One Long Argument Against God

[mark kennedy]

This is just going to be a survey question followed by a philosophical inquiry into how you know what you know (epistemology), believe (theology) and argue on these boards (academic apologetic). All are invited to participate regardless of their theological (aka philosophical) persuasion.

True or False, Darwinian Evolution is nothing more then one long argument against God as the 'cause' of anything going back to the Big Bang.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

Yes

Dawkins

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

its a bit of a paradox but w/e

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Dawkins thinks that evolution disproves the existance of God because it's illogical to think that a complex process like evolution requires an explanation, while an even more complex being - God, the creator who set evolution in motion - doesn't.

What he doesn't realise is that by arguing evolution disproves the existance of God, he is making the same mistake he accuses Christians of making: thinking that a complex phenomenon can be explained using an even more complex phenomenon which doesn't require an explanation:

What Dawkins does not seem to appreciate is that his blind watchmaker is something even more remarkable that Paley’s watches. Paley finds a “watch” and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley’s point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than the watches themselves?

- Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
Stephen Barr (Catholic physicist)​

 

[freezerman2000]

Darwinian Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe or earth were formed.It has to do with biology and the long term changes, therein.

 

[elopez]

No.

Evolution is only one long argument against YEC, but not even intended for that purpose, and YEC is not even necessary in order to affirm the existence of God.

 

[KTskater]

Nope. Evolution makes no comment on the metaphysical. It deals strictly with natural phenomena, and thus the supernatural is not something science is capable of commenting on. It simply doesn't have the tools to do so.

For me, the physical evidence for evolution is convincing. I can't look at the findings of science and see that everything was created in six days in it's current form. While evolution has short comings and not every aspect of the theory is perfect, there is too much in its favor to write it off.
At the same time, the personal evidence I have of a God who loves, cares, and is present in the lives of human beings is undeniable. I've seen miracles with my own eyes, from my own prayers. I've seen the gifts of the Spirit at work and lives changed.

Therefore, I have these two truths, and I can't be intellectually honest and dismiss either one. So, I believe that there must be a way for the two to live in harmony.

 

[samaus12345]

Kt skater pull up a literature on neofunctionalization where they are claiming a new gene better post in other thread too so as not to hijack marks

 

[PursueTheTruth]

Mutation is evident beyond Darwin. It can easly be seen on single cell organizms like bacteria.

Evolution is possibly a tool of God or maybe a simple rule of nature that nothing ever stays the same. Evolution is an idea very seperate of the big bang theory and does not disprove or prove anything except that we change.

 

[KTskater]

Kt skater pull up a literature on neofunctionalization where they are claiming a new gene better post in other thread too so as not to hijack marks

I will see if I can find one that's open to the public. I also work two jobs and go to school, so my free time to look up articles is limited.

 

[samaus12345]

K anyway, they just use their molecular clock/phylogenetic tree to say it happened x million years ago. I can make up any MYTH on the planet using that model. It is the standard model of neo-darwinian MYTH.

 

[mark kennedy]

No.

Evolution is only one long argument against YEC, but not even intended for that purpose, and YEC is not even necessary in order to affirm the existence of God.

I don't care how old the earth is, it's irrelevant. I'm a Creationist period because it's essential Christian theism. So how do we know that there is a God? I have an answer for this but I want to know if your willing to demonstrate the convictions of your beliefs.

Let's start off with an easy one:

Can you be a Christian without being a Creationist?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes

Dawkins

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

its a bit of a paradox but w/e

They were not the ones who developed Darwinism into the metaphysical engine of modern atheism, they simply popularized naturalism. The philosophy was developed by Herbert Spencer, William James, Asa Grey and even Oliver Wendell Holmes were the academic titans that engineered the modern Darwinian theory of evolution.

By what criteria can we accept the incarnation and reject the creation? I intend to explore this much further then I have up till this point and I'm pretty sure I know what to expect.

 

[mark kennedy]

No.

Evolution is only one long argument against YEC, but not even intended for that purpose, and YEC is not even necessary in order to affirm the existence of God.

Darwin's argument for natural selection was one long argument against special creation, that much is clear. The question becomes if we are in fact Christians, who are by definition Creationists, how is evolution compatible with the naturalistic assumptions of modern academics in general and evolutionary biology in particular?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Mutation is evident beyond Darwin. It can easly be seen on single cell organizms like bacteria.

A mutation is a failure of DNA repair. Living systems adapt to their environments across all taxonomic categories sometimes in a couple of generations and sometimes over many generations. Are you suggesting that the adaptive radiation of species who change on an evolutionary level always do so based on a failure of DNA repair?

Evolution is possibly a tool of God or maybe a simple rule of nature that nothing ever stays the same. Evolution is an idea very seperate of the big bang theory and does not disprove or prove anything except that we change.

You not going to get any argument from me that God is the author of adaptive evolution so don't be silly. God as a cause of anything is categorically rejected by most modern academics including scientists. So then, how do we conclude that God has in fact acted in time and space?

How do we rightfully conclude God as cause, ever? I only ask because redemptive history is based on it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

I intend to explore this much further then I have up till this point and I'm pretty sure I know what to expect.

sounds interesting.....

 

[PursueTheTruth]

Wouldn't God want to make us capable of adapting to our enviroment to survive?

 

[KimberlyAA]

I think it's a way to explain origins in a secular light. Science today does not leave room for supernatural causes ... only observable phenomena. They can be wrong about many aspects of evolution because no one can go back in time to see what occured. It leaves room for speculation. Nor can anyone tell how old the Earth is exactly. People will always argue over this. It is being used today for a way to remove God I do believe as many atheists and those who hold to a naturalistic worldview use it to justify that there is no God.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think it's a way to explain origins in a secular light. Science today does not leave room for supernatural causes ... only observable phenomena. They can be wrong about many aspects of evolution because no one can go back in time to see what occured. It leaves room for speculation. Nor can anyone tell how old the Earth is exactly. People will always argue over this. It is being used today for a way to remove God I do believe as many atheists and those who hold to a naturalistic worldview use it to justify that there is no God.

Even if the earth and the universe are billions of years old, the creation of life is attributed to God alone in Scripture. The existence of God as well as the divine attributes and eternal nature of God are rarely argued against by atheists or for by Creationists. You would think that in a philosophical system like Darwinian natural selection there would be some interest in the source of special creation, especially if you saw no evidence for it.

Obviously atheists are going to like naturalistic causes better then attributing creation to God. I don't really see how a person can argue against Creationism, regardless of the age of the earth and not argue against God as the creator of life.

I'm sure there are those who will try and I'm very interested in what they have to say.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

sounds interesting.....

Never really explored the philosophical aspects of it, it's either been theology or scientific evidence. It's a new approach, we will see how it goes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Wouldn't God want to make us capable of adapting to our enviroment to survive?

Of course, there are molecular mechanisms and processes known to facilitate exactly that. Evolutionists want to argue for beneficial effects from mutations which is a bit odd considering how far genetics has come in discovering how adaptive evolution really works.

Grace and peace,
Mark