If we're going to say that God is involved in the weather and natural events, then we might as well blame Him for the hurricanes and earthquakes that destroy people's homes and lives. I cannot do that. I have never been able to accept such a view and doubtfully ever will be able to.
The reason I posit that evolution does not need God to exist is because as far as the scientific community is concerned; it doesn't. If you feel it necessary or important to insert God (or a god) into the theory in order to synergize it with your faith, then by all means go ahead and do so.
The problem, though, is that Christianity teaches certain assumptions and beliefs, like the existence of sin and the origins from which that sin came from. By saying man evolved, then his 'sin' is nothing more than a natural outgrowth of his natural design. For instance, many animals kill one another for food, territory, a mate, etc. Yet humans are told not to do these things because they are "sins." But if evolution is true, why is a natural behavior suddenly deemed to be wrong? At what point did such behavior go from "survival of the fittest" to "altruism over all else?" That doesn't make much sense. It is as though God suddenly appeared on the scene and changed the rules.
It is mere presumption to say that God guides child birth (and therefore must guide child death as well; a scary thought), the weather or natural selection. Where do you obtain such information from? I would presume it would be from an attempt at synergizing science and religion. As I said, that's fine - if it works for you, but I see a conflict.
If man evolved, then science is clear - there is no need for the existence of a god or God. Evolution was not founded by Christians - Darwin walked away from his Christian faith and died a non-Christian. And that was his choice. However, the point is that science works very well with Occam's Razor or parsimony, which is clear - the simplest explanation is the best one. Top scientists and physicists have long theorized a world that can come into existence without the existence of God or a god at all. And assuming that evolution is true, then you are choosing which portions of the Bible you choose to believe and which to dismiss. Why do so? It seems like shaky ground to be playing around at which Scriptures you wish to believe and which you do not. You could easily do the same with ANY other verse or concept within the Bible, that you do not like. Is that dangerous?
I am not supposing that there is no God or the like, but I am finding it strange to see Christians compromising in areas of their faith for agreement with secular scientists who are adamant that "there is no God". Last I checked, Dawkins was NOT a Christian.
Brilliant man, for sure, but not a Christian. Are Christians becoming so afraid of being labeled as "stupid" that we are adopting worldly beliefs, standards and customs?
The fact is, morality has little place within evolution. Or at least, absolute morality. Within the framework of evolution, man is just another animal, one who exists merely to propagate the next generation; nothing more. To whatever accomplishes that end (be it killing, destroying or stepping over another) is entirely permissible - heck, it is encouraged, as far as evolution is concerned. After all, all animals do this and it was (apparently) designed by God to be that way. So why would man try to fight his "God-given" programming? Why would God issue two different edicts; one, a natural, evolutionary "survival of the fittest" program, the other; a moral, contradictory, altruistic edict? How can we even condemn people for "giving in to" or following their animal urges, when God supposedly put them there in the first place?
And we can't quote the Bible, because we are selecting which passages we choose to accept, and which we do not, as dictated by our culture and sciences. So where does that leave us? Apparently, no better off than the atheist evolutionists. But as I said, the problem is, that it seems many believers are believers simply because of their birth into the Christian religion, or their culture (in the West) mostly endorses Christianity. I shudder to think that Richard Dawkins may actually be right, when he says that if you were born into another culture or time, you would be worshipping Thor, Zeus, Loki or Odin. Those are scary thoughts, aren't they?
The questions of where morality came from, why God suddenly changed His mind about design versus morality, and other questions about God's existence become murky waters. Waters I would rather not dive into, as a Christian. But that's just me. It's fine if you have had personal experience with God and THAT is how you know God is real. I can accept that myself, on a personal level. But putting that part of it aside, we really have nothing to base our faith upon, since it is merely a gamble or a crapshoot into which religion is correct (if any) or which God is the real one (if any - according to evolution, that is).
I offer you these thoughts for your consideration.
And thanks for the welcome, Papias. I must say, your beliefs sound much more like deism to me than typical Christianity (especially given what you said about God not intervening in our world and such).
