Why I Reject Evolution

[Achilles6129]

I reject evolution because I believe that the basic premise upon which it rests is literally impossible. I cannot support an argument that has an impossible basic premise. An examination of the basic premise behind evolution will show the reason why - and we deal with both atheistic evolution and theistic evolution:

Atheistic evolution requires:

1. Laws without a lawmaker
2. Computer programs without a computer programmer

Neither of these arguments have ever been answered, and, aside from uttering oracles, they never will be answered because they both disprove atheistic evolution. Not to mention the numerous other problems and fallacies with atheism.

Theistic evolution requires:

1. An irrational deity
2. An evil deity

Evolution is an irrational way to create, not a rational one. In addition, only an irrational, evil god would create through millions of years of pain, death, suffering, disease, etc. Hence, I reject both atheistic evolution and theistic evolution as impossible and false. There remains only one other option: A global flood.

So, I have given the reasons why I logically reject atheistic evolution and theistic evolution. However, there is another reason why I reject them, and it has to do with the proofs given to me experientially by Jesus Christ. Christ made the following statement about his gospel:

"16Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 17If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn. 7:16-17

I will not now share how I know that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true (perhaps some other time) but suffice it to say that I know it is true, and, hence, know that the Bible is true. Hence, there was a global flood and the evidence was simply misinterpreted. There is also another verse:

"5For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." 1 Th. 1:5

I know that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. Therefore, I know that the Bible is telling the truth when it says there was a global flood. It does not matter to me if aliens landed on planet earth and claimed that evolution was true - I still wouldn't believe it for the reasons given above. And that is why I reject evolution.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Theistic evolution requires:

1. An irrational deity
2. An evil deity

Evolution is an irrational way to create, not a rational one. In addition, only an irrational, evil god would create through millions of years of pain, death, suffering, disease, etc. Hence, I reject both atheistic evolution and theistic evolution as impossible and false.

It's interesting that Christians often reject evolution for moral rather than scientific reasons.

The problem with this argument is the obvious fact that, whether we like it or not, disease, pain and suffering are an unavoidable part of life. Indeed atheists often say that no kind and loving God could created a world full of evil. So unless you're agreeing with their argument, we cannot say the suffering in the world disproves the existance of God.

However, there is another reason why I reject them, and it has to do with the proofs given to me experientially by Jesus Christ.
...
I will not now share how I know that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true (perhaps some other time) but suffice it to say that I know it is true, and, hence, know that the Bible is true. Hence, there was a global flood and the evidence was simply misinterpreted.

I don't really think about Noah and the flood much so I can't really answer you here. The Bible however is brief and surprisingly vague on the creation of the world and the fall of man, and there's no reason to think it directly contradicts evolution.

 

[Greg1234]

I reject evolution because I believe that the basic premise upon which it rests is literally impossible. I cannot support an argument that has an impossible basic premise. An examination of the basic premise behind evolution will show the reason why - and we deal with both atheistic evolution and theistic evolution:

Atheistic evolution requires:

1. Laws without a lawmaker
2. Computer programs without a computer programmer

Neither of these arguments have ever been answered, and, aside from uttering oracles, they never will be answered because they both disprove atheistic evolution. Not to mention the numerous other problems and fallacies with atheism.

I agree with you there. Darwnian evolution has basically detatched itself from its very foundation. While Darwin might have used experimental changes to extrapolate his bloated exaggeration, today, that link between micro and macro is pretty mich severed.

There's abiogenesis, there's micro evolution, and there's macro. We see that abiogenesis has been relieved of its supportive role and macro evolution, also detached, is somewhere out there in the sands of time. If we show that loss of function dominates, so what, macro evolution is happening. Even if you show that genes degrade over time, no link, no problem. You can show long term experiments which oppose Darwinian evolution, chance can build a man. It will still be shown though.

You're not actually battlling a tangible thing. It's just something that's out there in limbo, suspended, somewhere. No experimental piece of data has ever refuted Creationism. Not the short term or the long term implications derived from same. The rally cry is basically, "Creationists, give up your faith. Something somewhere has refuted your position. It just happens. Why? Just because." It's basically materialism. Anybody can see that. What mechanism did a materialist need before Darwin to imagine that purely naturalistic processes can give rise to life? None. What mechanism do they use now? None.

They're basically invading faith based doctrines right now. They want "in." In order to accept their faith you must give up yours. All of a sudden the interpretation of the bible means that life can arise spontaneously through purely naturalistic processes. The "stunning refutation" of Creationism comes in the form of materialistic assertions. The problem is we already knew that materialists believed that. However, "you accept it or I will insult you till you do."

When you see "Theistic evolutionists" uncannily sounding like full blown materialists, it's not an accident either. Whether they realize it or not, theyve adopted materialistic faith. It then spreads, mixes and controls. God-of the-gaps allusions,recitals about ignorant biblical authors, subsequent full adoption of materialism. All products of a simple and painless injection- Darwinism. Materialists themselves, even if it's the last thing they ever do, won't mind donning the icon of the very people they so profoundly abhor, just for that one moment to instill Darwinism. The end will soothingly justify the means.

As given earlier, you're basically swinging at air with these guys when you leave the creationist friendly domain of micro evolutionary changes and implications. It's a faith on faith battle. Science has long been caged away while materialists continue to abuse its earned reputation. They need the bible and the recruitment faith. Thats where they are right now. If anything, the bible will find its place under the sculpted pen of a grinning homo erectus in a Darwinian museum. A portrait providing conclusive evidence to the wading procession of onlookers that microbes can indeed turn into men.

 

[Achilles6129]

The problem with this argument is the obvious fact that, whether we like it or not, disease, pain and suffering are an unavoidable part of life. Indeed atheists often say that no kind and loving God could created a world full of evil. So unless you're agreeing with their argument, we cannot say the suffering in the world disproves the existance of God.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I'm saying that only a demented, evil god would create the world initially through death, disease, pain, suffering, etc. This is what the god of evolution has to do, because evolution requires all of these things - and millions of years of them.

However, to create the world initially without pain, suffering, death, disease, etc., and then have it fall into that state against your will, and continue in that state against your will, is quite another matter entirely.

The fact of the matter is that the real gospel of Jesus Christ delivers from all pain, suffering, and death. Hence:

"51Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." Jn. 8:51

"28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Mt. 16:28

And the real gospel of Jesus Christ delivers from all real suffering:

"4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:" Gal. 1:4

"16For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." 2 Cor. 4:16-18

Real suffering, in my opinion, is internal to the individual. Paul says that even though his outward man perishes, his inward man is renewed day by day - in other words, the outward "light affliction" isn't causing him any harm whatsoever.

Therefore, the present state of this world is against God's will. It is not the way this world was created, and it is not the way that God wanted this world to be. God sent Jesus Christ into the world to deliver the human race from "this present evil world" - in other words, to deliver them from all suffering, pain, death, etc.

However, a god who deliberately creates through all of these things, and, yes indeed, wishes things to be this way, is an extremely evil god. Not to mention that evolution in and of itself is an irrational way for the Creator of the universe to create. So I have rejected both atheistic evolution and theistic evolution as impossible.

 

[gluadys]

I reject evolution because I believe that the basic premise upon which it rests is literally impossible. I cannot support an argument that has an impossible basic premise. An examination of the basic premise behind evolution will show the reason why - and we deal with both atheistic evolution and theistic evolution:

Atheistic evolution requires:

1. Laws without a lawmaker
2. Computer programs without a computer programmer

Neither of these arguments have ever been answered, and, aside from uttering oracles, they never will be answered because they both disprove atheistic evolution. Not to mention the numerous other problems and fallacies with atheism.

Theistic evolution requires:

1. An irrational deity
2. An evil deity

Evolution is an irrational way to create, not a rational one. In addition, only an irrational, evil god would create through millions of years of pain, death, suffering, disease, etc. Hence, I reject both atheistic evolution and theistic evolution as impossible and false.

I would say then that your rejection of evolution is based on false premises about evolution.

"Laws without a lawmaker".

I am glad to see you recognize that evolution follows natural laws just like any other scientifically described process in nature.

I agree that atheism requires that such laws exist without a lawmaker and that is irrational. But one should not attach that irrationality to evolution. Evolution per se requires laws, but not the absence of a lawmaker.


"Computer programs without a computer programmer."

Computer programs may be an analogy of some aspects of evolution, but they are only an analogy, a model, not evolution itself. As for the lack of a programmer, that is atheism, not evolution. So the same applies in this case as laws without a lawmaker. Evolution may operate in some ways like a computer program, but does not, in itself, assert the absence of a programmer.


"An irrational deity"

It is strange that, having acknowledged that evolution follows rational laws, you would think these laws demand an irrational deity.


"An evil deity"

The presence of evil in the world, and of innocent suffering often leads people to suspect an evil deity whether or not evolution is an issue. Some people would say that only an evil deity would have initiated a global flood. Some would say that only an evil deity would have placed the temptation of the forbidden fruit before Adam and Eve, or that only an evil deity would punish all their descendants for their ancestors' sin. Some people would say that only an evil deity would demand the ransom price of an innocent life to redeem humanity from sin, and only an exceptionally evil deity would kill his own son as a sacrifice of atonement.

I am sure you have answers to all these, (as any Christian does) but the point is that in the final analysis, God told us that all creation is good: so if evolution is part of creation, then evolution has been judged good in God's sight.


Still I would be interested in why you think evolution leads to the conclusion that the deity is evil.

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote:

Atheistic evolution requires:

Yep, I agree. Thanks for pointing out how those don't work for you. They don't work for me for the same reasons you stated.

Theistic evolution requires:

1. An irrational deity

But aren't the natural laws of God the very epitome of rationality? If anything, it seems to me that the evolutionary process is as rational as it gets. How are the natural, rational laws more irrational than the idea that God poofed everything into existance willy-nilly (for instance making "day" and "night" before making the sun, making insect eating birds without first making insects, and so on, as described in Genesis if taken literally), in contradiction to all the rational evidence we see, from dozens of different scientific fields?

2. An evil deity

So you are saying that taking Genesis literally (including a literal flood story where God kills millions of innocent animals and infants by drowning, and punishes people's kids because some their Ancestors ate fruit that God put within their reach and knew they would eat), gives a less evil deity than a God that creates through evolution?

Papias

 

[miamited]

hi all,

Glaudys wrote: I am glad to see you recognize that evolution follows natural laws just like any other scientifically described process in nature.

That is absolutely true and I am in complete agreement wth you.

Problem #1: The creation was a miracle. Miracles cannot be defined through natural laws, otherwise, by definition, they are not miracles. Evolutionist continue to want to explain miracles by natural laws. Can't be done! As soon as an evolutionist can scientifically explain to me how Mary wound up pregnant, I'd be willing to listen.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ns7]

hmmm... how about if God created the process of evolution? Hence the reason scientist find partial evidence of it (and then jump to their stupid conclusions - some of them anyway.)

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I'm saying that only a demented, evil god would create the world initially through death, disease, pain, suffering, etc. This is what the god of evolution has to do, because evolution requires all of these things - and millions of years of them.

However, to create the world initially without pain, suffering, death, disease, etc., and then have it fall into that state against your will, and continue in that state against your will, is quite another matter entirely.

I've seen other creationists use this argument before and there are a couple of flaws in your reasoning:

- A lack of distinction between suffering and evil. Parasites, natural disasters and diseases all cause suffering but they are not evil and they all existed before the Fall. When Adam sinned he brought evil into the world, but suffering was already there.
- Wrongly thinking everything unpleasant is a result of human sin. Is disease and deformity a result of sin? If we genuinely believe it is, does this mean God made people disabled or retarded on purpose?

Therefore, the present state of this world is against God's will. It is not the way this world was created, and it is not the way that God wanted this world to be. God sent Jesus Christ into the world to deliver the human race from "this present evil world" - in other words, to deliver them from all suffering, pain, death, etc.
However, a god who deliberately creates through all of these things, and, yes indeed, wishes things to be this way, is an extremely evil god.

Jesus isn't a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card. He didn't die so offer his followers a way to get off the planet His father apparently cursed. He came down here to show us how to live.

God made the world and he also made evolution, and he called it 'very good'. Evolution isn't evil because it offends our delicate sense of morality, no more than physics or chemistry is evil.

When you see "Theistic evolutionists" uncannily sounding like full blown materialists, it's not an accident either. Whether they realize it or not, theyve adopted materialistic faith.

How are theistic evolutionists 'materialistic'?

 

[Greg1234]

hmmm... how about if God created the process of evolution? Hence the reason scientist find partial evidence of it (and then jump to their stupid conclusions - some of them anyway.)

There's no reason to think that. The ability for a car to adapt is not a refutation of the creation of a car. The programmed ability for organisms to adapt is not a refutation of the creation of man. Creation does not mean that the system is static, in neither case.

In carrying out ultra expansive changes, the mechanism is impotent. This comes through the examination of the adaptive mechanism in both the car and bacteria.

 

[Achilles6129]

"An irrational deity"
It is strange that, having acknowledged that evolution follows rational laws, you would think these laws demand an irrational deity.

Firstly, I would not say that evolution follows rational laws at all. Antelopes (or is it hippopotamuses now?) changing into whales defies any sense of rationality or logic. And the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Completely defies it. Secondly, I say that evolution is simply an irrational way to create because there is a much simpler, yes, and much less evil (we'll get to that in a secnod) way to create in simply calling things into being (exactly as God does, by the way).

To put it frankly, I can prove conclusively that the Creator of the universe is a rational being (laws of the universe, way the universe is constructed, etc.). This raises certain questions when we view the supposed "handiwork" of evolution. For example, what of the numerous "evolutionary dead-ends"? Why violate Occam's Razor (which states that the simplest explanation is usually the best) at every possible turn?

If God is rational, then he would certainly use the clearest-cut way to create life. And that is not through hundreds of millions of years of dead-ends, suffering, pain, death, making antelopes and then turning them into whales (instead of making antelopes and whales separate), etc. Therefore, I say that this is an irrational deity. Which brings me to my next point:

"An evil deity"

I am sure you have answers to all these, (as any Christian does) but the point is that in the final analysis, God told us that all creation is good: so if evolution is part of creation, then evolution has been judged good in God's sight.

Ah, but what is God's sight? What does God define as good? We have the answer:

1) Only God is good

"18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Mk. 10:18

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest." Rev. 15:4

2) God is love (or actually, I would say absolute divine love, but we'll call it love here)

"7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." 1 Jn. 4:7-8

So the only definition of good is God, and God is love. Therefore, if God characterizes something as "good" that means it follows the principles (or possesses) LOVE (absolute divine love).

You may also want to note that God calls these present days evil:

"34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Mt. 6:34

However, God does not call his creation "evil" in the beginning. It follows then that said creation either a) possesses absolute divine love; or b) follows the principles of absolute divine love.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way that disease, suffering, death, pain, and all the other hundreds of millions of years of this sort of thing that must have gone on (were evolution to be considered true) can by any means be defined as something aligned with the principles of, or possessing, absolute divine love. For example, you may read in the book of Revelation:

"4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Rev. 21:4

That was the world as God wanted it to be. That was the world as God originally created it. This is what I would expect from a being whose only definition of good is absolute divine love and is in fact comprised of absolute divine love.

Note that I used the Scriptures specifically because you are a Christian and so I can reason out of them with you. However, I think that there are other lines of evidence that point to a good Creator of the universe that I may be able to use with a non-Christian.

Achilles wrote:
So you are saying that taking Genesis literally (including a literal flood story where God kills millions of innocent animals and infants by drowning, and punishes people's kids because some their Ancestors ate fruit that God put within their reach and knew they would eat), gives a less evil deity than a God that creates through evolution?

I actually already addressed this in one of my other posts though you may not have seen it. I hold that your definition of death (more specifically, the human race's definition of death) is actually flat-out wrong. Therefore, I would not consider that God killed infants, little children, etc., in a global flood. Consider:

"51Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." Jn. 8:51

"28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Mt. 16:28

"25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" Jn. 11:25-26

Christ evidently subscribes to a different definition of death. The human race kills and murders by putting someone to a physical death, but evidently that is not how God kills. Therefore, I hold that God in fact did not kill any babies, infants, or children, in a global flood, during the extermination of the Amalekites, or ever, in all of history.

For a further look on the definition of death consider that God told Adam he would "die" when he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil yet Adam did not physically die. Also consider another statement of Jesus Christ's:

"22But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." Mt. 8:22

That will do it for the replies for now. Even if I didn't get to your response, I think I addressed any other points raised well enough. I would also be interested in some perspectives from a few YECs here on my comments about atheistic evolution and theistic evolution.

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote:

And the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Completely defies it.

Are you aware that this deception told by creationists has been exposed as a falsehood so many times that even creationists now say other creationists shouldn't use it? It simply makes creationists look either dishonest or ignorant.

making antelopes and then turning them into whales

Is that not a more glorious way to show one's power, rather than the rather boring act of making them separate? Besides, if God didn't transform them, then why would he include such clear evidence of the transformation, including so many transitional fossils, genetic proof, anatomic evidence, and so on? It sounds like you are saying that God is purposefully dishonest.

This also goes back to evil/incompetent deity line. Why would a loving, competent God make so many completely stupid designs, if he wasn't doing it on purpose to show how he created through using evolution? If created separately, why not have whale breathe water, or make the stupid wiring of the giraffe's neck, or our poorly designed prostate?

For example, what of the numerous "evolutionary dead-ends"?

Another form of life for the glory of God. Evolutions shows us that God is powerful enought to have created hundred of times more kinds of animals than there are now. God recognized that even the whole earth, at one time, was too small to contain the glory of animals he wanted for earth. An evolutionary dead end is not a bad thing - that's the same as any person you know who doesn't have any kids. Creatioinists would say that God's glory in creating animals is limited to how many different kinds can be on earth at one time, instead of thousands of different times over 4.55 billion years.

As for the "too many deaths" over millions of years, you wrote (about the animals killed in the flood) :

Christ evidently subscribes to a different definition of death. The human race kills and murders by putting someone to a physical death, but evidently that is not how God kills.

So it sounds like you have answered your own objection to death during evolution, by solving it the same way you solved the idea of the flood causing animals to die.

Papias

P. S. you wrote:

I actually already addressed this in one of my other posts though you may not have seen it.

Thanks for posting it again. You are right, I had not seen it.

 

[Achilles6129]

Are you aware that this deception told by creationists has been exposed as a falsehood so many times that even creationists now say other creationists shouldn't use it? It simply makes creationists look either dishonest or ignorant.

I have read both creationist and evolutionist literature on the topic of the 2nd law. Quite frankly, it makes more sense to view it from the creationist perspective. I see nothing but oracles, philosophies, or prophecies uttered by evolutionists on how evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

I will only reply to one other segment of your post since I think I've addressed everything else you've said, or the answer is common sense. You say:

As for the "too many deaths" over millions of years, you wrote (about the animals killed in the flood) :

So it sounds like you have answered your own objection to death during evolution, by solving it the same way you solved the idea of the flood causing animals to die.

Actually I was talking about human death during the flood, and every infant/child death in all of history. But let's look at the point here for a second. My point, more clearly stated, is that the righteous never die. I think this lines up quite nicely with Jesus Christ's view on the matter, which I will quote again:

"28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Mt. 16:28

Clearly Christ is referring to his disciples as "some." However, the other people who are standing there will still taste of death. Therefore, physical death absolutely can be the real definition of death for those who do not obey the real gospel of Jesus Christ (to expand the definition, those who are not righteous). However, since children/infants are righteous, they can never die. Hence, physical death is not in fact death for them at all. Therefore, God has never killed not even one single child or infant.

So that was my point about death, just to clarify. However, even if we take that point and broaden it so that physical death is not in fact death in all reality for everyone, that still leaves us with millions of years of disease, suffering, etc. I don't need to describe what happened over those millions of years - I'm sure you get the picture.

Again, we come back to the basic premise. A good God, a God of absolute divine love, would create a good world. Perhaps it slid into a state of suffering/disease against his will, but nonetheless he would certainly create it initially good, or else we could not say that he was a good being.

I do not find millions of years of evolutionary mechanisms to be good or to be reflective at all of absolute divine love. I find that the basic premise of God creating a world without any of these things makes much more sense than a God of absolute divine love creating a world with all of these things (which I say would be an evil god).

So again, we're back at where we started. I find the god of evolution to be an evil, irrational god. However, I find a God who would create a good world to be a good, rational being. This is the God of the Bible. I maintain that God sent a global flood upon the world and that this evidence was misinterpreted.

This is one of the reasons I reject evolution. I've talked briefly about the others, namely, that I know (Jn. 7:16-17, 1 Th. 1:5) that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, and therefore know that the Bible is true, and the Scriptures speak of a global flood. In addition to this, the Scriptures also speak of false prophets who will show "great signs, wonders" etc., and a "strong delusion", "deceivableness of unrighteousness" (2 Th. 2, Mt. 24), etc.

Intellectually, I reject evolution because the basic premise is impossible (as I have already enumerated). Biblically, I reject it because I know the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, and by extension know that the rest of the Bible is true, including a global flood.

 

[miamited]

Hi ns7,

You asked: hmmm... how about if God created the process of evolution? Hence the reason scientist find partial evidence of it (and then jump to their stupid conclusions - some of them anyway.)

How about if He didn't? What would that change in your understanding?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

hi all,

Glaudys wrote: I am glad to see you recognize that evolution follows natural laws just like any other scientifically described process in nature.

That is absolutely true and I am in complete agreement wth you.

Problem #1: The creation was a miracle. Miracles cannot be defined through natural laws, otherwise, by definition, they are not miracles. Evolutionist continue to want to explain miracles by natural laws. Can't be done! As soon as an evolutionist can scientifically explain to me how Mary wound up pregnant, I'd be willing to listen.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Well, for one thing "evolutionists" are not a monolithic group all marching to the same drumbeat. As already noted, there are significant differences between evolutionists who are atheists and those who are believers. And also within each of these groups as well. So I would put less emphasis on what "evolutionists" say and more on what has been established about evolution through proper scientific investigation.

Evolutionists who are theists would gladly agree that there is no scientific explanation of Mary's pregnancy. Science can only explain normal conception. The science of evolution can only explain the normal changes in species over time--not the creation of life in the first place.

What is a miracle? You say it "cannot be defined through natural laws". But that is a post-Enlightenment definition that grew up just as the whole idea of "natural laws" was being established as a scientific concept.

Biblically, a miracle is defined as a "sign" and there is no distinction between a sign that is natural and one that transcends nature. Moses saw a burning bush that did not burn up: a sign that is inexplicable by natural law. Jeremiah was given a vision of overripe plums: a sign that is entirely natural.

Maybe we need to ditch the whole idea that "natural" and "miracle" are mutually exclusive and just say that some "signs" God gives us are indeed inexplicable in terms of the laws of nature, but that doesn't necessarily apply to all the "signs" God gives us.

The trouble I find with the modern definition of "miracle" as "not natural" is that it leads (both among believers and unbelievers) to the notion that "natural" = "godless". One comes to assume that if something happens according to natural law, then God had no part in it. So to an unbeliever, finding that something happened according to natural law confirms them in unbelief. Unfortunately, it also shakes the faith of the believer.

I think we Christians need to believe in a God of miracles, but also in a God of nature. We need to restore the vision, much more consistent with biblical norms, of God being just as closely tied to what happens according to natural laws as to what cannot be explained through natural law. As Christians, we need to reclaim the turf of nature from unbelieving scientists and philosophers. We need to reassert that nature belongs to God who created it, and nothing in nature is a sign of God's absence. Including evolution.

 

[solarwave]

Firstly, I would not say that evolution follows rational laws at all. Antelopes (or is it hippopotamuses now?) changing into whales defies any sense of rationality or logic.

Common sense wouldn't lead us to accept this but that doesn't mean that these things are irrational or illogical. For example quantum theory is very confusing and actually seems to go against a common sense understanding of how the world works. Reguardless evidence has shown that quantum theory is the most accurate theory we have even though we can't fully understand how it works. Evolution has evidence AND is fully understandable.

And the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Completely defies it.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only true within a closed system (such as the universe). The earth gains energy from the Sun which can be use to create life and fuel evolution.

To put it frankly, I can prove conclusively that the Creator of the universe is a rational being (laws of the universe, way the universe is constructed, etc.). This raises certain questions when we view the supposed "handiwork" of evolution. For example, what of the numerous "evolutionary dead-ends"? Why violate Occam's Razor (which states that the simplest explanation is usually the best) at every possible turn?

If you apply Occam's Razor to the evidence and there is an explanation without God then to add God in could be considered against it. Occam's Razor can easily be used wrong so I wouldn't expect you to think evolution is true because of the last sentance.

If God is rational, then he would certainly use the clearest-cut way to create life. And that is not through hundreds of millions of years of dead-ends, suffering, pain, death, making antelopes and then turning them into whales (instead of making antelopes and whales separate), etc.

The most rational way to create life might be create everything at once (not a few bit every day and someone from a rib) with the moral laws and scientific laws written down to create a safe, productive and meaningful life.

I accept that the pain in evolution is a problem that has to be explained, but even if it is hard to accept the evidence for evolution is very good.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only true within a closed system (such as the universe). The earth gains energy from the Sun which can be use to create life and fuel evolution.

This needs to be tattoo'd on the foreheads of every bloody creationist who ignorantly thinks the second law of thermodynamics somehow contradicts evolution.

I accept that the pain in evolution is a problem that has to be explained, but even if it is hard to accept the evidence for evolution is very good.

No it isn't(a problem) .Pain serves an important survival function for organisms with the sort of nervous system that can feel it.

 

[solarwave]

This needs to be tattoo'd on the foreheads of every bloody creationist who ignorantly thinks the second law of thermodynamics somehow contradicts evolution.

No it isn't(a problem) .Pain serves an important survival function for organisms with the sort of nervous system that can feel it.

Its a problem and you gave an answer which resolves it for you. The problem is the large amounts of pain which are possible and do happen. I know there are many answers to this, just saying.

 

[gluadys]

Firstly, I would not say that evolution follows rational laws at all.

It follows the laws of physics and chemistry at the molecular level and I have never heard that they are not rational. And natural selection governs changes at the macro-level and that's rational.

For example, what of the numerous "evolutionary dead-ends"? Why violate Occam's Razor (which states that the simplest explanation is usually the best) at every possible turn?

That is only a problem if you try to make God part of a testable hypothesis. But that turns God into a part of the created world which human scientists can manipulate and control. Not a wise move.

It is also basically a god-of-the-gaps theology.

If God is rational, then he would certainly use the clearest-cut way to create life.

Is it for us to judge what is the "clearest-cut way" to create life? Remember that God tells us "My thoughts are far above your thoughts".

It may be that evolution IS the clearest-cut way to create new species.

Ah, but what is God's sight? What does God define as good? We have the answer:

1) Only God is good

"18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Mk. 10:18

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest." Rev. 15:4

2) God is love (or actually, I would say absolute divine love, but we'll call it love here)

"7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." 1 Jn. 4:7-8

So the only definition of good is God, and God is love. Therefore, if God characterizes something as "good" that means it follows the principles (or possesses) LOVE (absolute divine love).

I would agree with that. One of the things I like about the concept of evolution is that it fits so well with the image of God patiently and lovingly bringing creation into its fulness of being.

You may also want to note that God calls these present days evil:

"34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Mt. 6:34

However, God does not call his creation "evil" in the beginning. It follows then that said creation either a) possesses absolute divine love; or b) follows the principles of absolute divine love.

As far as I know, God never, at any time, calls his creation evil. Scripture speaks of the hearts of humans being evil. It speaks of "this generation" as being evil. It speaks, as you noted, of times being evil.

But throughout scripture God is praised for creation and by creation and creation is never called evil. It is not just in the beginning that creation is deemed good, but at all times.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way that disease, suffering, death, pain, and all the other hundreds of millions of years of this sort of thing that must have gone on (were evolution to be considered true) can by any means be defined as something aligned with the principles of, or possessing, absolute divine love. For example, you may read in the book of Revelation:

"4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Rev. 21:4

I think you need to read a little more deeply. Yes, all this will be removed in the new creation. But as Paul tells us: "the sufferings of this time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us." They are like the pangs of labour soon forgotten when the child is born. And, in the same passage, Paul tells us that it is creation itself which is in labour to give birth to that glory.

And in another place, Paul says God makes all things (including suffering, disease, death, oppression, etc.) work together for the good of those he loves.

I am sure every mature person is able to look back to something in their life that was difficult to endure at the time, and yet give thanks for it because of the ultimate good that came from it. If this is true in individual lives, why not on a cosmic scale as well?

I actually already addressed this in one of my other posts though you may not have seen it. I hold that your definition of death (more specifically, the human race's definition of death) is actually flat-out wrong. Therefore, I would not consider that God killed infants, little children, etc., in a global flood. Consider:

"51Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." Jn. 8:51

"28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Mt. 16:28

"25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" Jn. 11:25-26

Christ evidently subscribes to a different definition of death. The human race kills and murders by putting someone to a physical death, but evidently that is not how God kills. Therefore, I hold that God in fact did not kill any babies, infants, or children, in a global flood, during the extermination of the Amalekites, or ever, in all of history.

I understand the distinction you are making. How does it apply to animals? Remember the flood took the lives of all that breathed--not just human lives. And the Israelites were commanded to slaughter sheep and cattle as well as people under the ban.

 

[Greg1234]

This needs to be tattoo'd on the foreheads of every bloody creationist who ignorantly thinks the second law of thermodynamics somehow contradicts evolution.

Cars break down over time under the hot desert sun. Why? Because they are operating in a closed system where they are closed off from usable energy to ensure maintenance and enhancement (namely mechanics, engineers, etc). They only way the second law of thermodynamics does not refute car to airplane evolution is under the assumption that the sun is in fact responsible for car to airplane transformation. And that is in light of the fact that it is a demonstrable fact that cars are breaking down. It doesn't matter if you tattoo your claim on a creationist's forehead.