched a nerve.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Er...yeah. Agreeing with NetDoc here .
I believe evolution progressed ... and God ultimately had a hand in which direction it went, ...

That's very nice, and I have no doubt that NetDoc agrees with you as well, but that is not the theory of evolution. My sole point, which you have so kindly confirmed, is that theists embrace evolution only after bastardizing it and transforming it into fairy-tale. But evolution as understood by the likes of Dawkins, Eldridge, Gould, and Myers is not goal directed and has nothing to do with 'progress' or 'God's plan'.

 

[Dinogrrl]

...evolution is the fact that things change over time. I've never said anything to the contrary.
I don't really see how I'm 'bastardizing it' by saying that God's there, too.

I never said that evolution was 'progress'. I never said it was 'goal-oriented'. please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Having tought about it long and hard Deut I am 100% happy with no more than*except what I have added* 'something as yet not understood'- (with one reservation - that being that 'this something' promotes growth or acts as a catalyst for growth).

So your God is qualitatively more than a 'First Cause' - it "promotes growth'. Unfortunately, this phrase, which you seek to pass of as a mere caveat, can refer to anything from fertilizer to goal-direct miracle. Evolution says, essentially, that you and I are accidents and not the result of divine intentionality. Do you agree?