Does "creation by evolution" really equal God making mistakes?

[Vance]

There are two groups which raise the same point: if God created through evolution, this means He is not omnipotent since the process is one of trial and error. Ironically, the two groups are YEC’s and atheists. My feeling is that this concept was probably originally floated by the atheist side and was fully believed by the Creationists with the result that it persuaded them that evolution, then, must be false.

I would like to open a discussion of this point in particular: must "creation through evolution" require an imperfect Creator?

I would propose that the answer is no. I think it is our own bias which views a process such as evolution as "trial and error". I think we need to step back and consider that, to God, a system which allows for the rise and fall of species, growth and modification, success and failure based on the rules He, Himself, established, might not be "full of mistakes" after all. He did not create a single species and then see it fail. He simply could have created a *system* which *allows* for success and failure. The system He created would not be mistaken at all. It would be happening EXACTLY how He created it to happen: life and death, success and failure, modification and development.

Why would He do this rather than just wave it all into existence? I have no idea, I am not God. Even if you look at the YEC position: why would it take Him six days? Could He not have done it all with a single wave of His hand? If God could *choose* to create over six days when He did not *need* to, why not create over billions of years even though He did not *need* to? Six days or a billion years are exactly the same to God since He is beyond time.

And this idea does not mean that God couldn’t also choose to step in with a special creation action for Man at some point. It could have all been part of His plan. One thing is certain is that the Genesis account does not tell the whole story by a long shot.

 

[Jet Black]

well I see no problem reconciling a God with evolution. In fact it almost answers questions if one allows themselves to think laterally, it actually creates an extremely clever and cunning God who comes up with a solution to a number of problems through the method he uses to create:

1) God is inherently Good... God does not do evil things, and hence cannot allow evil in his presence.. so where did evil come from? Well the system of evolution inherently allows it: it forces competition, selfishness and all those other bad things. so all God needs to do is set up evolution, and it makes both good evil for him, and allows the species within the choice between them.

2) God relies on faith.... Absolutely any problem with the universe that requires a God, would immediately eradicate the possibiliy of the atheist or agnostic position, since a deity would be required. This is not the case because we have a mechanism for which life can come about, and a really good reason for not knowing how the universe came to be, hence the search for God is not an evidence driven one.

there are probably more, but this is off the top of my head. any thoughts?

 

[Arikay]

One thought is that its a much more hands off solution. God doesn't have to sit around and micro manage all the millions of species to keep them alive. They adapt to environmental changes by themselves.

 

[Jet Black]

One thought is that its a much more hands off solution. God doesn't have to sit around and micro manage all the millions of species to keep them alive. They adapt to environmental changes by themselves.

especially all those that will go extinct before we ever see them, and all those in silly places like hyddrothermal vents and in sealed off caves deep underground.

 

[Duane Morse]

well I see no problem reconciling a God with evolution. In fact it almost answers questions if one allows themselves to think laterally, it actually creates an extremely clever and cunning God who comes up with a solution to a number of problems through the method he uses to create:

1) God is inherently Good... God does not do evil things, and hence cannot allow evil in his presence.. so where did evil come from? Well the system of evolution inherently allows it: it forces competition, selfishness and all those other bad things. so all God needs to do is set up evolution, and it makes both good evil for him, and allows the species within the choice between them.

2) God relies on faith.... Absolutely any problem with the universe that requires a God, would immediately eradicate the possibiliy of the atheist or agnostic position, since a deity would be required. This is not the case because we have a mechanism for which life can come about, and a really good reason for not knowing how the universe came to be, hence the search for God is not an evidence driven one.

there are probably more, but this is off the top of my head. any thoughts?

"1) God is inherently Good... God does not do evil things, and hence cannot allow evil in his presence.. so where did evil come from? "

But God is also inherently all that there is, too. Maybe the inherent goodness of God is the reason for the separation of Light from darkness, good from evil, in the first place. But maybe that evil is also an inherent part of God's Spirit.
But before Light was formed, there was no darkness.
Before Light was formed God was neutral.
Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

By defining what is good in the Spirit of God, evil is also defined. Evil has to come from God, before God became Light.

Many think that there will be no evil in heaven, because of your statement that God can not allow evil in His presence.
But, as it is pointed out in Job...
Job 1:6 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
... Satan was in the presence of the Lord. Is not the Lord, God?

God separates Himself from evil, but evil is in the presence of God. At least up until a certain point, when Light is fully formed. Then evil is in outer darkness, outside of the Light that is God. God essentially removes the evil from within the Spirit of God in a purging process that leaves evil outside of "All That There Is", to become nonexistant once the process is complete.

Man is created in the image of God, and that image is the image before Light was formed when only the heaven and earth existed. So Man has both good and evil inherent within. God breathed into Adam the Spirit, the Spirit that has yet to separate good from evil, and Man is the vehicle by which the good of the Spirit is separated from the evil of the Spirit in the physical. The Holy Spirit of Man is the Bride of Christ, a part of the Son of God and of the Light. And the rest is cast into the outer darkness, being of the spirit of darkness.

I also see no problem reconciling evolution with God's creation, and I see no problem with Man being created in God's image and all the rest evolving along conventional lines.

But that is how I understand the good and evil aspects, and of where evil comes from.

 

[revolutio]

I also see no problem reconciling evolution with God's creation, and I see no problem with Man being created in God's image and all the rest evolving along conventional lines.

Ah yes, but why would God need to create us spontaneously in his image? Could he not just create the universe and set its initial conditions so perfectly that he knew we would arise looking the way we do?

 

[Vance]

Ah yes, but why would God need to create us spontaneously in his image? Could he not just create the universe and set its initial conditions so perfectly that he knew we would arise looking the way we do?

Yes, that is the approach many TE's take. You can believe this and believe that Genesis is pure allegory and symbolic for concepts of God and Man's relationship and the nature of good and evil, the need for redemption due to the loss of communion with God, etc.

Some take it a step closer to traditional Creationism and think that God knew exactly where and when Man would develop to a certain point He had in mind, then stepped in and interacted with the events for which Genesis 2 is an allegory.

Or, you can step even a bit closer and say that God actually took an intervening action by infusing something new, a soul, into Man at that point. And maybe triggering the latent abilities which the scientist described in the article I quoted in another thread. Kind of a Brin-like "uplift".

Or you can get even closer and believe that there actually was a literal Adam and Eve, but chosen from among the existing H. Sapiens and yes, placed in a specific paradise, and that the events described happened in some form. Adam and Eve were then sent back out into the world, etc.

So, their seems to be a full spectrum of possibilities even among the concept of Theistic Evolution.

 

[Jet Black]

I also see no problem reconciling evolution with God's creation, and I see no problem with Man being created in God's image and all the rest evolving along conventional lines.

But that is how I understand the good and evil aspects, and of where evil comes from.

are HERVs some kind of joke then?

 

[lucaspa]

I would propose that the answer is no. I think it is our own bias which views a process such as evolution as "trial and error". I think we need to step back and consider that, to God, a system which allows for the rise and fall of species, growth and modification, success and failure based on the rules He, Himself, established, might not be "full of mistakes" after all. He did not create a single species and then see it fail. He simply could have created a *system* which *allows* for success and failure. The system He created would not be mistaken at all. It would be happening EXACTLY how He created it to happen: life and death, success and failure, modification and development.

Why would He do this rather than just wave it all into existence? I have no idea, I am not God.

What does the Bible mean when it says God is perfect? Does it mean He never makes mistakes? Does it mean He is morally perfect and never commits an immoral act? Both? Neither?

Even if God directely manufactured each species, He still would have designed them by trial and error. Why? Because Darwinian selection is the ONLY way to get design! Darwinian selection (which is called artificial selection when humans do breeding projects and natural selection when it is in the wild or genetic algorithms when it is on a computer) is an algorithm to get design. That is, it is a series of steps that, if followed by a servile dunce, is guaranteed to produce design. As far as anyone can tell, it is only algorithm or any other way to get design.

When humans design, we do Darwinian selection in our heads. That is, we throw up a variety of designs, then mentally test them against the environment of what we want the thing to do, discard the ones that don't pass, and then modify the ones that do until we get a design that we think is good enough to manufacture. Well, guess what? If God did directly manufature organisms (poof them, speak them, form them from clay), then God went thru the trial and error process of Darwinian selection in His mind before He manufactured.

So, even waving it into existence would have meant Darwinian selection.

So, why did God use Darwinian selection in material organisms instead of His mind? There are several possible answers:

1. This was the only way the universe would have meaning and the eventual humans would not just be puppets.
2. God didn't care what the final physical form was and wanted to be surprised. Knowing everything in advance for all eternity is incredibly boring! What's more, it's without purpose. Why go thru all the motions when you already know the outcome? The people who say God knows all the future really deprive God of meaning. That's IT!
3. God wanted a universe where GOD had meaning! With evolution nothing is totally pre-determined so God would have purpose in interacting with Creation.

4. Less flattering is the possibility that God simply didn't know how to design an intelligent species that could communicate with Him. Humans use Darwinian selection when the design problem is to tough for us. Darwinian selection will find a design when we can't. So God used Darwinian evolution knowing that it would eventually produce a sentient species that could communicate with Him.

 

[Duane Morse]

Ah yes, but why would God need to create us spontaneously in his image? Could he not just create the universe and set its initial conditions so perfectly that he knew we would arise looking the way we do?

I suppose God could have, if that was the way He chose to do it.
But the Bible outlines it a different way, and I personally see no reason to doubt it.
But it is not just how we look, our Spirit is that of God.

Like I said, I think God used both methods. The initial conditions were perfect, but in that perfection it may have been impossible for evolution to do the job of bringing Man to the level of God on it's own. It may have needed God's direct intervention at one or more points to ensure the outcome. So, Man is created in God's image and Jesus is begotten directly of the Father.

Man could be the ultimate form in the evolutionary process, at least in a three dimensional world. But the thing about Life is, death has to be overcome. Not just extended, but surpassed. And death is a requirement in the progression of Life, because of the Pattern of Life itself.

So, how do you overcome death if you have to die in order for your Life to progress? It would seem impossible, on the face of it.
So, God becomes Man, in Jesus, and Jesus overcomes death because death has no power over God. God becomes Man, and Man becomes God. With the resurrection of Jesus the circle is completed, Light is fully formed, as far as this world goes.

 

[Duane Morse]

are HERVs some kind of joke then?

As in HUMAN ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES (HERVS)?
Maybe, I don't know. Maybe they serve a purpose, maybe it is because our physical form is like the others on this planet.

 

[lucaspa]

I suppose God could have, if that was the way He chose to do it.
But the Bible outlines it a different way, and I personally see no reason to doubt it.

The Bible outlines two ways it says God did it. They contradict. So which is right? And of course we have all that evidence God put into Creation to doubt your literal interpretation of the Bible.

But it is not just how we look, our Spirit is that of God.

Are you sure it isn't something different? Are you sure "in the image of" didn't have a different meaning to the people of the time?

Man could be the ultimate form in the evolutionary process, at least in a three dimensional world. But the thing about Life is, death has to be overcome. Not just extended, but surpassed. And death is a requirement in the progression of Life, because of the Pattern of Life itself.

Why does death have to be overcome? I see no reason for the requirement. Can you explain the requirement in more detail?

I see it as God's choice to offer salvation and perhaps eternal life. No requirement. He could easily have chosen not to do so.

 

[Jet Black]

As in HUMAN ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES (HERVS)?
Maybe, I don't know. Maybe they serve a purpose, maybe it is because our physical form is like the others on this planet.

you mean we need HERVs to make us look even more like monkeys?