God and Evolution - mutually exclusive?

There is no reason Creation and Evolution can not co-exist. There is evidence of both in the Bible. It does not say that Adam was the first man, it says he was the first man God created. Or does it say that Adam and Eve were alone in the would. They were alone in the Garden.

Proof? Where did Cane get his wife? Read that account carefully.

Most Christians in academia (I can't say all, because generalizations are much too broad) believe some sort of combination of evolution and God's initiative. Evolution happened, but by God's hand - or something similar to that.

Even though I'm not sure where I stand on the "how," I do believe that however it happened, it is proof of God's power, and however it happened, He was involved. I think that's the important part, rather than the literal "how" it happened.

Also - "Quit wasting time trying to prove what cannot be proven, and try instead to show that you believe the Jesus message of compassion, tolerance and love for the less fortunate."

Yes. Exactly. So many Christians totally ignore that part of the gospel, and it's the core. Love and compassion - and not just to the less fortunate, but to all.

Rubicon:
I hope that was facetious. "protect our beliefs from any possibility that we do not understand". Whew, if that isn't contrary to human nature, nothing is.

The Bible is a book; it's not evidence of anything any more than the Iliad or the Odyssey are proof of the existence of the Greek gods.

I don't understand why anyone would want to promote the god of the bible anyway. A god who works through the laws of science and nature is far more complex and powerful than one who simply speaks everything into existence. Any entity intelligent enough to imagine the universe and everything in it and powerful enough to, if not directly create the universe, at least set in motion the events that led to the creation of the universe is simply not going to act the way it's been portrayed in most religious texts.

The god of the old testement doesn't seem particularly smart. It puts Adam and Eve into the garden of eden and orders them to not eat of the tree of knowledge. But if god really didn't want them to eat of the tree, it wouldn't have put the tree into such close contact to them. Either god wanted them to have knowledge, or it didn't realize they'd disobey the order. In any event, it doesn't reflect well on god.

People have a way of infusing non-human entities with human qualities and that's generally how most perceive god. An entity capable of setting in motion the events which created the universe would be so far beyond human comprehension that we can't even imagine it, let alone know its will. Such an entity would not create a simple universe but one that's complex with many facets and which has much to reveal to those intelligent enough to look for it.

The bible was created by primative people who used their best guesses at how everything started. The stories in Genesis are no different than the creation myths of any culture on earth.

You have a point. Most first have to believe in creation to see that it makes sense. It is also true that you have to believe in evolution for that to make any sense. Neither can be proven, and most of the "science" that has been discovered to prove evolution has been disproven (and not always told to the masses).

The Bible is so much more than "just a book". It is His story, a love story, life's instruction manual.

Catholic teaching is that the creation story is a myth spun by the Isrealites while is Babylonian captivity and that evolution is indeed valid.

The loving God of the Bible gave mankind the choice to believe or to trust or to obey. He certainly could have rigged everything so that we didn't have those choices and were just puppets on a string. What better life we have by being able to choose!

LL d'Merele, I have never heard anyone say that about the Catholic teaching before. In fact, I know that my niece and nephew who went through Catholic school and church teachings were never told that. (We had a brief discussion about creation at my brother's funeral...that's how I know.)

But the theory of evolution can be disproven. There is no way to disprove the existence of God. In fact, there is nothing one can meaningfully say about an omnipotent God. Nothing at all.

Faith and science are simply on different dimensions. And though scientists may have faith, faith has nothing to do with science. Science is a technique, not a set of beliefs.

Proving the existance of God is easy. All he has to do is make Himself prominent as He supposedly had done in days gone by (i.e., Biblical accounts).

But, you're right. Proving the existence of God doesn't prove or disprove evolution as a process. Only people insist that every word written (and rewritten and translated and selected) in the Bible is "true" and the "word of God." Hubris.

There are so many contradictions, mistatements and re-writes that the Bible is likely very full of falsehoods. That doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God either.

It does, however, make the Creationists' and Intelligent Designs' proponents a bit suspect.

There is loads of evidence for evolution as a process.

As others have said before me, I have no problem with God. It's His fan club that bugs the heck out of me.

What a great article, and the discussion that follows is even better!
As Jeff says, evolution is at least as plausible, a priori, as creation. But there is also solid scientific evidence for "small evolution." Incremental changes within species. This clearly refutes the "young earth" creationists who claim that God created the earth and all its inhabitants about 6,000 years ago, and that they remain unchanged to this day.
"Old earth" creationists make the somewhat more rational claim that evolution cannot create new species, so the evolutionist idea that man evolved from apes is invalid. There is now some evidence of species interbreeding beginning to emerge, and when that is validated, creationists will lose one more debating point...but you can be sure it won't change their mind.

A Christian accepts the existence of God and all the Christian myths...creation, immaculate conception, resurrection, etc...as fact with no evidence to support it. An evolutionist accepts the idea that this all came about through natural processes, but there are three questions that science cannot answer, and these are the cornerstones of the creationist's argument:
1. Creation of the universe, including the earth
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of human consciousness
It may be that homo sapiens is simply not intelligent enough to ever find or understand the answers to these great questions. But as long as they remain unanswered, it seems that a substantial portion of the human population needs an answer, and an easy solution is: "God did it."

Evolution is far more than some theory from Darwin's time, and every passing day confirms it more. I for one absolutely see it as a factual on-going process, and it in no way inhibits my faith in God. To deny it as a process, frankly is to deny almost all of the earth sciences, physics, mathematics, etc., etc. as well.
There is no conflict within me between the two...
Take care.

Look at a brand new baby. How can you deny the theory of evolution. Evolution is not atheistic. It is about understanding the great wonders of the universe. Life itself is awesome and should be appreciated at the highest levels. Evolution makes it possible for us to look at life in the most reasonable light.

It is His story, a love story, life's instruction manual.

I would never use the bible as a guide to life. Neither would I use Dianetics as such.

Evolution is far more than some theory from Darwin's time, and every passing day confirms it more.

I said this on another thread, but it bears repeating here. Darwin's theory is the theory of Natural Selection, not Evolution.

Gary, I like this fresh perspective. And, as so often happens, I now wonder if you are someone I know. This morning, probably when you were typing this, I had a similar discussion with a friend that ended much like the exchange between you and Rubicon. ("protect our beliefs from any possibility that we do not understand") I kept accusing him of trying to limit what he allowed me to believe only to what he has learned in this life.

And, not to be too pedantic, but Charles Darwin's work On the Origin of Species brought acceptance to the theory of evolution, which has been around since ancient Greek times. The theory of Natural Selection is one of the primary mechanisms by which evolution works.

And, no Sandy, I swear I'm not stalking you...

Why not, X? Should I shower?

:) If my bike were running, I'd be chasing you right down to the Tennessee border. Sigh.

God, depending on your definition, may be identical with the universe, but did not in some outside sense create all that is. That creation is a process, perhaps set in motion by an intelligence. However, although evolution is one of many processes within that process of creation, it is far from the only or most important of those processes. It's almost never a matter or either/or -- the universe is incredibly large and all-encompassing.

AMEN...

Jett, how dare you blaspheme the First Presleyterian Church of Elvis! Your blasphemy will deny your heart of his hunk-a'burnin' love! For He puts the FUN back into FUNdamentalism.

God or evolution sounds like the basis for a good koan.

GML:
Your concept of god is precisely mine. I've said many times that if god created the universe, he's way too big to give a crap what happens in it.

I have a question.

The loving God of the Bible gave mankind the choice to believe or to trust or to obey.

If this is true, why do so many bible followers try to take away from me the choice that they believe their god has given me.

A good scientist has no problem with reconciling a belief in a "higher power" and science. He or she understands that science is harmonious of that belief or the belief is clearly flawed.

But science doesn't have to and doesn't explain everything. That's cool. That's why we're scientists - because the amount we don't know doesn't really shrink appreciably.

If religious zealots wouldn't attack scientists for telling people what they've learned, they'd find that the number of antagonistic scientists would shrink to an extremely small number.

If religious zealots wouldn't attack scientists for telling people what they've learned, they'd find that the number of antagonistic scientists would shrink to an extremely small number.

Stephanie, the problem seems to be with the word 'learned'. Religious zealots don't seem willing to learn ,or admit that anyone else has learned, anything new. They seem to prefer living with biblical times as a reference, and repeating the same worn verses - eternally.

God and Evolution do not contradict each other because if they did, there would not be half as many scientists who subscribe to religion. There is no approach to philosphy that can prove or disprove the existence of God, a god, or gods which is what disqualifies deism from scientific measurement. Worldly manifestations however are open to debate. More on this later as I just got the idea for my next post. One requires faith to believe in God, however one need not have Faith to believe in Evolution. All one needs to believe in Evolution is to understand science, what it is, and how it works.

That's my point, Sandy. To disavow all belief in God, to be "certain" there is no God requires a certain level of close-mindedness. Most scientists I know don't have that, even if they are completely disenchanted with organized religion. For someone to scoff and belittle science because of their faith, however, is just as closeminded. My point is, this controversy is primarily one-sided; the closeminded "believers" against the open-minded "questioners." Being a questioner doesn't make you anti-God, just pro-question.

True, Stephanie. I am certain about things I have seen. I can't be certain the things I have not seen do not exist.


That was my original comment. I posted it and decided I should come back and say that I don't count seeing trees as proof there is a god, or seeing roses on the counter and knowing someone loves me.

It is impossible to be "certain" there is no God from a logical point of view, and there are very few people, if any, who make that claim. (Richard Dawkins, for example, doesn't count himself among those--he talks of probabilities.) It's curious, of course, that on the other side--being certain that there is a God--there are lots of people.

But another thing is that it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about whether God exist without defining what kind of God we're talking about. What attributes is he/she/it supposed to have? What does he/she/it do? It's completely different to talk about the likelihood of a deistic God--Einstein's orderly laws, a first cause that's not personal or no longer involved--than the possibility of a benevolent and omnipotent entity that cares about every single living thing, especially humans, is involved in day to day affairs, but for some reason chooses a wasteful, completely amoral process that causes an enormous amount of suffering to sentient beings to bring about his divine plans. Unless we redefine "benevolent" to where it's completely meaningless in human terms, I'm afraid I do see a serious problem there.

Lyndon:
Positively profound!!

Yes Lyndon (and others) ... most humans will never be satisfied with any answer to anything that does not involve a duality of right VS wrong ... it is the way we have been all "trained" to think ... (+=+) and (-=-) and the best we can do to combine them is with a divisionary void between the polarities as (+/-).

It is the religious concept of a God VS a Satan that insures that kind of thinking for most people whether they realize it or not, it has carried over into western philosophy since the ending of Plato's era when Augustine narrowed it all down to (+/-) ...

What "that" has done is solve the "problem" of PARADOX ... it is either a "keeper" (good) or NOT ... (bad) "disposable" ... right is a keeper, wrong is best gotten rid of (if you cannot FORCE it to change). (+ OVER -).


BUT ... The REAL TRUTH is that ALL (even the potential of NOthing) IS the REQUIRED TOTALITY that is the WHOLE of a UNIverse ... God being but the totality of that ALL ... a TRINITY actually, where the SPIRIT of God BRIDGES the divide of dualism via (+=-) ... the Basic Equation of Truth ... actually a PARADOX for dualists and thus as a dualist, UNacceptable, thus bad and disposable ...

But for a truly SPIRITUAL person that understands, paradox is OK, more than just OK, it grants complete freedom ... the only restriction being that what goes around comes around and God's role is to give us the UNconditional LOVE to experiment until we find that out ... Karma is the accounting that keeps track spiritually so that there are no accidents and there are no victims IN THE GREATER PICTURE of ETERNITY which is where the REAL PERSON, the spiritual aspect, the SOUL resides ... always the INdividual, YET always INterconnected with ALL else and EVERYone else ...

There is nothing in the universe that is not spiritually interconnected via the greater concept of the greater God (not a limited "religious" concept) ... but there is room for those "religious" concepts also, as well as science and the various evolutionary views ... all has it's place and time ... place (space) and time being nothing more than man-made mental constructs to use for common communications around "facts" we deem useful to unite us into a society that shares a "common" belief ... had we used different facts for the basis of our reality, we would share a different reality ... that we do not, is just a coincidence of choice.

God as the Total of (+=-) with the (His/Hers/whatever) SPIRIT INvolved throughout, REQUIRES the TOTALITY overall that involves the eternal as well as the infinite ... meaning that even the farthest reaches of what is considered negative (-) IS a part of the NEEDED "equation" of ABSOLUTE TRUTH (+=-) where everything withIN "that" which is but a "part of it" is only a RELATIVE TRUTH.

Sorry for getting "carried away", but the entire subject is so much larger than most seem to be willing to consider ... :-)

Peace, j.

PS ... a much larger picture goes way back to the Sumerian Tablets that predated all known religions on earth ... but the orthodoxy of institutions prefers to deny that because they could lose CONTROL of us IF we knew more ...

I intend to soon (when Gathers slowness gets healed) do an article on this ... meanwhile you might want to glance around (read the "introduction") on this website:

http://www.illuminati-news.com/site-map.htm

Peace through truth ... j.

PPS ... "introduction" meaning the third choice down on the upper left, the "read first" ...

Gary,

The premise of most of your "argument" here, is flawed. To say that bad stuff proves God is bad, if He made everything, is making a hidden assumption; That God is raising essentially vegetable children, whose only purpose in the universe is feel good. What if He's raising intelligent beings, and feeling good all the time is not going to get the job done?

When you take an infant to the doctor, and the doctor sticks a needle in them, would the child be right for considering that an indication you want them to suffer? It's pretty easy to think one could just summons up mature beings that already understand what is ultimately good and wise and loving, but what one is really talking about is not creation of independent beings then, just automatons. What use would God have for automatons?

The premise of most of your "argument" here, is flawed. To say that bad stuff proves God is bad, if He made everything, is making a hidden assumption; That God is raising essentially vegetable children, whose only purpose in the universe is feel good.

Can't the same be said of those people who give their god credit for doing good when it was really the surgeon who saved that life?

Sandy,

I'm willing to discuss this just as deliberately and honestly as you wish.

What must be done, if one is to approach the question of "evil" in a "good" God generated reality, I feel, is to ask why God might do that. Can you think of any potentially logical reasons off hand?

John:
My premise was that nothing is proven by the mere existence of "beauty" or of "ugliness". The existence of pain and suffering does not disprove God's existence, any more than the existence of beauty confirms it. I don't follow how you get from my premise to God raising vegetable children. I believe my premise leads to exactly the opposite.
If you want to believe that a God is in charge of the entire universe, you should at least be aware that that is a belief not provable in any scientific or factual way, certainly not by simply pointing at "beauty".

Jerry:
time being nothing more than man-made mental constructs to use for common communications around "facts"

Time is an arrow pointing in one direction only. If it's a purely man-made construct, it works pretty well as a universal constant. No one ever met themselves coming the other way. Space-time continuum physics is way beyond me, so if that's where you're coming from, sorry. I'm not able to discuss that.

"most of the "science" that has been discovered to prove evolution has been disproven (and not always told to the masses)."

that statement is not true. this type of misinformation is how "controversies" are born.

Gary, I have only dabbled in physics enough to attempt to understand the basics of it ... that so I could make my comparisons to what I believe my relatively "new-found" spirituality has intuited me to question, and that also compared to the history of metaphysics and it's potentials.

So naturally I am dealing in the more deeper philosophical areas, which is almost pure subjectivity ... that because that is what goes along with the mystical spiritual experiences that I have actually had, which also had objective symptoms, all to the degree that I believe I now know that there IS a Spiritual reality that is a priori to this our physical experience ... I am only attempting to get people interested enough to inquire for themselves about such things ...

As for time and space, from the spiritual/metaphysical concept, it is said to come together into a singularity that would be God from the aspect of a (linear concept of)relative beginning and ending, such as the so-called "Alpha" (A) and "Omega" (O) ... theoretically then the closer one actually got to God, the less time and space involved, that moment being a "NOW" whenever it happened ... all relative of course ... and thus time and space are but "measurements" of the degree that we consider ourselves "away from" God (and the t/s relational differences between any relatively separate aspect(s) of God's creation, such as between individuals) ... because God is the ultimate UNIty of the UNIverse (before, (A) and after, (O), and experienced withIN (Universe and/or self) via Spirit in any "now" experienced).

Because man thinks he "needs" an "anchor point" to relate to in order to "know" (think so anyway) his "reality", he has expanded from the personal birth/death to the "world" (if not the universe) beginning and ending, in order to make an orderly understanding of his "position" in the larger picture or totality ... for some it is the concept of "a" God that gives "that" order ... for others it is only their lifetime. For most it is just their own ego that matters most in that regard.

So it is natural for egos that feel rather alone to see things centered around themselves. Some relate to others in partnerships such as marriage for fulfilment, others seek a spiritual relationship, maybe with a god related to a God, some allowing yet a GOD. Some call one of them the Christ, others see "it" (one aspect or another) as their higher Self or Soul ... many have been indoctrinated to believe there is also an "Anti-version" to contend with ... there is something for everyone according to the way they think ... and thus they really do create their own reality to some degree, that tempered with the co-creative components of others also doing so ...

Science then is a method of creating a reality also, as generally specific questions are asked prior to an attempt to replicate a "finding" ... which is considered a relative reality until it is replaced with another ... a very slow process of change due to the peer review process which includes time investments, not to mention effort, expectations of rewards and often great amounts of cash, all of which resist change.

Usually it is ego considerations that keep all of that on the track of "orthodoxy" until one trades that ego in for a spiritual relationship connected to the ALL of God and that then an "eternal" perspective.

IMnsHO.

Gary,

"My premise was that nothing is proven by the mere existence of "beauty" or of "ugliness".

No Gary, what you're saying is that the beauty which might be attributed to God, is somehow negated by the ugliness. What you're forgetting is that beauty and ugliness imply a rather miraculous thing altogether. Us.

I understand that you don't believe what the Book is saying but that doesn't mean it isn't saying it. It is improper logic to have both sides of the potential defined according to one sides view. If the ugliness is in fact a critical part of something truly wonderful, as the Book teaches, then it can no longer function as a counterbalance to our perception of order in the universe.

There is no view such as you describe, really, which attributes the good but not the bad to God. He's not doing something as simple as making beautiful and ugly things, He's making beings capable of comprehending and relating to Him. In that process, both beauty and ugliness play vital roles, and reveal many things. Just calling half good and half bad is nonsensical. Cruelty is the absence of kindness, not the negation of it. We respond to both through the very same understanding, which is itself the true "good" God is performing in the universe.

So, John--the fact that this biological life is based on predation or parasitism--we living things eat each other--and on the survival of those individuals that do best in said areas and the death of those who don't (with death being the fate of most young animals, and extinction the fate of most species)--this reality is somehow analogous to a doctor giving a child a shot to protect him? This "design" is explained by God not wanting us to be automatons?

Evolution is no science...get serious. What...are you still in High School?

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."

Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City

John:
Thanks very much for telling me what I meant. How perceptive, in your nsHO.

"There is no view such as you describe, really, which attributes the good but not the bad to God."
Perhaps those whom I've heard express that very view were part of some other, parallel universe? The opening sentence of my article sums up what I've heard and read many times from religious relatives to Readers Digest. I hope you'll re-read it.

"I understand that you don't believe what the Book is saying but that doesn't mean it isn't saying it." I don't see where I said anything that implies "the Book isn't saying it". "The Book" says many contradicting things, and nothing it says proves anything to anyone who reads it objectively.

I agree that beauty and ugliness reveal many things...including that their existence doesn't prove the existence of any deity.

Evolution is what we know today. It should be respected for the evidence that it is. It doesn't take away anyone's notion of a God.

"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."

Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner

Excuse me, Felix, but a physicist, even a Nobel laureate, is not the final word on evolution. His expertise is no greateron the subject of evolution than that of most other educated laymen, me included.
And if he actually made those nutso comments in a context of knowledge-based discussion as opposed to faith-based, then he's not a reliable source.
OK, now go ahead and tell me that I've shown my ignorance by rejecting this great man's knowledge. (But then, please, give me the source of those quotes.)

Oh, Gary. Felix cites obscure journals when he cites his quotes at all. The respected scientists who receive government money to conduct their work are all in agreement that the theory of evolution is the best that we have today. It is science and should be respected.

Gary,

This is how you opened your article;

"Look at a happy, healthy baby and listen to it laugh that contagious baby belly laugh. Or watch the sun rise over majestic mountains. Seeing and hearing these things, how can you deny the existence of God?

The answer, of course, is to ask what is proven if that baby contracts leukemia and dies before its second birthday, or if its mother develops breast cancer and dies in pain."


I responded to what you yourself wrote. I told you that is NOT how those who believe are meaning what they say when they speak of seeing God's hand at work in our lives. You can claim you meant anything you wish, but your words clearly demonstrate a hyper-simplification of what others believe.

If I were to posit such a hyper-simplification of what you mean when you say you have seen evidence of evolution, would that not be a silly thing? How on earth can mistating your "opponent's" reasoning, lead to understanding?

Okay, Gary, scientist are not authorities on science. Your's is the final word.

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific
men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is tobe accepted as a fundamental fact."

(Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

Gary,

In case you think Mr. Dwight is not a substantive authority on what those in his field are thinking, and that there are a great body of wise and true scientists, whom you can speak for; consider this voice, who really ought to have know what the big boys are finding and thinking, one might suppose;

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."
                                      Albert Einstein

John, the key phrase in that is "in the laws of the universe". That's what Einstein believed in. He also made it clear that he didn't believe in a personal god that was interested in the affairs of humans, nor did he believe in the immortality of the soul.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

I find it baffling when Christians use him as an example of a religious scientist.

Aniko,

That's kinda cute, the way you just lopped off that "a spirit is manifest in" part. Must be that new scientific approach I see so often. It's kinda like real science, in that it centers around the observable, but takes the "if I don't see it, it does not count" approach. It's like anti-science.

Look, you can pretend that I put that up there to show I was a good little Christian boy if you like, if it helps you look away from the obvious "spiritual" implications of what Mr. Einstein said. And you can pretend I was not speaking to a man that wrote an article about God and evolution, and that the question of whether "science", as a body of some sort, finds the idea of God laughable or unwarranted. You can look away from anything at all. I suppose that's a big part of the reason for this new anti-science's huge following.

I ain't complaining, L. F. Just stating a fact, and wondering if omnipotence would perhaps entail the ability to come up with something better. And if so, whether benevolence would compel the omnipotent being in that direction. And if not, then what the hell do those two big words mean? If nothing, then let's drop them already.

Now someone please tell me how unoriginal those questions are, given that people have been asking them in one form or other since antiquity, and I will ask whether someone has actually ever answered them in a satisfactory manner.

(By satisfactory manner I mean without saying things like the Holocaust wasn't too bad because it gave people an opportunity to show courage and patience and sympathy, and the purpose of cancer is to give us an opportunity to decide whether or not to invest a lot of money in trying to find a cure for it.)

Aniko,

That's kinda cute, the way you just lopped off that "a spirit is manifest in" part. Must be that new scientific approach I see so often. It's kinda like real science, in that it centers around the observable, but takes the "if I don't see it, it does not count" approach. It's like anti-science.

I didn't "lop off" anything, John. I provided some evidence as to what Einstein meant by that spirit. (Highlighting a phrase you'll argue is important is not lopping things off.)

The rest is pretty ironic. I saw the whole of your quote and responded to it. If I hadn't seen the reference to the spirit, I would have hardly set out to clarify it. Now can you see the quotes I provided? Do they support a mystical, supernatural interpretation?

Einstein clearly finds a certain concept of God laughable--he says so--and another concept inspiring. Using the word "spiritual" glosses over the distinction he clearly made between those two--the question of what exactly Einstein meant when he spoke about God.

"if I don't see it, it does not count" approach? Back at you, John.

John,

You wrote: "In case you think Mr. Dwight is not a substantive authority on what those in his field are thinking . . ."

Since Dr. Thomas Dwight died 97 years ago (his dates were 1843-1911), I do not see how he could be any kind of authority on what "those in his field" have been thinking for the last century. The dates of the other scientist quoted by Felix, Dr. Robert Millikan, were a little more recent ie 1863-1953. However, when I tried to verify the accuracy of Felix's quote of Millikan, I could only find that quote on religious websites. What I did find out, however, was that Millikan (even though he was religious) drew up a statement (in the 1920s) IN SUPPORT OF evolution that was signed by leading scientists of the time, amongst others.

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/robertmillikan.html

As for your quote of Albert Einstein, no matter how you interpret his words, there is absolutely no mention therein of his opinion on evolution. If your quote was intended to prove that some scientists believe in some concept of god, then I do not see where anyone suggested otherwise. However, that does not say anything of "what the big boys are finding and thinking" regarding evolution.

Here is a (modern day) expert voice (in the relevant field) that does specifically address "what the big boys are finding and thinking" regarding evolution.

"There is overpowering evidence for evolution," says Matthew Scott [PhD, professor of developmental biology and of genetics at Stanford]. "There's absolutely no question about it in any serious biologist's mind. Evolution remains the unifying principle of modern biology. We can observe evolution happening now, we can trace an ever-clearer fossil record, and there is vast knowledge of the molecular mechanisms that make gradual change in animal and plant forms possible. Of course there is still more to learn. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is essentially magic."

http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evo-main.html

Aniko,

"I didn't "lop off" anything, John."

Sure you didn't, that little bit about "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science" becoming "convinced that a spirit is manifest in" something . . . "a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble" . . . is really just Al's way of saying man is great and there is no spirit he believes has anything to do with that something. Makes perfect sense, if one is senseless, anyway.

How revealing that one would "focus" on a few words, and ignore the entire context of those words, and then say they did nothing unusual.

And I believe you.

Genie,

You don't seem to get it; I never said creatures cannot evolve. I happen to believe they can, and I can see right there in the Book where God states the very same two basic principles all theories of evolution are founded upon; Creatures will regenerate "after their kind", and their "seed" is within the creatures themselves. There is no basis for claiming the Bible denies that creatures can evolve. It ain't in there, it's in your imagination, placed there by rumors.

Even the Catholic Church now acknowledges creatures can evolve. That's not the issue at all. The issue is whether science has discovered anything which can be rightly called "scientific evidence" that creatures were not created by a God. They haven't, and there is no way in hell to turn some dudes theory or speculation into scientific evidence.

Science, the real deal, is not like anti-science, wherein one gets to go directly from a possibility to a declaration of fact. One must ONLY utilize observable, and repeatable, evidence in drawing conclusions. That's the rules. No one has ever seen a living thing come into being, even though every reasonable effort has been made to cause that to occur. Even utilizing extremely contrived circumstances, and all manner of raw ingredients, including actual pieces of living things . . . Nothing. Nada, zip, zilch.

Science does not know how creatures came to exist at all. It has no widely accepted (among scientists) theory as to how it happened, even once. Science knows it did happen, but that was never really in doubt, was it? Proclaiming that science has proven more than minor evolution occurs, is an overstatement, not fact.

John,

Your assertion that "science does not know how creatures came to exist at all [and] has no widely accepted (among scientists) theory as to how it happened," and that the theory of evolution is just "some dude's theory or speculation" is directly contradicted by the quote (from Professor Matthew Scott) that I provided in my last comment. In case you did not realize, his quote referred both to macro- and micro-evolution. I noticed that you did not provide any support for your assertion that evolution is not widely accepted among scientists.

You seem to be using the word "theory" (as in "some dude's theory or speculation") to suggest that evolution is just a hunch. The Stanford School of Medicine Magazine article that I cited in my previous comment addresses this common creationist slur against evolution:

"A common creationist charge against evolution is "it's just a theory." But that argument confuses two meanings of the word "theory." In popular conversation, the word "theory" might refer to a guess or hunch, but in science an idea becomes a theory only after it is supported by overwhelming observational and experimental evidence and is widely accepted by the scientific community. Sure, evolution is a theory — and so is Newtonian gravitation, or gravity."

http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evo-main.html

Genie,

I did not make a slur against evolution, you did that in your own mind through a string of speculations and inferences. I don't wish to be rude, but I really don't care what you imagine I might mean, please stick with the words I speak, and I will try to do the same. Evolution is in fact a theory, by any definition, and not a scientific fact. I don't even dispute the theory in the general sense, but I will not throw away a lifetime of learning what science actually is, to please your sense of what that word means.

PS, The gentleman is perfectly correct in saying evolution and gravity share a similar status in science. No one knows why objects of mass, are attracted to other objects of mass. There is no particularly impressive explanation at all, at this point in time. We see the effects of something, but we do not know what is actually happening.

Evolution, as a general concept makes perfect sense, but we cannot measure or test a human beings reliability in assessing such a vast thing as the history of all life on earth. I understand that many simply assume that if one finds a fossil which demonstrates one creature is similar to one found in an earlier deposit, that constitutes a sort of unit of proof. And, that a great many such units can constitute a virtual proof overall. But it can't do that scientifically speaking.

The problem is we have no way of either testing the theory, since by it's very nature it requires vast spans of time and more or less un-manipulated environments; OR observing events in the past in anything like the way we can in the here and now, where we can't possibly observe such things. We can imagine such things, but what that means is; Evolution, is a form of belief, based on what our individual mind makes of what it sees in the evidence it is aware of. Like with gravity in a sense, we can see bits and pieces of what happened here, but we have no idea what was actually happening.

A scientist cannot rationally claim that they see something in some fossil, that would reveal whether the creature that once lived, was created or evolved. Evolution is an alternate "creation myth", which doesn't even rule out God in any way. Those could be traces of things He was generating, even within the general framework of the Bible. It really and truly is not possible to be absolutely certain what key phrases in the account are saying, from God's perspective. That too is not available to scientific scrutiny or testing.

Since there is really no purpose to emphasizing the "evolution" aspect of such ancient creatures, except to challenge a cleche Biblical account, it's basically a pointless pursuit. Science is realizing, it is not science.
It's a general concept that makes perfect sense.

a good test of a theory is if it can make reliable predictions. evolution does that(gravity too). its also good for making fun of cliche biblical accounts.

I guess geology, paleontology, astronomy and other historical sciences are just like Shamanism, Christianity, or Scientology--they're faiths.

Aniko,

I guess Aniko is just a wee bit irrational.

joseph,

I thank you for considering the explanation I gave, and it seems you understood the basic points. I am heartened by your freedom of mind.

Um . . . what possible way do we have of finding out if one's predictions, based on whatever theory about evolution, come true? The time scale involved is incredibly long, and we couldn't actually do anything meaningful with such a predictive capability, even if it were possible to confirm it's accuracy.

Predicting that a specimen one anticipates finding in older deposits will exhibit less developed characteristics of one sort or another, does not bare out in any useful way. One does or does not find what one anticipated, but it's really not in any way consistent or helpful to any meaningful pursuit of science.

Predictions about the effects of gravity certainly are, in many ways.

Aniko,

I was attempting to mirror your sarcasm, that's why I said 'wee bit'.   ; )

fossils arent "helpful to any meaningful pursuit of science"?

Joseph,

You misunderstand, I mean searching for "evolution" in the fossils has no meaningful purpose. I personally find fossils fascinating.

Yes, John, of all the adjectives you could use to describe me and people who argue like me about reality, "irrational" is the most apt.

But you know, sarcasm doesn't work half as well if you come back and explain it, and it rarely works to defuse a reasonable reductio ad absurdum, which I think mine was. What I said followed from your statements, and it's not my fault if it sounded absurd.

You're the one who said evolution is like another belief, an alternate creation myth. Your reason for this is that it is something we can't experiment on in real time (well, we can, and we do, but the time frame allows only limited scope).

But the point is that there are many other sciences that look at evidence today and try to reconstruct what happened in the past--sometimes they're referred to as historical sciences. As Joseph pointed out, they use hypotheses that make predictions that can be verified or falsified--the only difference between them and operational sciences is that the experiment does not take place in a lab, but has taken place already in nature. This predictive power is something that religions and creation myths don't have. By the way, epidemiology, and indeed medicine frequently work like a historical or postdictive science, since there are ethical constraints on experiments on humans, and the observations are often made on phenomena that occurred naturally rather than created by an experimenter.

Aniko,

"they use hypotheses that make predictions that can be verified or falsified"

If a "theory" does not make predictions that can be verified, it is not a scientific theory. That does not mean it is not a good theory, even an excellent theory, but it is not a scientific theory. Evolution does not make predictions that can be verified, so it is not a scientific theory.

"If a "theory" does not make predictions that can be verified, it is not a scientific theory"

uh,ok. evolutionary theory predicted that some transitional fossil(if you prefer, a fossil with both fish and amphibian characteristics) between fish and amphibians would be found in rocks 365-385 million years old that formed at a water's edge. so thats where they looked and thats what they found(tiktaalic).

"Evolution does not make predictions that can be verified, so it is not a scientific theory."


so, isnt that a prediction based on evolutionary theory that was verified?


"I personally find fossils fascinating."

me too

Joseph,

Again, recall that I myself have quite a bit of confidence that evolution is a real occurrence, and not a "myth" of any sort. I am not saying creature "lines" do not, or could not have, evolved.

The sort of "prediction" you speak of is not really how the "picture" we have of the development of living things has been assembled. That picture is actually in constant flux, and alters with each new significant find. At one point, birds were thought to be a development of the reptile "line", in parallel with dinosaurs. Today, they are generally considered a "branch" of the dinosaur line. It was "predicted" that specimens would be found that displayed characteristics of one sort, and that prediction has not proved true (yet). Did that disprove evolution? Of course not, the predictions simply changed to suit what was found.

Specimens are found which we have no evidence continued on further as a line, which became extinct. Does that disprove evolution? Of course not, and if a latter discovery appears to be "in-between" what we now think was a terminated line, and some line which appears in more recent deposits, they may be instantly un-extincted. And further discoveries might be seen as a better possible candidate line from which those later specimens evolved, and our fickle old friends will be extincted again.

If we do not find specimens of the "in-between" sort, is that a disproof of evolution? Of course not, we just call that prediction unverified. If a "primitive reptilian" specimen found exhibits characteristics which are MORE like an amphibian, than similar specimens in "earlier" deposits, does that disprove evolution? Of course not, we just modify our predictions to suit what we found. There are specimens which have no apparent "earlier" relatives, and no apparent "descendant" species. Does that disprove evolution? Of course not, we just call that a lack of evidence.

This is not science. This is a very good concept, which is a very good explanation for what appears to be gradual development in life on earth. The "fossil record" can rationally be seen as evidence that what folks once believed, that God created forms of life which are all "fixed", is not backed up by that record. They had no concept that life could "change" in significant ways, naturally, since they had not yet undertaken any careful examination of the matter, and species don't change much in a human lifetime. They were really just expressing their confidence that new sorts of creatures couldn't just get born from old sorts one day, and science doesn't dispute that in any way.

It can never have any effect on the likelihood that a God made life, or intervenes at whatever point in whatever creature or species' development. God may have created creatures capable of evolving anyway, so finding it probable that they have, has no impact on the possibility there is a God.

" The "fossil record" can rationally be seen as evidence that what folks once believed, that God created forms of life which are all "fixed", is not backed up by that record. "

im glad we are all in agreement

Jerry and John seem to be making a case for God's existence, or creation of the universe by attacking evolution, which is exactly the position I opposed in writing this article. Whether or not the universe was created is a matter of opinion, not provable. Time spent trying to convince people that it was created is time wasted.
Whether a process of evolution led to the forms of life we see today is provable (even if there are still some gaps in our knowledge).

I no longer join this argument because, as you say, I can't prove or disprove the existence of God. I am a secularist and therefore accept evolution but not as disproving the non-existence of God.

Gary, I seldom agree with John on these matters, especially about the "nature" of God and our relationship to "Him" (as John see's that).

I have no real opinion on "creation" itself ... just that through experience (spiritual) I do believe in at least "my" own concept of God ... but I also believe in evolution too ... the two views ARE compatible in my mind.

If you believe, no proof is needed; if you don't believe, no proof will do.

Don King, fight promoter

Heard a great lecture about 30 years ago (wish I could remember the presenter) on "theistic evolutionism". It posited that God chose to create via the evolutionary model, making occasional deliberate modifications to the process.

Who are we to say this was not the method?

Debra:
If there is an omnipotent deity, then this is the way he would have created everything. I also wish you could remember the name of the presenter.

Thanks

"If you believe, no proof is needed; if you don't believe, no proof will do"

there are countless ways a god could be proven to me. it just hasnt happened.

" It posited that God chose to create via the evolutionary model, making occasional deliberate modifications to the process"

if you accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution then you have to accept that dna mutations appear to fit our accepted definition of "random". if people want to redefine "god" as the laws of probability or some sort of statistical significance then hey, knock yourself out. i do apprieciate the bind that religious people are in.what with the evidence and all. i hear all the time about people saying that a god can create using evolution and that seems fine as long as people are talking about evolution as proposed by the worlds scientific community. if your redefining evolution to include some sort of divine hand directing traffic outside of the scientific theory of evolution. then you might as well be talking about a 6000 year old earth. there just isnt any evidence to support it.

1: True, one can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. That doesn't mean that the two sides are equally probable. One can't prove that a three-foot-tall yellow Allosaurus isn't holding up the Earth by invisible strands of spaghetti either. That doesn't mean that it is as likely to be true as it isn't!

2: Evolutionary biologists aren't trying to disprove Jesus by their work...they're understanding the nature of nature. It's got nothing to do with discrediting God.

3: I agree that we should all treat each other with compassion, tolerance and love, but I don't think that we need to justify it because "Jesus said so".

Tristan and Joseph:
Well said. I agree with you both. At one time I thought that if there is a god then it must be something like "energy". But "probability" works too.
Your 2: is the heart of the argument between creationists and those who don't believe their story. One side is trying to learn, the other side is trying to prevent learning.

And because the "two" sides (+/-) are both yet dualistic egos, neither will get the whole picture until they seek the mediation of the 3rd party, the Spirit of God. (+=-).

God and Science - Mutually Exclusive?

NO!

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in
physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727] Mathematician, Physicist:
" This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

Sir William Herschel [1738-1822]
Astronomist. Discovered Uranus, several nebulae, and binary stars.
First to accurately describe the Milky Way Galaxy: "All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more the Truths contained in the Sacred Scriptures."
"The undevout astronomer must be mad."

-----------------------------------------
God and Evolution - Mutually Exclusive?

YES!

"Christianity is - must be! totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul against the theory of evolution."

G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 19


"…I can but admire the courage and clear foresight of the Anglican divine who tells us that we must be prepared to choose between the trustworthiness of scientific method and the trustworthiness of that which the Church declares to be Divine authority. For, to my mind, this declaration of war to the knife against secular science, even in its most elementary form this rejection, without a moment's hesitation, of any and all evidence which conflicts with theological dogma—is the only position which is logically reconcilable with the axioms of orthodoxy."

Thomas H. Huxley , "Science And Hebrew Tradition Essays", pp. 229, 230

"That's why the present 'religious war' isn't between any forces of 'Good' and 'Evil.' It is being waged between Media (the State) vs. Churches (Catholic and otherwise) who are tying up millions of dollars of valuable property and assets. As Satanists, we have the advantage of realizing this early in the game. It has never been enough for us to be atheistic—we have learned how to smash religious ignorance by beating them at their own game, using the Christian's own manufactured fears to destroy them."

Anton Szandor LaVey, "The Devil's Notebook", p. 85

"Everybody knows that organisms get better as they evolve. They get more advanced, more modern, and less primitive. And everybody knows," according to Dan McShea (who has written a paper called "Complexity and Evolution: What Everybody Knows"), "that organisms get more complex as they evolve."…

"The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it's true."

Dan McShea, "Onward and Upward?" by Lori Oliwenstein, Discover, June 1993, p. 22

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26

---------------------------------------------------------

Understanding God is not attained by calling into session all arguments for and against Him, in order to debate whether He is a reality or a figment of the mind. God cannot be sensed as a second thought, as an explanation of the origin of the universe. He is either the first and the last, or just another concept. --Abraham Joshua Heschel

In other words, God has no human characteristics - jealousy, anger, fingers, toes