In what ways does the God of Evolution parallel the God of the Heavens?

[Gottservant]

Hi there!

Just a thought. Darwin was a considerably theologically minded person, when writing about his motivation to research Evolution he said (paraphrase) "I cannot imagine that God would allow His creatures to suffer [what therefore is the mechanism by which they can survive]" (exact reference unknown). In what way does this reflect the God of Evolution? Does God not manifest Himself to Evolutionists even as they seek Him through Evolution?

The thing that comes to mind is that certain rules apply no matter how God manifests Himself. For example, His Word says He will not always strive with man, so too we must imagine God will not always strive with Evolutionists. But what else? Certainly the Law does not change. I have witnessed to Evolutionists on this site simply by pointing to the golden rule from the perspective of Evolution (would you let someone evolve before you?). Other laws apply.

But there is a big leap from this to witnessing about Jesus and at the moment, I just can't see how to do it. For example, does the God of Evolution ask Jesus to work more or work less, or does he simply ask Jesus to discern? As you can see, I am confused. It is no good talking about the God of Evolution if you can't mention Jesus, Jesus as the example of something. At the moment Evolution has nothing, not even a general recognition of the possibility of a god of Evolution.

Thoughts?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Evolution is a fairy story that suggests that God does not exist and that man evolved from dirt and seawater.

The book of Genesis is the only reliable record written by the Personal-Infinite God who was there and created it all by speaking it into being.

So there can be no parallel between evolution and the God of the Bible.

Evolution has been well and truly disproved by Scientific fact. Any good scientist will tell you that.

Darwin's theories have been rubbished for a long time by the scientific community. Even Darwin himself was frustrated because he could not prove his own theories through all the experiments he did to try and prove it.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

suggests that God does not exist

Actually Evolution is more inherently Agnostic, it does not try to prove or deny the existence of a God, nor does it go into how life first got on earth.

Of course there are some evolutionists who use the theory to try to combat the idea of God existing.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Darwin's theories have been rubbished for a long time by the scientific community.

Some of the things that Darwin said have been changed by later scientists because Darwin lacked some understand, especially when it came to genetics.

However the theory of evolution has been adopted and believed to be true by almost all scientists. So to state that the scientific community sees what Darwin thought as rubbish is quite inaccurate since the reality is that since Darwin brought forward his theory, more and more scientists believe in evolution, and the theory has grown even stronger then it was in Darwin's days.

Other then the readings of Genesis, what sources have you used to state these claims?

 

[Smidlee]

Other then the readings of Genesis, what sources have you used to state these claims?

There is basically only two source on origins since man wasn't around to record it, revelation or speculation. Some believe revelation over speculation while others choose speculation over revelation.
It's interesting Paley argument has gotten stronger with time while Darwin argument is getting weaker including his imaginary "tree of life".

 

[Cyara]

Evolution is a fairy story that suggests that God does not exist and that man evolved from dirt and seawater.

Evolution doesn't say anything about God. It doesn't confirm, nor disprove. All science can say about God is "We don't know". And on the other hand, doesn't the Bible teaches us God created us from dust(dirt)?

 

[Calminian]

Evolution doesn't say anything about God. It doesn't confirm, nor disprove. All science can say about God is "We don't know". And on the other hand, doesn't the Bible teaches us God created us from dust(dirt)?

How does science say "we don't know." ??? I don't think that's the case at all. Science must assumed that natural laws have not been added to or subtracted to. It doesn't make any statements about God's existence at all, even agnostic statements. How does science prove that we don't know? is there an experiment you can point to?

Science merely presumes the nonexistence of special acts of God (miracles), a priori in any given area of investigation. If that presumption is true, it is a very valuable method. If that presumption is false, it's usefulness diminishes.

 

[Smidlee]

Evolution doesn't say anything about God. It doesn't confirm, nor disprove. All science can say about God is "We don't know". And on the other hand, doesn't the Bible teaches us God created us from dust(dirt)?

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (note Psalm 14 applies to all mankind) Notice it does not say "In his mind" since there is clear evidence of God through His creation. We are also creators which can also design powered machines.
For example , here is a perfect nano-machine which is built by other nano-machines that runs on the power generated from this nano-machine: (In the video he mentions this machine is very conservative which is another way of saying there is no sign of evolution)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shs3lFU_OFM&feature=player_embedded

 

[mark kennedy]

Just a thought. Darwin was a considerably theologically minded person, when writing about his motivation to research Evolution he said (paraphrase) "I cannot imagine that God would allow His creatures to suffer [what therefore is the mechanism by which they can survive]" (exact reference unknown). In what way does this reflect the God of Evolution? Does God not manifest Himself to Evolutionists even as they seek Him through Evolution?

Chales Darwin came from a family of atheists but he was a bit of an agnostic at least when he was younger. He was never a Christian and finally came to dismiss the Scriptures as mythology and the New Testament miracles as little more then idle stories.

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, (and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become), that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost uncomprehensible by us, that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. (Charles Darwin views on God religion and religious belief)​

By the time he published On the Origin of Species he was an avowed atheist. He had rejected miracles as possible and natural laws to explain every phenomenon in nature. He taught:

the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.(Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)​

This book has been aptly described as one long argument against creation, because that's all it ever was or all Darwinism is to this day. It is a zealous and absolute conviction that God is never an explanation for anything in creation, especially life and the ongoing development of living systems.

The Scriptures make it crystal clear that God created life, the strongest term for creation, in the original Hebrew is used in the Genesis account, exclusively of the creation of the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and man made a living soul (Gen. 1:27). That is not my personal opinion, those are facts that are not in dispute because they cannot be disputed.

But there is a big leap from this to witnessing about Jesus and at the moment, I just can't see how to do it. For example, does the God of Evolution ask Jesus to work more or work less, or does he simply ask Jesus to discern? As you can see, I am confused. It is no good talking about the God of Evolution if you can't mention Jesus, Jesus as the example of something. At the moment Evolution has nothing, not even a general recognition of the possibility of a god of Evolution.

I would strongly advise caution with your use of the word, 'evolution' because it is used in two very different ways. The theory of evolution is how traits of living organisms (all of them) change over time. No Creationist denies that this occurs but only contends that this process known as 'evolution' happened subsequent to creation and is itself provided by God. Genetics has always recognized that there are limits beyond which things cannot evolve (see my signature) Darwinians never have and never will. Such devout evolutionists are often and aptly referred to as Darwinians. What Darwinians and evolutionists mean by the term is not the scientific investigation of this phenomenon. What they mean is a function of natural law with no miracles or divine providence allowed as a cause for anything, ever.

Darwin developed the theory of natural selection as an alternative to a belief in God. Darwinian evolution is nothing more then the natural world without God and is by it's very nature atheistic. Theistic Evolutionists who believe in the New Testament think they can compromise with this world philosophy but it's a Faustian bargain. For them, God can never be a satisfactory explanation for anything, especially the origin and development of life. The Creationist has no quarrel with evolutionary biology, the conflict is between creation as essential Christian theism and Darwinism which is mutually exclusive with anything remotely theistic.

I'm not trying to be harsh, that is really what Darwinism is.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Wow, thoroughly helpful.

I shall think about this some more.

 

[Atreus]

Why should Christian theism and Darwinian evolution be mutually exclusive? Science is knowledge obtained through reason and observation of the natural world. Revelation is any knowledge revealed by God (usually about supernatural things we cannot observe). Science and revelation are in different zip codes of knowledge. Scientific models can only describe and predict natural phenomena. Science is silent about supernatural (anything outside of nature) phenomena. You can only obtain knowledge of the supernatural through revelation. It is important for us to know the supernatural as well. That is why revelation through the Bible is necessary.

God is inherently super-natural. He made nature and is above it. He is like a carpenter who makes a box and fills it with ants. The ants inside the box could not tell you what is outside the box based upon what they observe going on in the box. That is analogous to the limitations of science. We cannot observe or reason beyond our natural world, so science is inherently useless. It is the wrong toolbox. In my opinion, this is why we should ignore people who tells us that science 'disproves' God.

The only way to know what is outside the box is for the carpenter to reach in and tell the ants about himself and the world outside the box. That is not science, that is revelation. The trouble with revelation is that God must describe to you things that you do not, and could not know. I think that this is the reason God uses allegory and parable when He speaks to us. I also think that this is the reason God has placed in us a certain primal understanding or urge to seek Him and things beyond the natural world: like our inherent desire for eternity. It is a two-fold approach to helping us understand what we cannot with our limited tools.

Taking that view, Genesis answers the question of our divine or supernatural origin; potentially through allegorical devices. Meanwhile Darwinian evolution answers the question of our natural origins. These are different questions, corresponding to different types of knowledge. That is why I do not necessary see conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian theism.

In Christ

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there!

Just a thought. Darwin was a considerably theologically minded person, when writing about his motivation to research Evolution he said (paraphrase) "I cannot imagine that God would allow His creatures to suffer."

Well, then here is a guy who knows nothing about Christianity. The jews suffered long before Jesus did. And there is Job. So Darwin had a handbook on suffering yet knew nothing about the Bible except maybe passages he memorized and never comprehended.

And he knew that creatures do suffer. So he was just a guy who read Christian books now and then. Interesting.

 

[Gottservant]

Why should Christian theism and Darwinian evolution be mutually exclusive? Science is knowledge obtained through reason and observation of the natural world. Revelation is any knowledge revealed by God (usually about supernatural things we cannot observe).

[...]

Taking that view, Genesis answers the question of our divine or supernatural origin; potentially through allegorical devices. Meanwhile Darwinian evolution answers the question of our natural origins. These are different questions, corresponding to different types of knowledge. That is why I do not necessary see conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian theism.

In Christ

Your post speaks eloquently to me of the problem that I have with evolution. They are "different zip codes of knowledge", but they exist on the same highway at the same destination. It's like we are fighting just to believe there is such a thing as faith, when in fact, that is the first most obvious fact about anything in life. For some reason, Evolutionists think this "blindness" to life is a good thing, like its sunglasses or something, only not the kind you can see through.

Any other topic and there is a divine way of interpreting it. Farming, is like sowing seeds in Heaven. Cooking bread, is like waiting for the reward of Heaven to mature. Building a house, is like establishing your house on the Word. But what is Evolution? How do you have a spiritual dialogue with someone who voids their own mind before the conversation even starts. It's just so frustrating. And yet we have lives that need meaning, that crave meaning and Evolution refuses to let anyone answer it.

I can see in saying this that there is obviously an element of fear in their decision to steer clear of God, but that does not deter me. I would rather die than let people go to Hell believing there is no God, so I will find a way, one way or the other. Evolution is basically a collection of memes that reinforce unbelief, so they have a weakness: if someone can understand those memes and still believe, then what they believe is memetically viable. I have made inroads in this way already.

That said, they do not choose Evolution because they like theories, they choose Evolution because they hate God. That makes it hard, because whatever gains you make, they have to be tempered with the fact that you might not be able to pursue them, as long as that hatred is there. It will be a cold day in Hell before they give that up too, so I don't see any way around it while man still lives. There will come a day when they would wish that someone could tell the rest what they were missing, but the Lord will not allow it.

 

[Atreus]

Your post speaks eloquently to me of the problem that I have with evolution. They are "different zip codes of knowledge", but they exist on the same highway at the same destination. It's like we are fighting just to believe there is such a thing as faith, when in fact, that is the first most obvious fact about anything in life. For some reason, Evolutionists think this "blindness" to life is a good thing, like its sunglasses or something, only not the kind you can see through.

Any other topic and there is a divine way of interpreting it. Farming, is like sowing seeds in Heaven. Cooking bread, is like waiting for the reward of Heaven to mature. Building a house, is like establishing your house on the Word. But what is Evolution? How do you have a spiritual dialogue with someone who voids their own mind before the conversation even starts. It's just so frustrating. And yet we have lives that need meaning, that crave meaning and Evolution refuses to let anyone answer it.

I can see in saying this that there is obviously an element of fear in their decision to steer clear of God, but that does not deter me. I would rather die than let people go to Hell believing there is no God, so I will find a way, one way or the other. Evolution is basically a collection of memes that reinforce unbelief, so they have a weakness: if someone can understand those memes and still believe, then what they believe is memetically viable. I have made inroads in this way already.

That said, they do not choose Evolution because they like theories, they choose Evolution because they hate God. That makes it hard, because whatever gains you make, they have to be tempered with the fact that you might not be able to pursue them, as long as that hatred is there. It will be a cold day in Hell before they give that up too, so I don't see any way around it while man still lives. There will come a day when they would wish that someone could tell the rest what they were missing, but the Lord will not allow it.

I think I agree insofar as we need to separate evolution (and science generally) from atheism. In my opinion atheists have blended the two to strengthen their arguments against God. Christians contributed to this mess by persecuting science.

The theory is that nontheism, and science should be paired because of Christianity's history of persecuting science and atheism. By the very act of opposing its natural partner in knowledge (science), the Christian church provides atheists with the opportunity to say that Christian theism opposes knowledge. Since knowledge encompasses both the knowledge of the natural and supernatural, and science is knowledge of the natural, and Christianity is opposed to knowledge, then Christian theism cannot be knowledge of the supernatural. Since Christianity opposes knowledge, and nontheism purports to teach of the supernatural - teaching only that there is positively no supernatural, then nontheism must be knowledge of the supernatural. It is, therefore true, and Christian theism is false.

It is a logical argument, except for the problem that the church did not persecute science because Christian theism opposes knowledge. The argument is therefore is a distraction. There is no inherent ideological connection between the science and nontheism.

I think science is the natural partner of Christian theism. Science and Christian theism are flip sides of the same coin: knowledge. Science is knowledge of nature, Christian theism is knowledge of the supernatural. I think that knowledge is a stronger, more fundamental, and ultimately more valuable connection than persecution. The reverence for truth and knowledge mutually supports the development of both science and Christian theism.

 

[Gottservant]

I think I agree insofar as we need to separate evolution (and science generally) from atheism. In my opinion atheists have blended the two to strengthen their arguments against God. Christians contributed to this mess by persecuting science.

I agree that there is a weakness between evolution and atheism. However, I think that separating the two might be more difficult than you first think, even unwise. Which is why the Lord has led me to think specifically about evolution. Atheism doesn't attempt to be credible, but evolution does, so if you can find a way to talk to evolutionists about their credibility, I think there is a window of opportunity there.

In one way I have found the angle I was looking for. It's called discerning between trivial and non-trivial selection pressures. What it means is there is a need to discern whether what you are attempting to survive at, is actually going to help you in the long run, in terms of your overall survival strength. The point being that if you are going to discern anything, you will need Wisdom.

I think science will eventually end up validating this approach, since they have already discovered telomeres, which fortify your DNA depending on whether you have good or bad outcomes and which lead to longevity if they are working properly. That's really where the credibility comes in. It is more credible to be an evolutionist if there is a moral undercurrent to what you believe, telomeres will ground this.

The theory is that nontheism, and science should be paired because of Christianity's history of persecuting science and atheism. By the very act of opposing its natural partner in knowledge (science), the Christian church provides atheists with the opportunity to say that Christian theism opposes knowledge. Since knowledge encompasses both the knowledge of the natural and supernatural, and science is knowledge of the natural, and Christianity is opposed to knowledge, then Christian theism cannot be knowledge of the supernatural. Since Christianity opposes knowledge, and nontheism purports to teach of the supernatural - teaching only that there is positively no supernatural, then nontheism must be knowledge of the supernatural. It is, therefore true, and Christian theism is false.

I think you are convincing yourself of something there, it does not come across as persuasively as you might hope. I think there is a definite problem with people assuming that because they are non-theistic, the supernatural is explained, is that what you were trying to say? I always thought "science" was what gave people confidence that the supernatural can be explained, it has never entered my head that this is because Christianity is opposed to knowledge. I believe one of our most fundamental tenets is be still and know that I am God. I mean I can see you are leading to something, but I think you are making us more of a target than you need to.

It is a logical argument, except for the problem that the church did not persecute science because Christian theism opposes knowledge. The argument is therefore is a distraction. There is no inherent ideological connection between the science and nontheism.

I think science is the natural partner of Christian theism. Science and Christian theism are flip sides of the same coin: knowledge. Science is knowledge of nature, Christian theism is knowledge of the supernatural. I think that knowledge is a stronger, more fundamental, and ultimately more valuable connection than persecution. The reverence for truth and knowledge mutually supports the development of both science and Christian theism.

I think it goes further than that. I think people who believe in science are headed for a dead end. I think that explanations are far less powerful when not mixed with the revelation of God than people really want to admit. The lives people lead believing things can be explained, is so far sub par that when people see how great faith in God is, they will mourn that they did not ever live for more than what they could see. People are headed for a dead end.

The thing that I am trying to get at, most, which seems impossible, is that there has to be a logic to what people believe. I think you are saying the same thing when you trace science to non-theism via the broken idea that Christianity opposes knowledge. The thing is we do not oppose knowledge, rather we centralize it under God and we do that logically via the mind. Evolution has no such thing. It refuses to be accountable, refuses to see reality, refuses leave open the possibility of God influencing anything and makes itself an enemy of anyone that would try to say they see a logic there that has not yet been accepted by the greater number of people who look to Evolution.

We have in effect, gone back to the days of barbarism. But what did Jesus say? "That they may be One, just as You and I are One." So where does that leave us? We are one as barbarians? Saying nothing more than "bar bar"? I think realistically we must at least call ourselves "intelligent barbarians", for the sake of our dignity and our morality. Perhaps if we can equate humanity with something desirable, we may yet remain attractive to the Lord.

Your thoughts?

 

[Atreus]

Hello Gottservant,

How does science give people confidence that the supernatural can be explained? Would you consider that to be a fundamental end of science, or perhaps an inevitable collateral result?

In Christ

 

[Gottservant]

I think people sin and when people sin they look for a way to stop of the pain of knowing what they are doing is wrong. I think that when they realize that if they minimize the knowledge of what they are doing in the first place, then the knowledge of what they are doing being wrong will be less from the outset, so they look for ways to minimize knowledge. Lastly, I think that when they see the supernatural, they see immediately something that needs to be minimized and they realize they need something big to minimize it with, which science can be.

So science does perform that function, since it is just a tool. I think that answers your question, perhaps not in the way you were expecting.

The problem however, is not that science minimizes the supernatural, its that it doesn't do so strategically, so as to preserve the power of the supernatural. Science will tell you in one breath that the placebo is worth studying for its powerful restorative effects (quite literally there are many studies), but in the next breath, it will tell you how irrelevant the faith is, which is far more than a placebo, but when false (that is, not greatly faith) is at the very least useful as a placebo. In all this science I think simply tries to be discerning, but without the proven texts of the faith, for relating that discernment to matters of spiritual importance, in so doing removing the question of the supernatural altogether without even realizing it (for what is supernatural to God if He does not discern something scriptural?).

And that is not even what frustrates me. What frustrates me is that they do this, in the absence of a moral framework that would prevent disasters of the kind that we saw in Auschwitz, as if they are above the law. This to me is wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is a fairy story that suggests that God does not exist..

No. Evolutionary theory is completely compatible with God's word. In fact, YE creationism denies what God says in Genesis.

...and that man evolved from dirt and seawater.

God says that living things were brought forth by the Earth.

Evolution has been well and truly disproved by Scientific fact. Any good scientist will tell you that.

Sounds odd, since most scientists accept evolution. Let's take a look at your facts. ("Scientific" isn't capitalized unless it's at the start of a sentence, BTW)

Darwin's theories have been rubbished for a long time by the scientific community.

Odd then, that his theory remains the core of modern evolutionary theory which the vast majority of scientists accept as true.

Even Darwin himself was frustrated because he could not prove his own theories through all the experiments he did to try and prove it.

There was one big problem for him. He couldn't show how a new trait wouldn't be lost by dilution in a population. And if that were true, his theory could not be true. You see, he thought (as all everyone did at the time) that inheritance was in the blood, and was like mixing red and white paint together. So a new trait would be lost like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white.

Then Mendel showed that inheritance was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint. And with the re-discovery of Mendel's work, Darwin's theory became the only viable one.

 

[Gottservant]

I've reached an impasse with Evolution, but I am not sure what it means. Accidentally I stumbled on the idea of putting them in shock, with multiple threats to their survival at once. The reason being that under multiple stresses a single theory is not enough to guarantee survival of any kind. It requires something dynamic when you are under a lot of stress.

Added to this is the idea that there are many ways to laugh at Evolution and you have a recipe for an end. The thing is, I still can't get them to cave on morality or a moral standard and they do not reason well. Meaning I can't get them to see the whole in the theory for the gaping hole in their morality, they don't infer a connection between the two, at all.

If the God of the Heavens paralleled the God of Evolution in any way, now would be a great time to reveal it. Their shields are down and they are not taking ground, as indeed they have done for the past 200 years. It is only a matter of time before Darwin speaks from his grave with a counter of some kind, defiling as he does whatever reflects the covenant that gets between him and progress without Christ.

My real hope remains that people would see sense, that they would adopt a morality, because they want to, because they see it will lead them out of ignorance into the warmth of the light (and the light is warm). I do not think there is breath in God left for them if they do not come to morality in some way on their own and I think believers are starting to sense this too. The command of the Holy Spirit rests on people agreeing to do good under the authority of Christ's sacrifice, it can only mean they are wilfully ignorant of the penalty of ignoring that if they do not.

 

[kellhus]

I've reached an impasse with Evolution, but I am not sure what it means. Accidentally I stumbled on the idea of putting them in shock, with multiple threats to their survival at once. The reason being that under multiple stresses a single theory is not enough to guarantee survival of any kind. It requires something dynamic when you are under a lot of stress.

Added to this is the idea that there are many ways to laugh at Evolution and you have a recipe for an end. The thing is, I still can't get them to cave on morality or a moral standard and they do not reason well. Meaning I can't get them to see the whole in the theory for the gaping hole in their morality, they don't infer a connection between the two, at all.

If the God of the Heavens paralleled the God of Evolution in any way, now would be a great time to reveal it. Their shields are down and they are not taking ground, as indeed they have done for the past 200 years. It is only a matter of time before Darwin speaks from his grave with a counter of some kind, defiling as he does whatever reflects the covenant that gets between him and progress without Christ.

My real hope remains that people would see sense, that they would adopt a morality, because they want to, because they see it will lead them out of ignorance into the warmth of the light (and the light is warm). I do not think there is breath in God left for them if they do not come to morality in some way on their own and I think believers are starting to sense this too. The command of the Holy Spirit rests on people agreeing to do good under the authority of Christ's sacrifice, it can only mean they are wilfully ignorant of the penalty of ignoring that if they do not.

The heck?... What are you babbling about? Evolution is a biological concept describing how populations of biota change over successive generations, not some nebulous evil chthonic godling, or the basis for any kind of moral code.