Interesting point. Another possiblity could be that God guided some evolution to get what He wanted out of it (be it humans, eagles, trout, what have you) and just let the rest do as they will to see what happened. Perhaps, if we are created in His own image, this is where we get out natural sense of curiousity.
In general, I don’t believe there is any conflict between faith in God and accepting evolution. In my admittedly agnostic mind, evolution says nothing about whether there is a god/gods/God it simply describes how the present biodiversity came to be. For the vast majority of people,Triskadecamus’ sums it up perfectly, “God is not disproved by the evidence of evolution. Creationism is, though.”
That said, I think there are belief systems within Christianity that are contradicted to the point where they cannot be reconciled. There are sects (denominations, what have you) that not only insist on the inerrancy of the Bible, but that the Bible must be inerrant, or entire structure of Christianity and salvation is called into question. If there are errors in the Bible, then Jesus, who attested to the innerancy of the Bible was also in error.
**
Another point of view stems from the Fall from Grace and Original Sin.
**
Note: I do not offer either of these interpretations as the true interpretation of the Scriptures or proper theology, nor even as widely held beliefs throughout Christianity. They are simply examples of specific (and I believe) limited interpretations that cannot coexist with evolutionary theory.
In either of these cases, second is really just an extension of the first, evolutionary theory does not simply contradict the story of Genesis, thereby limiting how God actually created the world, but strikes at the very heart of even the most othodox of Christian beliefs; Salvation through Jesus Christ.
**
When Creationists misconstrue the idea of evolution as obviating the need for God it may be a simple misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory says. Many Creationists continue to fold the idea of “Spontaneous Generation” into evolutionary theory. Such is not the case, as has been amply demonstrated in several recent GD threads. Evolutionary theory doesn’t state how live arose, it only explains how we arrived at the point we are at now. For others, as illustrated above, they truly do believe that evolutionary theory does attack the very foundation of the most important and central beliefs. Many of the most vociferous opponents of evolution I’ve run across took the latter view. It wasn’t enough that they believed in Creation, but any intimation that evolution might be true was an attack on their core beliefs. That may explain why there are so entrenched positions against evolutionary theory.
I believe the same holds true, in some ways, for those who support evolutionary theory, they are simply the other side of the coin. Wether through a mistaken impression of what evolutionary theory actually says or a desire to dismantle any need or belief in god, they take evolution as evidence that there is no god, and no need for one. I do not argue that evolutionary theory does not remove the need for God to be the Creator of existence, but it certainly isn’t precluded.
—However, it still seems to be a valid point that mutations do not generally make a difference that will cause them to be selected.—
Again, that is because selection doesn’t work off chance “mutations,” it simply selects from whatever pool of variation there is. Mutation is certainly one factor in creating variation (though not the only factor), and the timeline of the mutation doesn’t have to have any relation to the timeline of adaptive change: a particular spread of variation across some characteristic could remain neutral for thousands of years before it factors into a selection pressure. It can build up on its own timeline: and it does: much much faster, indeed, than would be neccessary (which is why I noted that selection actually seems to slow down the rate of variation, instead of being limited by it’s speed.)
What is necessary is not some good mutations: but rather just a healthy amount of variation out there to select from. Not a few mutant birds longer beaks, but rather a population of birds with just a small and dispersed variation in the sizes of their beaks: thenext generation of which will have a similarly small amount of variation in beak size: but ever so slightly tilted towards the slightly larger beaks.
—I think it is logical that given small, inbreeding groups, and the fact that most mutations do not affect selection, genetic drift is an important factor in evolution.—
I agree that it’s a factor in the history of life on earth: I don’t see why you think it is important to evolution, especially in its role as an explanation for variation, which was how you presented it when you suggested that (Ashtar?) was confused about evolution. It certainly, as you seem to agree, cannot explain adaption or increased complexity: the cornerstone of what we need to explain, from the perspective of a skeptic.
—Maybe in small population groups these differences build up over time.—
Of course they do: but without selection, there would be no reason to expect them to garner any adaptive advantages. That is, these sorts of differences aren’t the things that people want to explain the existence of when they are incredulous about evolution.
Paley’s original pre-creationist work was right about one major thing: complexity and intelligence require work to get done, design work. Something special needs to happen. The challenge of evolution as a theory is to explain how this special lifting work got done: how changes in genes were not just contingent, but have the appearance of ebing thought out: of being adapted to the environments they exist in.
Genetric drift certainly affects what ranges of variation are available, but it doesn’t help explain any of the important questions, including how there could be so many successful variations in the tree of life. The reason I emphasize minor changes is not to belittle the potential additive affects of genetic drift, but rather to point out that without some form of selection at work somewhere in there, there’s no reason to think that the building up of major changes would lead to successful solutions: change far enough in a random way, and it’s more likely than not that a line of creatures will simply die out because it fell off the trolley track, so to speak, before it hit upon a successful new adaption.
—Evolution is not a straight line.—
In one sense, looking forward, this is true: lots of different things can happen, and evolution is not forward thinking at all. But looking backwards, it is misleading: for the creatures alive today are all products of successive adaption, whatever other creatures there could have been if not for drift and calamity (though in a certain sense, calamity is really just the environment at work yet again: albiet the very low risk portion of it). Obviously, there is a straight genetic line to the very distant past in all living creatures of actually successful adaptions to the actual history of the environment.
—There are many possible adaptive peaks, and there are many non optimal traits that become fixed in a population.—
All this is true: but none of it is really new or a challenge to conventional Darwinism. The challenge of evolution has never been to prove that we are moving inevitably to this or that peak, but to explain how in the heck we got to any peak in the first place, given that the potential design space is so immensely vast that random drift could not possibly have accomplished it in the time required.
What if you believe humans can eventually evolve into Gods?
Does your head explode, or what?
I do not think that evolution, or for that matter, any science could disprove God. God/Religion is a matter of faith. we are not omnipotent beings and because we are not we can not think like them. It could be perfectly reasonable to God to provide plenty of evidence against his existence, in order to produce people who believed solely with faith.
The question of God will always be a philosophical one.
If you’ll excuse some minor rearrangement…
**
But I’m not comparing 2+2=5 to creationism or to mere belief in God. I’m comparing it specifically to Christianity.
The problem, Lord Ashtar, is that you seem to be pretty careless with your posts. You don’t read carefully, and sometimes you shoot from the hip and make unwarranted accusations. As just one example, even when people explained to you very patiently and at length that evolution isn’t the same thing as abiogenesis, you still said that evolution was a theory of the origin of life. I think people here have been very patient with you, but I think you need to realize that you need to treat people with a little more respect.
I guess you’re not willing to debate whatever point I’d like after all…
Look, I’m not trying to be rude when I say that Christianity is illogical. You asked me what I thought, you said you’d be willing to debate whatever point I like, so I spoke my mind honestly.
Let me ask you some questions, LA:
Do you still think we’re tarring creationists with a broad brush just because of a few “extremists”?
Do you realize now that Behe is a liar?
Now that evolution is no longer a problem for you, what do you believe about human ancestry? Are you going to study the topic further?
And, just to make sure there’s no confusion, let me ask you outright: are you a Christian?
Ben-How is Christianity illogical?
Believe it or not, I think I understand what Ben is saying here.
It is demonstrably true that hard atheism is illogical, and I don’t mean anything rude by that. It’s just the implication of a very simple modal tableau. “Not possible God” is a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition, and so therefore is unreasonable.
I would like to know, though, why Ben thinks the same thing of those who love one another. (Or does he mean the political machine that calls itself Christianity?) The term might be amphibolous.
“If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.” 1[sup]st[/sup] Corinthians, 3,18
The foolish thing is to think that God, and the world He made are
subject to the same apprehension by man. But I cannot disagree with the contention that Christians are illogical. I just believe they are right, in one tiny similarity in their many bewilderingly dissimilar beliefs: Jesus is Lord.
It isn’t logical. It just happens to be true.
Tris
Many non-Christians also love one another, and I’d imagine that there are Christians who do not love one another. So, to make the statement that “Christian” is equal to “those who love one another” is incorrect.
I just presumed that Jesus’ definition of His own followers would be the correct one. Is there any reason some other definition should trump His? Maybe “Christian” is like 99% of the words in our language, and can have more than one interpretation or meaning.
I just presumed that Jesus’ definition of His own followers would be the correct one. Is there any reason some other definition should trump His? Maybe “Christian” is like 99% of the words in our language, and can have more than one interpretation or meaning.
Don’t go there again, Lib. We all know what you’ve attempted to show in TWO other threads now. When you leave a post like this, people might actually think that when you use the word “God” you mean the “God” they’re thinking of. We know that your “god” could be the universe (pantheistic). I would also hesistate to allow you to call it demonstrably true, since that is still brought into question by many bright minds on this board who have read your threads. Additionally, a being containing logical contradictions would be not possible, and once you start assigning any personal attributes to your “god”, you get into that trouble too.
So I’d advise against driving through other threads with a hint at your ontological proof, especially in a thread discussing a “creator God” or “guiding force God” that is totally dissimiliar to anything your “proof” claims to demonstrate.
Apos:
I think we are pretty much in agreement, as you are now describing genetic drift. Since populations often consist of small, inbreeding groups, certain traits are likely to become prevalent in each group that may be completely lost in others. Mutations will greatly speed up the process by which each group becomes different than the others, but mutations are not necessary for genetic drift to occur. Genetic drift greatly increases the “pool of variation.” As all this happens, selection may not be occuring. Then, finally, selection occurs. This is where we agree on the importance of genetic drift.
But suppose many of the creatures are wiped out by a random event or hunted to near extinction. Or the groups are separated from each other. The remaining creatures will not be representative of the former total population. They will have distinct traits due to genetic drift. These traits will be propagated despite never having been selected. This is what I mean by saying evolution is not a straight line. Genetic drift could take species in any number of directions. Evolution is not taking each species to a unique pinnacle of perfection (of course, you have already stated this). It does seem that, due to the environment, certain adaptations were necessary. But I probably think much less of evolution was inevitable than you do.
Libertarian:
There is no doubt that it has more than one interpretation. I used to identify as a christian, despite not believing in hell. Now I just think I am better off not using the term at all, since it has so many interpretations. If I am going to believe that god is good, I have to believe that he has the characteristics that I deem “good” and not the ones I consider evil.
Ben:
Maybe you are thinking about an interpretation of christianity that is not logically consistent. Most interpretations of christianity, however, are logically consistent. Logical: Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
You may also be using logical to mean “Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions”. In this case, it is still impossible to prove that christianity is illogical. You would have to prove that each christian, even unconsciously, does not know something that makes christianity logical.
Yet even if you were to somehow prove all that, you would still not prove that christianity is not true.
Ben, it seems to me you wish to discuss something other than what I put forward in the OP. If you would like to discuss whether or not Christianity is logical, please start another thread.
Sigh…
1.) Not everyone on this board, just you.
2.) No, I don’t believe he is a liar.
3.) Irrelevant, and no, I’m not. I have decided that I am not interested in the subject. Take that as you will, but I decided that that information is simply not vital to my life.
4.) I don’t really feel that is relevant to this OP. I have asked whether or not the ideas of a supernatural creator and evolution can coexist. I’m not refering to the Christian God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, the Jewish Jehova, the Muslum Allah, the Buddah, or any other specific god.
BTW, if you’re going to quote me, please do NOT rearrange anything I say. Quote me exactly, or don’t quote me at all.
Very nicely said Apos.
—Very nicely said Apos.—
I think you’re confused… Nightime said that (though I agree with it)
—It does seem that, due to the environment, certain adaptations were necessary. But I probably think much less of evolution was inevitable than you do.—
That’s not really the issue: the issue was your original post to Ashtar. You suggested that genetic drift was important to understanding the problems he had with evolution. But I submit that it’s not very important at all. Drift is a theory of variation, which is certianly important to evolution. But the key component to evolution, in every sense that it is important for dealing with the criticisms of creationism, is selection and adaption. Drift doesn’t “go” anywhere: it can certainly affect the adaptive paths open to any particular population, but it doesn’t help solve Paley’s dilemna.
Number one, a substantive denial of any positive ontological proposition is a fallacy. What is meant by the word “God” is irrelevant. The fallacy has nothing to do with the tableaux that I’ve presented; it is generally a fallacy in any discourse.
Number two, I don’t think you understand what pantheism means. It doesn’t mean “there is no God; there is only the material universe”.
Number three, I’ve seen only a couple of the “bright minds” who were conversant with either ontology or logic. I’m a bright mind, but I don’t think my opinions on physics matter much.
Number four, I am not “driving through”. I responded to an assertion that Christianity is illogical. I also am responding to you.
Number five, you yourself qualified God as a “creator” or “guiding force” immediately after complaining that I assign to Him personal attributes. (Said the gander to the goose.)
Finally, my point was speaking directly to the notion of whether God and evolution are compatible. Setting up one as logical and the other as illogical is arbitrary.
Just as an aside, would you mind telling me what it does mean?