I've conceded that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful mechanically

[Gottservant]

Hi there!

I'm mostly looking for constructive criticism, following my decision to acknowledge that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful in mechanically repeatable contexts.

I have not yet married Evolution with a Theistic perspective.

My understanding is that Mendel, a monk, first discovered inheritance, on which Evolution grounds (if not derives) adaptation; that adaptation cannot take place, unless something is first holy; and that if God cannot speak to the man, He allows His spirit to move on the creature. These things combined are enough to make it appear as though God is out of the picture, to the unlearned man; but to the learned man, he can see that God desires to create through the man, and will give the man a body, even before He is sure whether or not the man will respond to him (speaking in doing so, to the man through the creature, that he may one day speak directly to the man).

In making the concession that Evolution is useful in mechanically repeatable contexts, I am basically saying that it is neither relevant nor irrelevant how repetition is being influenced in those contexts, by God.

My main problem, is that the orchestration of God is so clearly precisely manifest in every detail that I am not really prepared to limit Him to "influencing processes already underway" as I think this still maligns the true authority of God to stop/start or break any process he sees fit. But I can see the contrasting perspective, that it is evidentially not the case that God interrupts at every given opportunity, in fact, He is quite slow, to respond, even to the willing believer - who must first hear the messenger before he is able to even consider what it is he must believe.

It is some relief simply to share this.

I had thought at one stage, to begin espousing platitudes like "Jesus is the greatest adaptation" and "Without Jesus there is no hope of theory", or some such thing, but I foresaw that more theory would be roundly rejected and perhaps unconsciously perceived (if not consciously) as unhelpful distraction from the real task of speeding understanding of iterative process in applied contexts - which I have in a small way commited myself to, just by way of assuring myself that I have not lost touch with science altogether, by simply giving them the green light, which certainly God never gives without qualifying in some way, that Science may learn.

I suppose if I were God, I would have myself concentrate on the real needs of people, not how evolved they are, but how lovingly welcomed they are into the Church, whatever their level of advancement in the eyes of the world they are. Unfortunately, there is something of a gap, between such an introduction (to the Church) and the study of the Word, which I know to be true, but which the World must come to understand is meaningful, before they can come to know that they know it to be true. Certainly, there is nothing without a little pause, and silence, and reflection.

Any thoughts on this would be helpful.

 

[Gottservant]

Something further the Lord has taught me, that may be of interest to you:

Our spiritual identity to God, is not something that is just a mechanically repeatable variation.

 

[Calminian]

I can't say I've completely grasped what you're trying to say, but will say it's possible that even if macroevolution is true in the present, this would not preclude a miracle of God on the past. For the young earther, for the one who reads the Bible in a straightforward fashion, proof of evolution in the present would not be proof of evolution in the past.

In fact, I'm actually open to it. Could God 6-10 thousand years ago have created numerous kinds of animals with the ability to make variations in their descendants even to the point of adding new information? I don't believe it happened that way at this point, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility and wouldn't change my view of Genesis.

Let me know if we're on the same page.

 

[Gottservant]

I will read the post above, in a moment: but I have interesting news:: I have been formally asked not to further try to help Evolution, apparently it is hard enough to understand as it is, without someone complicating it with moral issues - or something like that.

It is a dead theory, and I have been asked to move on!

 

[Gottservant]

Let me know if we're on the same page.

I have been saying it has a practical use, basically.

You are saying its easier to understand if you treat it more as abstraction, that may or may not be true, depending on how you deal with abstraction: if you are likely to worry about it being too abstract, abstraction is a problem; if you are likely to see it being abstract as a good sign for future work, then abstraction may be helpful.

May the Lord develop your thoughts further, before mine!

 

[Calminian]

I have been saying it has a practical use, basically.

You are saying its easier to understand if you treat it more as abstraction, that may or may not be true, depending on how you deal with abstraction: if you are likely to worry about it being too abstract, abstraction is a problem; if you are likely to see it being abstract as a good sign for future work, then abstraction may be helpful.

May the Lord develop your thoughts further, before mine!

Er, maybe we're not on the same page. I'll just sit back and listen til I get a grasp on what the thread is actually about.

 

[seeingeyes]

In making the concession that Evolution is useful in mechanically repeatable contexts, I am basically saying that it is neither relevant nor irrelevant how repetition is being influenced in those contexts, by God.

My main problem, is that the orchestration of God is so clearly precisely manifest in every detail that I am not really prepared to limit Him to "influencing processes already underway" as I think this still maligns the true authority of God to stop/start or break any process he sees fit. But I can see the contrasting perspective, that it is evidentially not the case that God interrupts at every given opportunity, in fact, He is quite slow, to respond, even to the willing believer - who must first hear the messenger before he is able to even consider what it is he must believe.

With regard to the bold, why must it be an either/or question? Isn't God's handiwork present in every process that is underway? Much of how we view these issues stems directly from our conception of the nature of God.

Let's leave creation/evolution to the side for the moment. You say that God is 'slow to respond' (presumably) because He does not 'interrupt at every given opportunity'. But if all of the work is God's work, then why would He interrupt Himself?

For example, Psalms 66 says:
"For you, O God, tested us;you refined us like silver.

You brought us into prison
and laid burdens on our backs."


Now if those in the middle of this 'testing' start praying for rescue, but the rescue is a long time coming, does that mean that God is slow? Or does it mean that God is present in their hardships and is working everything out according to His plan?


How we answer these questions depends on how we view God's character and how we view His plan.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, there is a plan: that is something. The trouble is that we trust in the plan by faith only, when the time is to believe and be justified, if not rewarded.

Evolution gives people a way out, because it doesn't immediately look like the fruit is in the faith - and if they write it off it looks like they've got the upper hand, of that which in reality terrifies them.

I can't write a lot just now, but let me just summarize and say "I feel like I've made progress coming to an agreement with Evolution, that it has a practical use (as I suppose all philosophies do), but now I am wondering where the Lord is leading, myself." While waiting for leading is not altogether unfamiliar to me, I would appreciate older and wiser advice, about what that leading might look like.

 

[seeingeyes]

Yes, there is a plan: that is something. The trouble is that we trust in the plan by faith only, when the time is to believe and be justified, if not rewarded.

Faith is trust and trust is faith. The implication of the bolded statement is: We trust God for no reason at all. Now, if that is true, then the Bible is clearly a work of fiction through and through, because God is constantly saying "believe me because I took you out of Egypt" or "trust me because I keep My word".

Now, if God is just saying, "here, mentally assent to this random, unprovable thing and you will be rewarded", then that says something about the character of God, doesn't it?

Evolution gives people a way out, because it doesn't immediately look like the fruit is in the faith - and if they write it off it looks like they've got the upper hand, of that which in reality terrifies them.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that evolution is an 'easy target' for condemnation?

I can't write a lot just now, but let me just summarize and say "I feel like I've made progress coming to an agreement with Evolution, that it has a practical use (as I suppose all philosophies do), but now I am wondering where the Lord is leading, myself." While is not altogether unfamiliar to me, I would appreciate older and wiser advice, about what that leading might look like.

Well, I'm not any older. It looks like we are exactly the same age. But I do feel as though I have found peace on this particular issue.

What I have learned about my Father is this: When we find ourselves caught between two diametrically opposed options, He has a way of pointing in a third direction that wasn't possible for us to see.

Like we come to an intersection, and we can either go right or left, and we don't know which. And the Guy who offers us directions points off into the fourth dimension and says, "that's the way you need to go". What does it even look like for someone to point that way? Who knows? We can't comprehend it...until we do.

Biblically, we see this in Job, where Job says, "this ain't right!", and his friends say, "yes-huh! It is!" back and forth to each other until God pops in and says, "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand."

Now, God was either completely derailing their thread (perhaps he was replying to the wrong post?), or He was pointing off into a direction that none of them could conceive of until He pointed it out.

We see this with Jesus, too. When the teachers of the law brought him a woman caught in adultery and said, "should we or shouldn't we?", Jesus offered a third, unthinkable, option. And when they asked him, "taxes or no taxes?", he offered them a third, miraculous, option.

Where you are right now, you are caught between two opposing, mutually exclusive, views: Creationism or Evolution? This or that? Right or left? But keep your eyes peeled. Let God show you that other, previously unimaginable direction to go. Though you will have to step out in faith (trust) to see it.


God bless

 

[Smidlee]

I will read the post above, in a moment: but I have interesting news:: I have been formally asked not to further try to help Evolution, apparently it is hard enough to understand as it is, without someone complicating it with moral issues - or something like that.

It is a dead theory, and I have been asked to move on!

Evolution is simply trial and error. ( Evolutionary algorithm is just a fancy name for "trial and error" search engine. Since computers can search so many combinations in a second "trial and error" becomes very useful in fine-tuning a difficult problem.) Not really hard to understand just hard to make the facts fit the theory without the theory explaining everything which in turn explains nothing.

 

[Gottservant]

Hmmm... ok, faith is necessary.

And Evolution is trial and error...

...but what? There is no right or wrong in either of your answers.

Is it for God to say what is right and wrong? Even when Man would like to work on what he already knows to be right?

Hard question (the second one) I know, but you have to understand, that mere faith is no defence against Evolution, and while legalism as to the definition of Evolution is stronger, it is by no mean sufficient to turn people one way or the other.
That's what I'm really looking for, a sense in which I know what I stand for practically speaking, in the absence of any real definition of the required end, either for Evolution or for Christianity.

What do you do if you catch a fish, with a coin in its mouth, but it won't open its jaws?

 

[BobRyan]

Hi there!

I'm mostly looking for constructive criticism, following my decision to acknowledge that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful in mechanically repeatable contexts.

I have not yet married Evolution with a Theistic perspective.

My understanding is that Mendel, a monk, first discovered inheritance, on which Evolution grounds (if not derives) adaptation; that adaptation cannot take place, unless something is first holy; and that if God cannot speak to the man, He allows His spirit to move on the creature.

Darwin, Dawkins, Meyers, and Provine all point out that evolutionism flatly contradicts the Bible.

There is no disputing that.

the idea of marrying the Bible to evolutionism - is an exercise in eisegesis that most Bible students would not want to engage in due to a high regard for the Word of God.

The blind-faith evolutionist idea of bacteria arising from gas dust, rocks and ammonia seas etc turns out to be pure fiction. So also bacteria turning into amoebas and amoebas turning into horses.

But do organism's adapt? does the epigenome work? Certainly that is all true.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, that is it precisely, somehow it (evolution) is a sugar-wrapping of what we do need to know (adaptation), in what we don't need to know (survival).

I have further concluded that, true practicality (in a meaningful context) is actually far simpler than Evolution would make out.

If you have time, tell me what do you make of this...: to say "we had freedom, then Mendel discovered inheritance, and now Darwin has discovered freedom of inheritance" is disingenuous, but I can't work out exactly how. (I shall give it thought, but do answer!)

 

[Smidlee]

Hmmm... ok, faith is necessary.

And Evolution is trial and error...

...but what? There is no right or wrong in either of your answers.

Is it for God to say what is right and wrong? Even when Man would like to work on what he already knows to be right?

Hard question (the second one) I know, but you have to understand, that mere faith is no defence against Evolution, and while legalism as to the definition of Evolution is stronger, it is by no mean sufficient to turn people one way or the other.
That's what I'm really looking for, a sense in which I know what I stand for practically speaking, in the absence of any real definition of the required end, either for Evolution or for Christianity.

What do you do if you catch a fish, with a coin in its mouth, but it won't open its jaws?

Evolution (trial and error) is no doubt part of nature. A bacteria has to find a food source in it's local area so will mutate in hot spots trying to find a new food source. Nylonase is a good example of bacteria using trial and error. Since bacteria reproduces rapidly it benefits the most from trial and error.
One the problems of evolution (trial and error) on a grand scale would be, for example, a leg would become useless long before it became a useful wing. Evolution would have to have insight of short term lose for long term gain. Natural selection seems to do the exact opposite; that is only sees short term gain no matter the long term lose.
I have no problem with God programing "trial and error" into living creatures in order for them to adapt and survive on their own but I don't believe that all creatures and especially man are nothing but the result of millions of years of trial and error ( like Kenneth Miller).

 

[Gottservant]

hmmm... interesting thoughts, thankyou

 

[gluadys]

Hi there!

I'm mostly looking for constructive criticism, following my decision to acknowledge that while wrong about the past, Evolution is useful in mechanically repeatable contexts.

I have not yet married Evolution with a Theistic perspective.

My understanding is that Mendel, a monk, first discovered inheritance, on which Evolution grounds (if not derives) adaptation; that adaptation cannot take place, unless something is first holy; and that if God cannot speak to the man, He allows His spirit to move on the creature. These things combined are enough to make it appear as though God is out of the picture, to the unlearned man; but to the learned man, he can see that God desires to create through the man, and will give the man a body, even before He is sure whether or not the man will respond to him (speaking in doing so, to the man through the creature, that he may one day speak directly to the man).

In making the concession that Evolution is useful in mechanically repeatable contexts, I am basically saying that it is neither relevant nor irrelevant how repetition is being influenced in those contexts, by God.

My main problem, is that the orchestration of God is so clearly precisely manifest in every detail that I am not really prepared to limit Him to "influencing processes already underway" as I think this still maligns the true authority of God to stop/start or break any process he sees fit. But I can see the contrasting perspective, that it is evidentially not the case that God interrupts at every given opportunity, in fact, He is quite slow, to respond, even to the willing believer - who must first hear the messenger before he is able to even consider what it is he must believe.

It is some relief simply to share this.

I had thought at one stage, to begin espousing platitudes like "Jesus is the greatest adaptation" and "Without Jesus there is no hope of theory", or some such thing, but I foresaw that more theory would be roundly rejected and perhaps unconsciously perceived (if not consciously) as unhelpful distraction from the real task of speeding understanding of iterative process in applied contexts - which I have in a small way commited myself to, just by way of assuring myself that I have not lost touch with science altogether, by simply giving them the green light, which certainly God never gives without qualifying in some way, that Science may learn.

I suppose if I were God, I would have myself concentrate on the real needs of people, not how evolved they are, but how lovingly welcomed they are into the Church, whatever their level of advancement in the eyes of the world they are. Unfortunately, there is something of a gap, between such an introduction (to the Church) and the study of the Word, which I know to be true, but which the World must come to understand is meaningful, before they can come to know that they know it to be true. Certainly, there is nothing with a little pause, and silence, and reflection.

Any thoughts on this would be helpful.

I think it is great that you are aiming to come to a place of peace on this, even if I don't fully understand how you are doing that.

If I have one quibble with what you say, it is here:

But I can see the contrasting perspective, that it is evidentially not the case that God interrupts at every given opportunity,

That is true as far as it goes. But it seems to leave the impression that God only acts in creation by interrupting it.

This seems to be a big stumbling block to accepting evolution as part of God's creation.

But surely we can conceive of God acting in creation in modes other than interruption. What about nurturing, collaborating, encouraging, strengthening, guiding, upholding, empowering, interacting.......etc.

When we conceive of God having many ways of acting in the world, we do not have to look at natural processes like evolution operating autonomously without God. We can give God a bigger and more meaningful role than "the great interrupter".

 

[gluadys]

Darwin, Dawkins, Meyers, and Provine all point out that evolutionism flatly contradicts the Bible.

There is no disputing that.

Well, there is no disputing that that is what they claim.

But there is plenty of reason to dispute the claim.

Accepting an atheist's claim that evolution flatly contradicts the Bible is rather like accepting a Muslim's claim that the doctrine of the Trinity flatly contradicts the Bible.

You wouldn't buy the second statement, because it comes from a prejudiced source. But the first also comes from a prejudiced source, so why give it any more credence than the second?

 

[gluadys]

One the problems of evolution (trial and error) on a grand scale would be, for example, a leg would become useless long before it became a useful wing.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for this critter.

​

There can be advantages to freeing up two limbs for other uses than walking even if it never leads to flight.

 

[sfs]

Doesn't seem to be a problem for this critter.

Nor for this creature.

 

[Smidlee]

Doesn't seem to be a problem for this critter.

​

There can be advantages to freeing up two limbs for other uses than walking even if it never leads to flight.

It's limbs, which are still useful, are no where close becoming wings. Even if it start slowly converting to a wing it would take a long time before it would be useful to create flight. There is no selective pressure to select between a useless limb and a useless wing.