Thank God for Evolution

[keithnurse]

Have any of you, creationists or evolutionists heard of Michael Dowd? who has a website and book titled www.thankgodforevolution.com and his wife Connie Barlow who has a similar web site www.thegreatstory.org Michael Dowd is a United Church of Christ minister and Connie is a science writer. Their writings are inspired by theologian Thomas Berry and cosmologis Brian Swimme who seek to tell the story of the universe and of the earth based on what modern science has discovered as a sacred story. Look up Michael Dowd on youtube.com he is very interesting.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Theistic evolution in terms of the Abrahamic God makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Dunemeister]

Theistic evolution in terms of the Abrahamic God makes absolutely no sense.

Hmm, makes sense to me...

 

[Vile Atheist]

The Abrahamic God has a special place for humans. If you accept evolution, you must accept the fact that humans ARE animals and are only a significant species because of our technological sophistication. One who accepts theistic evolution would have to explain why in the Bible animals are considered inferior to humans. Why would Jesus come to Earth as a specific species and die for that species. Did Jesus also come to Earth as a rabbit and "sacrificed" himself to a fox so that the wee rabbits could have their sins forgiven?

If you accept theistic evolution, you have to put humans on an unjustified pedestal. Our technological prowess is a product of our evolution. Not because of some "gift from God". Not to mention how it would be extremely cruel of God to create a world where he favours one particular species over the others and offers other animals for our use.

Now if you want to accept DEISTIC evolution, one where God creates everything, sets the tone for evolution and the screws off, that has a lot less contradictions and holes. I still don't agree with it, but I can see how someone can make a case for it.

 

[Nepenthe]

What little I know of Dowd strikes me as more of a panentheistic view. From his blog (highlights and caps from original):

"The crux of the problem, as I see it, is the failure of millions of people, religious and non-religious alike, to distinguish meaningful metaphor from measurable reality. God as a subjectively meaningful interpretation simply cannot be argued against. God is always a legitimate interpretation. But God is NOT (and never has been) an actual, physical Being, as science and common sense define reality. (Those who would attempt to argue that God is a REAL Father or King, but just in an unnatural, otherworldly sense are left in the bizarre position of claiming that God, the Creator of the Universe, is less real than the Universe, as I discuss here.)

HERE IS A WAY OUT OF THIS IMPASSE: Whenever you hear the word ‘God', think ‘Reality'. "I have faith in God" can be translated "I trust Reality". "God is Lord" means "Reality rules". Throughout the world, God has never been less than a mythic personification of Reality as a Whole, Ultimate Reality, or what today some call "the Universe". If we fail to recognize this, we miss everything. ALL images and characterizations of God are meaningful interpretations of Reality As It Really Is. When we forget this, we will inevitably trivialize God, belittle science, and desecrate nature."
The Debate Over God's Existence | Evolution, Creation, Naturalism, Emergence, Brain Science, God, Religion | The EVOLUTIONARY TIMES

Dowd seems to be fond of catch phrases and florid ambiguous phrases in explaining his brand of theism.

 

[Dunemeister]

The Abrahamic God has a special place for humans. If you accept evolution, you must accept the fact that humans ARE animals and are only a significant species because of our technological sophistication.

Why?

One who accepts theistic evolution would have to explain why in the Bible animals are considered inferior to humans.

Scripturally, humans are God's vice-regents. We're in charge of the whole shabang. It's not a matter of inherent superiority, but the fact that we have been differently endowed (bearing the image of God) for a different purpose (rulership).

Why would Jesus come to Earth as a specific species and die for that species. Did Jesus also come to Earth as a rabbit and "sacrificed" himself to a fox so that the wee rabbits could have their sins forgiven?

Foxes and rabbits don't need to be forgiven. But they do need to be redeemed, and yes, Jesus also accomplished this.

If you accept theistic evolution, you have to put humans on an unjustified pedestal.

Why unjustified?

Our technological prowess is a product of our evolution. Not because of some "gift from God".

Why the disjunction? Why can't our evolutionary inheritance BE a gift from God?

Not to mention how it would be extremely cruel of God to create a world where he favours one particular species over the others and offers other animals for our use.

It's only cruel if we use the animals cruelly. Of course, that's what happened. But that's our fault, not God's, and it's something (a) we'll be held accountable for, and (b) God has and will redeem.

Now if you want to accept DEISTIC evolution, one where God creates everything, sets the tone for evolution and the screws off, that has a lot less contradictions and holes. I still don't agree with it, but I can see how someone can make a case for it.

The holes have more to do with your lack of clarity on what creational covenantal messianic eschatological monotheism actually means.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Why?

Because humans are just another species in the tree of life. We're distinguished by our technology. But we arrived as a product of environmental pressures and a small bit of chance.

Scripturally, humans are God's vice-regents. We're in charge of the whole shabang. It's not a matter of inherent superiority, but the fact that we have been differently endowed (bearing the image of God) for a different purpose (rulership).

Before homo sapiens, who was in charge of the whole shabang?

Foxes and rabbits don't need to be forgiven. But they do need to be redeemed, and yes, Jesus also accomplished this.

Why don't they need to be forgiven? Why do humans only bear the brunt of obtaining forgiveness?

Why unjustified?

Like I said, we're just another species.

Why the disjunction? Why can't our evolutionary inheritance BE a gift from God?

Because that wouldn't be compatible with the Theory of Evolution and hence it couldn't really be called theistic evolution.

It's only cruel if we use the animals cruelly. Of course, that's what happened. But that's our fault, not God's, and it's something (a) we'll be held accountable for, and (b) God has and will redeem.

I thought God was omniscient? He would have known this would happen long before he laid down the bricks for evolution.

The holes have more to do with your lack of clarity on what creational covenantal messianic eschatological monotheism actually means.

I'm pretty sure the idea just isn't compatible with evolution..

 

[Baydwin]

What little I know of Dowd strikes me as more of a panentheistic view. From his blog (highlights and caps from original):

Dowd seems to be fond of catch phrases and florid ambiguous phrases in explaining his brand of theism.

I think his problem comes from the concept of god he's chosen to accept, so he's forced to re-interpret that god concept in light of scientific evidence instead of just rejecting it entirely and thinking outside the box a little.

I really don't think the Architect god and evolution are compatible without fundamentally altering the nature of one or the other.

 

[ragordon168]

i rember a view i heard a while ago;

god created all the wonders of the universe for all life. He made it so complex that to simply tell us about it would leave us dribbling idiots as the sheer magnitude of his creation is beyond human understanding, so he instilled in us the curiosity inherit to all of humanity, from the infant wondering what their favourite toy tastes like to the physicist theorising on the effects of splitting the atom. science is the way that humanity can build his knowledge of the universe and come closer to fully understanding god's marvel.

while i may not agree with it i think that is a valid POV.

 

[Jose Fly]

We had a similar conversation on another board. I felt then, and still feel now, that if we assign the evolutionary history of life on earth to a god, and assert that the processes and pathways are part of this god's plan, we are left with a very, very bizarre god. This god would seem to be very wasteful, inefficient, arbitrary, bloodthirsty, and inhumane.

The counter-arguments I got had to do with all the beauty in our world, which I certainly don't deny exists. However, those same people seemed to have trouble recognizing the immense cruelty, waste, and horrors that exist in the natural world.

IMO, people who assert that evolution and it's history are all part of a divine plan can't have it both ways. If you're going to give this god credit for all the beauty, you also have to blame it for all the bad stuff. Simply put, theistic evolution may seem acceptable on a superficial level, but even a little bit of objective analysis reveals its flaws.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm a creationist and yet I'm not an IDer. One doesn't have to follow the other.

So yeah, I'm a theist who believes in evolution with all of it's conclusions. I don't fill in the gaps with God.

Whatever conclusions one wishes to interpret from evolution about God is just that, an interpretation. Some find beauty in the process and although nature as we know it is a rough place, it's got chaotic nature has it's purpose toward an ordered beauty.

 

[Jose Fly]

Whatever conclusions one wishes to interpret from evolution about God is just that, an interpretation. Some find beauty in the process and although nature as we know it is a rough place, it's got chaotic nature has it's purpose toward an ordered beauty.

"It's just an interpretation" implies that all interpretations are equally valid and are equal in how well they logically stem from the facts. I don't agree with that sort of mindset at all.

And what exact "ordered beauty" is nature headed towards?

 

[Baydwin]

And what exact "ordered beauty" is nature headed towards?

Maximum entropy.

 

[Quiddity]

"It's just an interpretation" implies that all interpretations are equally valid and are equal in how well they logically stem from the facts. I don't agree with that sort of mindset at all.

Really? It implies that?

Now you're trying to get dogmatic on me with regard to interpretations? How ironic...

And what exact "ordered beauty" is nature headed towards?

It could start with mitochondria found on asteroid or even earlier with abiogenesis. Then...you see the beauty in the process of it developing into a single cell. That's just me seeing beauty in it...

 

[Baydwin]

It could start with mitochondria found on asteroid or even earlier with abiogenesis.

I think you mean amino acids.

 

[Quiddity]

I think you mean amino acids.

That's probably right, I can't remember the details.

Thanks...

 

[ragordon168]

We had a similar conversation on another board. I felt then, and still feel now, that if we assign the evolutionary history of life on earth to a god, and assert that the processes and pathways are part of this god's plan, we are left with a very, very bizarre god. This god would seem to be very wasteful, inefficient, arbitrary, bloodthirsty, and inhumane.

The counter-arguments I got had to do with all the beauty in our world, which I certainly don't deny exists. However, those same people seemed to have trouble recognizing the immense cruelty, waste, and horrors that exist in the natural world.

IMO, people who assert that evolution and it's history are all part of a divine plan can't have it both ways. If you're going to give this god credit for all the beauty, you also have to blame it for all the bad stuff. Simply put, theistic evolution may seem acceptable on a superficial level, but even a little bit of objective analysis reveals its flaws.

well the bad is just a human POV, and we have no idea if a 'god' would share that view, either that or he has made the bad to enhance the good, how do you know when something is good if you have nothing bad to compare it to.

in the matrix films agent smith mentions a matrix 1.0 in which the world was perfect and nothing bad happened, the entire thing was a failure as humanity could not handle it. maybe the same is true for life - if everything was perfect we would 'fail' and be unable to cope.

 

[keithnurse]

Theistic evolution in terms of the Abrahamic God makes absolutely no sense.

Michael Dowd doesn't promote theistic evolution. He uses the term "god" to refer to the whole universe. In other words he is a pantheist or panentheist.

 

[keithnurse]

I think his problem comes from the concept of god he's chosen to accept, so he's forced to re-interpret that god concept in light of scientific evidence instead of just rejecting it entirely and thinking outside the box a little.

I really don't think the Architect god and evolution are compatible without fundamentally altering the nature of one or the other.

That is exactly what Dowd said when I heard him speak or read his writings: that the traditional theistic god doesn't make sense but that is not a good reason to throw the term "god " out. I think it makes a lot of sense when he says that a big problem is when we understand metaphors as literal reality instead of as symbols. He uses the term "god" as a symbol of "all of reality" or the universe.

 

[Jose Fly]

Really? It implies that?

Now you're trying to get dogmatic on me with regard to interpretations? How ironic...

What else could it imply? If that's not what it implies, of what use is "that's just an interpretation" as a rebuttal?

It could start with mitochondria found on asteroid or even earlier with abiogenesis. Then...you see the beauty in the process of it developing into a single cell. That's just me seeing beauty in it...

If that's all there was to it, sure. But the history of life on earth is much more than that, isn't it?