If God is all-powerful, why use evolution?

[stumpjumper]

First of all, Evolution is only a theory which cannot explain many phenomena. It also violates all natural laws of chemistry, physics and biology. God only established the natural laws. Why would He use Evolution which contradicts all the natural laws God Himself had established?

Evolution violates no natural laws. Stop listening to Kent Hovind.

The evolution of life violates no more natural laws than simply living. How does genetic mutation violate a law while cell meiosis does not? God establised the laws and allowed life to follow its own course.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Just wondering what you all think. If God is all-powerful, why did God use evolution to create life on earth? It seems like a cruel and non-loving way to create.

Wouldn't it have been more loving to create all at once, in six twenty-four hour days, and thus avoid millions of years of suffering and death? The whole evolution thing seems cruel and unnecessary.

Just curious.

ltrain

If God is all-powerful, why does God use gravity to hold things on earth? It seems like a cruel and non-loving way hold things down (look at what happens when you fall from a great height).

Wouldn't it be more loving to use His hand, and thus avoid many broken arms on 12 year old boys who fall from trees and broken necks from guys falling from ladders? The whole gravity thing seems cruel and unnecessary.

Just curious.

 

[gluadys]

First of all, Evolution is only a theory which cannot explain many phenomena.

The theory of evolution is not intended to explain many phenomena. It explains the facts relative to the changes in species that bring about bio-diversity. There are many things outside of biology that it does not explain.

It also violates all natural laws of chemistry, physics and biology.

Evolution operates entirely within the laws of nature. It does not violate any of them. Looks like someone has been feeding you lies about evolution.

God only established the natural laws. Why would He use Evolution which contradicts all the natural laws God Himself had established?

Exactly. God does not ordinarily violate his own natural laws. See above.

 

[The Lady Kate]

First of all, Evolution is only a theory which cannot explain many phenomena.

Very few scientific theories are 100% conclusive. You'll find that human knowledge on just about everything has its limits.

It also violates all natural laws of chemistry, physics and biology.

name one of each... and if you mention "thermodynamics" or "entropy," you won't be taken seriously.

God only established the natural laws. Why would He use Evolution which contradicts all the natural laws God Himself had established?

because it doesn't?

 

[shernren]

That's gross.

Anyway, here's something a creationist (keyarch) posted in the Creationist subforum which I believe speaks quite plainly about the role of death in a pre-Fall world.

If we were designed to live forever physically, then what purpose would the tree of life have if not an antidote for eating from the bad tree? Yet it must not be an antidote if once needed it was blocked from our access. So I have to conclude that we weren’t designed to live forever physically unless we ate from the tree of life. So if there hadn’t been the sin, and the world was populated, each one would have to make a pilgrimage to the Garden of Eden to partake of the tree of life at some point in their life to be able to live forever physically.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining that the world would be populated to its fullest and all those people living forever. Something would need to happen to replenish the resources. Also, that many people living without anyone ever eating from the bad tree doesn’t seem to be reality, and so the whole thing with the trees seems to be a setup for failure.

So my conclusion is that we were not designed to physically live forever apart from having to do something external so secure it. Which leads me to believe that the whole creation had a built-in lifespan and hence the need for reproduction. So in other words, I allow the possibility for there to be physical death before the “Curse”. In my view, the “Curse” was directed at specific persons (Satan and the woman) and things (the ground) and not everything in the universe. Therefore, I think that the animal kingdom was designed with defense and attack systems like we see today and that they weren’t some stored genetic features that expressed themselves after the curse or any other such morphology. I further believe that because Scripture doesn’t mention what creatures of the sea were to eat and they also weren’t destroyed by the judgment of the flood, which implies that they would have the same kind of food as they do today. This means that God designed fish to eat other fish etc. and in His view that was perfectly pleasing and the way this earth was intended to work.

Excuse me for the scattered thoughts, but I don’t really have the time to organize them any better right now, but I wanted to respond to your post.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

First of all, Evolution is only a theory which cannot explain many phenomena. It also violates all natural laws of chemistry, physics and biology. God only established the natural laws. Why would He use Evolution which contradicts all the natural laws God Himself had established?

It violates gravity?

 

[Talita Kum]

Just wondering what you all think. If God is all-powerful, why did God use evolution to create life on earth? It seems like a cruel and non-loving way to create.

Wouldn't it have been more loving to create all at once, in six twenty-four hour days, and thus avoid millions of years of suffering and death? The whole evolution thing seems cruel and unnecessary.

Just curious.

ltrain

As for me, I don't believe in theistic evolution nor any other evolutionary theories. It may be more possible than the "conventional" evolution theory that excludes any spiritual creature in general, because theistic evolutionists at least have an explanation as to how something could have been animated that could be defined as the very beginning of the evolutionary process. But you're right, it makes no sense, after all. Why should God get things rolling and then sit back and watch? Well, might be sometimes he's moving his finger there a little, and here a little, preventing this and averting that... but I think that's not what God wants to do or wants to be. It's not God's "nature", so to speak. Sure, a few billion years is a short breath for God, but he's not sitting around, watching a fish turning into whatever-comes-next until he can have companionship with the highest of creatures on earth ("so far", evolutionists may say): man. The Bible says clearly that God created man after his image: we have the desire to be in companionship, we want to be loved but also are able to love in return unconditionally. By no means at all can I imagine God watching as evolution took its slow path, and neither do I have the sensation that God is speaking about theistic evolution while I'm reading the Bible. The Bible is my guideline, God's word I rely on. And what the Bible tells me about the world is not evolution, not even theistic evolution.

 

[shernren]

But you're right, it makes no sense, after all. Why should God get things rolling and then sit back and watch?

Who said God sat back and watched?

God causes everything. God is the First Cause, the Prime Mover, and everything that happens happens only because He does not forbid it.

I understand the position you're coming from. I used to be there too. It's the position where God is only doing something if He's breaking laws in the process. When a law of nature is broken and a woman who has never had sex conceives, that's God at work. When no laws of nature are broken and a woman conceives because she has sex, that's not God at work -

Or is it??

God works through every supernatural event and every natural event.

Here's an example. What was God doing when WWII was on? Wasn't He "sitting back and watching"? After all, the Americans didn't beat the Japanese (and indirectly free my country from their oppression and put us on the road to independence) by praying really really hard and watching legions of angels pound the Emperor. They beat the Japanese by building and launching atomic bombs, perfectly explainable scientific machines.

Does that mean that it wasn't God who caused them to win?

Just because evolution science tries to explain the diversity of life ... doesn't mean it says "God wasn't behind it".

 

[Talita Kum]

Who said God sat back and watched?

This premise comes along somehow automatically with the fact that evolution is known as a process that once activated itself and has quasi rolled on ever since. Or do you think God initiated the evolution process, watched the whole process so that it didn't take any wrong turns, and even intervened as soon as evolution started taking its own paths? Evolution is a process that knows no definite guidelines. Evolution has ALWAYS been utmost strongly dependent on its environment, its circumstances. God can influence circumstances, of course, but why would he create a long and weary process like evolution that seems so extremely contingent and fortuitous if he is able just to speak one word, and voilà, everything's there? God is very direct, very distinct, straight-forward, persistent in what he does - why should he use evolution? Evolution demands that the individual struggles for existence. Now, God is the GIVER - he GIVES us life freely, we don't have to struggle for it. I live by God's grace, not because my ancestors fought against each other to survive.
You see, I can't explain it any better. Theistic evolution makes no sense for me at all. I just wonder where God's plan for the salvation of humanity fits within the frames of evolution? Jesus was with God from the very beginning; the Bible says that everything was created through Jesus. After some time, God realized that the world was too dumb and sinful to simply worship God, the one who gives just EVERYTHING a heart desires. So, he sent Jesus, his son, to die for us. Jesus became MAN - he didn't go through the entire evolution process from the beginning - God created Jesus that way he would become a physical human being. Question: if God had indeed created the world through an evolutionary process, why would he violate his own laws and SEND his son to live in a physically real human body? Maybe I'm thinking in too much complicated terms, but these are questions that occupy my mind, and no one has been able to answer these questions so far.

Just because evolution science tries to explain the diversity of life ... doesn't mean it says "God wasn't behind it".

In most cases, it does. Actually, evolution is treated as absolutely true, even taught at schools as adequate material explaining the origin of humanity while the whole world is standing upside down when one teacher suggests that the creation story from the Bible be taught, just for once. It's not only unfair, but also a quite embarrassing attitude science is resting in. Evolution science tries to explain life, but it's kicking with its legs and ellbowing its way free without regard to "alternatives".
I most probably won't ever understand the sense of theistic evolution. But nonetheless, I'm very interested in learning more about it.

 

[gluadys]

This premise comes along somehow automatically with the fact that evolution is known as a process that once activated itself and has quasi rolled on ever since.

Tell me, do you apply this thinking to all natural processes? Do you think that God has nothing to do with the changes of the seasons since he arranged for the tilt and rotation of the earth to bring them about naturally? What then do you make of Genesis 8:22?

What about yourself? Do you think God took no interest in your conception and birth, since the natural process of reproduction took care that it happened? Or do you think God planned for you to be?

Or do you think God initiated the evolution process, watched the whole process so that it didn't take any wrong turns, and even intervened as soon as evolution started taking its own paths?

If God planned evolution why would it take wrong turns? Why would "its own path" differ from God's planned path for it?

Evolution is a process that knows no definite guidelines.

Evolution does have definite guidelines, though they may not be the sort you are thinking of. It is a natural process utterly dependent on the natural laws of the universe as they apply to biology. It is not whimsical or magical or miraculous.

Evolution has ALWAYS been utmost strongly dependent on its environment, its circumstances. God can influence circumstances, of course, but why would he create a long and weary process like evolution...

Are not terms like "long and weary" those of a human perspective that are meaningless when we speak of God?

Evolution demands that the individual struggles for existence.

This is quite simply not true. Even if we grant the special creation of species there is still a struggle for existence. The struggle for existence comes about because there is no limit on reproduction. As long as a species has an abundant supply of food and no significant problems with disease or predators, its population will continue to increase from generation to generation. (Ask Australians about what happened when rabbits were introduced into their ecology.)

But if the population continues to increase, sooner or later it will outstrip its food supply. And as soon as it does, there will be a struggle for existence.

Evolution does not cause the struggle for existence. That is a consequence of a population growing beyond sustainable limits and it would happen no matter how the species originated. But evolution can be a consequence of the struggle for existence.

Now, God is the GIVER - he GIVES us life freely, we don't have to struggle for it. I live by God's grace, not because my ancestors fought against each other to survive.

Evolution does not require that your ancestors fought against somebody else's ancestors to survive. This is a very common misunderstanding of how evolution works. It does not require any hostile action. You can see this easily when you remember that evolution applies to all species, not just species with the capacity to fight and kill. Can you imagine one species of daisies going to war with another? Or one butterfly killing another?

Yet without fighting each other or killing each other, they do compete with each other in the struggle for existence.

Theistic evolution makes no sense for me at all. I just wonder where God's plan for the salvation of humanity fits within the frames of evolution?

It doesn't. Evolution is about biology, not salvation. God's plan for the salvation of humanity has nothing to do with the evolution of humanity. Humanity had to exist and to fall away from God before a plan of salvation was even needed. So everything that comes before the emergence of humanity does not relate to salvation.

Jesus was with God from the very beginning; the Bible says that everything was created through Jesus.

And theistic evolutionists also believe this. There is no incompatibility between this testimony of the bible and evolution.

After some time, God realized that the world was too dumb and sinful to simply worship God,

It wasn't the world. Creation has always praised God. It was humanity. And it wasn't that humans were dumb. Sin is not a matter of stupidity. It is a matter of egotism and pride.

So, he sent Jesus, his son, to die for us. Jesus became MAN - he didn't go through the entire evolution process from the beginning - God created Jesus that way he would become a physical human being. Question: if God had indeed created the world through an evolutionary process, why would he violate his own laws and SEND his son to live in a physically real human body? Maybe I'm thinking in too much complicated terms, but these are questions that occupy my mind, and no one has been able to answer these questions so far.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Why would Jesus as a human embryo need to go through the entire evolution process any more than any other human (or for that matter non-human) embryo? Individuals don't evolve. Evolution is a process that occurs in a species, not to particular individuals. You seem to be suggesting that every birth, even of dandelions or squirrels, is a disconfirmation of evolution, because the embryos do not pass through the whole process of evolution that their species did.

Now of course the incarnation is a miracle and the virgin birth is a miracle. These cannot be accounted for by natural laws. But neither of them affects the evolution of humanity either.

In most cases, it does.

How so?

Actually, evolution is treated as absolutely true,

Well, this is bad teaching then. Science does not deal in absolute truths. It deals with the best current understanding based on available evidence. The scientific spirit is always open to current thinking being changed by new observations. If your science teacher or science text is not making this clear, you should press for better texts and better training for science teachers.

At the same time, they should be presenting the evidence on which current understandings, such as evolution, are based, so that scientific conclusions do not come across as dogma to be believed on the basis of authority.

I most probably won't ever understand the sense of theistic evolution. But nonetheless, I'm very interested in learning more about it.

Good. Keep an open mind and keep learning. That is all either scientists or TEs will ever ask of you.

 

[shernren]

Wow. Gluadys has saved me the job of replying But here's something to get you thinking:

This premise comes along somehow automatically with the fact that human reproduction is known as a process that once activated itself and has quasi rolled on ever since. Or do you think God initiated the conception process, watched the whole process so that it didn't take any wrong turns, and even intervened as soon as the development of the fetus in the mother's womb started taking its own paths? Foetal development is a process that knows no definite guidelines. Foetal development has ALWAYS been utmost strongly dependent on its environment, its circumstances. God can influence circumstances, of course, but why would he create a long and weary process like pregnancy that seems so extremely contingent and fortuitous if he is able just to speak one word, and voilà, everything's there? God is very direct, very distinct, straight-forward, persistent in what he does - why should he use human sex and pregnancy? Fertilization demands that the succesful sperm struggles for penetration of the ovum.

... just because it is a natural process does not mean God wouldn't use it.

 

[relspace]

Just wondering what you all think. If God is all-powerful, why did God use evolution to create life on earth? It seems like a cruel and non-loving way to create.

Wouldn't it have been more loving to create all at once, in six twenty-four hour days, and thus avoid millions of years of suffering and death? The whole evolution thing seems cruel and unnecessary.

Just curious.

ltrain

What God created and continues to create is life. All creation of life is "cruel" the only thing which justifies it is love. Look at human history. It is no more or less cruel that evolutionary history. God is there as caretaker, shepherd, and teacher at every step. His love makes all the suffering worthwhile.

Creating it all at once with an exertion of power is fine if all you want is a bunch of machines and robots to perform some task, but that is not a creation for the purpose of love. None of the machines and robots are alive. They are nothing more or less than what you made them to be. God already did all that in the creation of the angels (or angelic world).

But if you want something with the innate capacity to be creative and to learn with out limit, to in short be able to create itself, then you have to start at the beginning of life. That is what life is. It isn't designed it is cultivated, then bred and then finally taught. Evolution is not something which God used. Evolution is just the pattern that we see, when God creates as a partner in the process by which living things create themselves.