Essentially, yes. I’m saying that it’s not inconsistent to believe that everything that happened was preordained by God, but God only chooses to have things happen that are consistent with the laws of physics and statistics. And thus, there’s no way to see God’s fingerprints in the outcome.
So God might choose to have me win the lottery, but he’s not going to choose to have everyone who plays the lottery win the lottery. In principle he could do that, but it would violate the rules he’s chosen to follow.
Of course, it is also not logically inconsistent to say “There is no God, and the laws of physics and statistics are all we’ve got.” I’m not trying to argue one way or another on the God question here, I’m just saying belief in God is not inherently in conflict with belief in science.
(I say “physics and statistics” on the assumption that, on some level, there is randomness involved. If it turns out that the universe really is 100% deterministic – in contrast to most interpretations of quantum mechanics – then I guess ultimately it’s all just physics.)
I think one thing that the OP is missing is that many Christians (including me when I was one) believe that faith is necessary to be a Christian. I do not need faith in evolution because I have access to direct evidence for it. I would need faith in God because the universe has no direct evidence of him. If we discovered some facet of the universe that was impossible, not improbable, to occur without divine intervention, then we would have proof of God. If angels and demons actually did battle on earth and saints appears and granted miracles in a predictable way, it would be insanity not to believe in God. If having faith is test, you need a universe that does not seem to require a God or you basically have the answer key.
Well, there ya go. No natural selection = no theory of evolution.
I hear ya. But whether or not we see God’s fingerprints is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that some believe those fingerprints are there. The belief in both God planning our outcome and the theory of evolution as I understand it’s proposed by experts in the relevant fields is inconsistent.
It would also be inconsistent to believe lotteries are fair and random if there’s a being behind the scenes determining the winners.
Not science in general, but certainly some aspects of some theories.
But it’s the overall result of a lottery which is calculated, not the specific winners. A lottery can have an intended result, and still work randomly to select the winners.
In the Old Testement God regretted creating humans, and wasn’t that the reasons for destroying the earh with Noah’s flood? He apparently couldn’t see the future.
No, if a being made sure that a specific person wins a lottery, that winner was not chosen randomly. If not chosen randomly, but specifically, then the lottery did not “work randomly to select the winners.”
First, this just drives me crazy, so I’m going to be pendatic. Actually yes the theory of evolution does have a goal. It’s goal is to explain the abuncancy and variation of life on Earth. The evolutionary process as described by Darwin within his theory does not have necessarily have a goal. But evolution has never been specific to Darwin.
Second, you are acting as if there is a single unified theory of evolution, but at the same time you are hanging your hat on points very specific to Darwin’s. I can believe in a theory of evolution, but not necessarily Darwin’s. Perhaps I believe in periodic massive doses of radiation causing mutations or rampaging viruses altering host DNA. Or maybe, just maybe, I believe that phenotypic variations can be inherited like Lamark postulated, as seen in morrel mushrooms. (All of which are at odds with Darwin’s theory…)
Thirdly, it’s rather strange that you have hung your hat on the very parts of Darwin’s theory that are arguable not scientific and are untestable. As aluded to earlier, randomness is not testable.
Fourthly,and most importantly, ** random mutations and natural selection are not at odds with believing in a directed evolutionary process.** We see counter-examples every day of our lives. Take a look at any domesticated animal or plant, and ask yourself which has more power controlling evolution: The random mutations, or the person controlling the environment?
A lottery is run to make money. The persons running the lottery use statistics to calculate how much money they will make if x number of people play their lottery, how much money they will have to set aside for the winners, etc. They are aiming at an overall result. However, the process by which the winners are chosen is still random (assuming said lottery is honest). The persons who designed the lottery are therefore using a process involving a high degree of randomness to achieve a specific result. A divine being may well have set up a process involving a great deal of randomness, and a few hundred thousand years ago a species of carnivorous ape bought the right ticket.
Now granted, it doesn’t *specifically *say he intended to do it, in those words exactly, but it’s splitting a pretty fine hair to suggest that it could just as well have been an accident.
He did say “let us do such and such,” and then he did such and such. I’d say that argues pretty strongly for intent.
Liberal, I’m not sure how this squares with you being a christian. The bible says god created man in his own image and otherwise generally presupposes that the existence of man is through an intentional act of god. How then can you as a christian believe that it is possible for man never to have existed?
Why? It seems you understand that the OP meant “evolution” and not “the theory of evolution”, so what’s driving you nuts? Do you see this mistake all the time? I don’t.
Of course they are. If God made sure that we would be the end result beginning with the very first simple forms of life, then it’s chosen mutations and God selection, not random mutations and natural selection.
But if a God who is controlling everything chooses to act in a way that is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution, then the theory of evolution has predictive power. The theory of evolution doesn’t explicitly say “Oh, and by the way, there’s no God”, it simply does not require a God. At best, I think it requires that if there is a God he’s not mucking things up in such a way as to make the predictions of the theory come out wrong.
To be clear, I think that “Intelligent Design” is a load of garbage, and that there isn’t any evidence in the way species have evolved to suggest God’s existence. I’m just saying that one could in principle believe that there’s a God who has chosen to make species evolve in a way that is consistent with the predictions of the theory evolution.
But if that being chooses the outcomes in a way that is indistinguishable from true randomness, then does it make a difference?
I guess it depends somewhat on how you interpret those theories. Going from “what the theory predicts” to “what the theory actually means about the world” is not always clear-cut, as seen in the many interpretations of quantum mechanics which say different things about what “really exists” but make the same predictions about “what experiments will see.”
If God is controlling the world, but choosing to do it in such a way that the predictions of a particular scientific theory are always accurate, then on the level of its predictions that scientific theory is true.
To reiterate, I’m not saying any of this means someone ought to believe in God. Just that I think it’s possible to reconcile belief in God with belief in science.
On the other hand, I do think everyone ought to believe in science, but that’s another argument.
The Theory of Evolution is simply an explanation for a very small chain of events created by the physical laws that govern the universe. Life is not something that lies outside of physics and chemistry; it’s a product of it.
If we’re assuming the Christian God - an omnipotent being existing outside of the structure of the physical universe - he most certainly can. But anyway, that’s not what I’m saying.
To Christians, God created the universe. He created logic. He created math. He created the concepts of causality, of time, relatively, matter and energy. You can’t outthink God; He created thinking and everything that can possibly flow from it. The universe follows whatever laws He chose for it - again, assuming we’re dealing with an omnipotent being. Nothing has to be random to an omnipotent God, even if it’s random to us.
Why can God not have, starting with the original singularity and the Big Bang, set into motion a chain of events that would, following all the scientifically identifiable laws of the physical universe, have inevitably resulted in the human race? Science doesn’t contradict that, it just explains what tools He used to get here. God chose natural selection as His vehicle to create us. He’s God; he’s playing with loaded dice and knows how they’ll turn up.
Wrong. If someone (a person, omnipotent being, flying unicorn, etc.) is making sure that a specific person wins , then the winner is not chosen at random. Whether the lottery officials are in on it or not is irrelevant.
You mean they think they are. In reality no matter how random they try to make it (the most evenly weighted balls, etc.), someone has foiled their plan and has figured out a way to choose who will win.
Sure, but again, this is not what Christians I’m familiar with believe. They believe in no randomness in the outcome of humans.
But it’s random given the information available to you, unless you have reason to believe God will favor one person over another.
If I flip a coin, and I know in advance exactly what velocity vector I’ll impart to the coin and what forces gravity and air resistance will exert on it, then I could in principle predict whether it would land heads-up or tails-up with 100% accuracy. But since I don’t know all that stuff, it’s effectively random.
Of course, with the coin you can also trust it because you say “Well, I flipped it lots of times and it came up heads 50% of the time.” But what I’m suggesting above is a God who plays by those same rules.