The Miracle of Evolution

[SpyridonOCA]

Why is it so hard for so many Christians to believe that, if our origin was natural, that isn't any less miraculous?

 

[MoonLancer]

It's one that a lot of people seem to like, but it really doesn't hold up...

thanks for the info.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why is it so hard for so many Christians to believe that, if our origin was natural, that isn't any less miraculous?

My guess is that it's because they equate "natural" with "it just happens". I think they want to see meaning and purpose, and think that any explanation that has no meaning or purpose cannot possibly be correct.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

An event can be natural and have immense meaning and purpose, like the birth of a child.

 

[Chalnoth]

An event can be natural and have immense meaning and purpose, like the birth of a child.

To us, certainly. We're the ones that give the world around us meaning and purpose. These people seem to think that's not good enough, that human-provided meaning is arbitrary and, therefore, meaningless. At least, that's the impression I seem to gather from the "I didn't come from a puddle of goo!" or "There's no way it all happened by accident!" crowd. I don't understand how they think that God-given purpose is any less arbitrary.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

An event can be natural and have God-given purpose.

 

[Chalnoth]

An event can be natural and have God-given purpose.

How? And why would this be of interest?

 

[SpyridonOCA]

How? And why would this be of interest?

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)

 

[Chalnoth]

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)

The thing that really disturbs me about this mode of thought is that many Christians have these exact same thoughts in relation to the bad things that happen, but not the good things. Lightning kills a man? Well that's just natural law working itself out. A man survives a lightning strike? That's a miracle by God! It seems that many Christians seem to think that unlikely + good = God did it, while bad = simple natural causes which God had nothing to do with.

I honestly don't see how putting God at the beginning and not interfering later is compatible with Christianity, nor how it is compatible with a good deity that cares about us.

 

[dlamberth]

Why can't God work through the natural?

This lover of God sees Evolution as working through God. That's an almost reverse image that you drew of God working through Evolution.


.

 

[dlamberth]

An event can be natural and have God-given purpose.

What is a "God-given purpose"? Honestly, I don't understand that term.

.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

I honestly don't see how putting God at the beginning and not interfering later is compatible with Christianity, nor how it is compatible with a good deity that cares about us.

In order to allow for free will, God allows the universe to operate according to natural laws. That, I believe, is the point of the Darwin quote I provided you.

 

[Bombila]

Spyridon, does free will also then include everything on the planet, including the many insects which parasitize other creatures in order to reproduce?

Insects, as far as we can tell, operate strictly by instinct, and have no 'will'. Certainly they are an example of what you call natural laws, in that they have evolved. Your Darwin quote mentions the caterpillar-parasitizing wasps. It's difficult to imagine a benevolent god initiating natural laws in such a manner as to cause some of the rather ugly outcomes we see in order to provide humans with free will.

Here, IMO, lies the problem with seeing God in nature - nature is often not very nice at all, and most of us can imagine methods of achieving the same ends by natural processes that would cause less suffering to all the creatures involved, and without interfering in any way with human free will.

Of course, some Christians fall back on the notion of original sin corrupting a perfect and painless natural order, but it seems literal overkill for a god to insist the sins of one creature impact on every living innocent thing.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Insects, as far as we can tell, operate strictly by instinct, and have no 'will'. Certainly they are an example of what you call natural laws, in that they have evolved. Your Darwin quote mentions the caterpillar-parasitizing wasps. It's difficult to imagine a benevolent god initiating natural laws in such a manner as to cause some of the rather ugly outcomes we see in order to provide humans with free will.

What is inherently evil about carnivorous behavior? I do believe that there are examples of evil, or metaphors of evil, in the natural world, in order to remind us of the evil in the spiritual world. Snakes and scorpians, for example, have always been symbolic of Satan.

 

[DeathMagus]

Of course, some Christians fall back on the notion of original sin corrupting a perfect and painless natural order, but it seems literal overkill for a god to insist the sins of one creature impact on every living innocent thing.

When you get right down to it, insisting that the sins of two creatures impact every member of that species is also a little overkill.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

In the Orthodox Church, we believe that our first parents gave us an inclination toward sin.

 

[DeathMagus]

In the Orthodox Church, we believe that our first parents gave us an inclination toward sin.

I've always had a soft spot for the Orthodox Church.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

The Augustinian idea of inherited guilt is not found in the Orthodox Church.

 

[DeathMagus]

The Augustinian idea of inherited guilt is not found in the Orthodox Church.

Of course, we all sin anyway, so the net effect is pretty much the same.