It is impossible to be a Christian that accepts the theory of evolution

[clairobscur]

The OP can’t even get **Der Trihs ** on board about an hypothesis critical of Christians? I say : case closed.

[Sinaijon]

@RickJay

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.

Amen.

[Pleonast]

@LonesomePolecat

Because Der Trihs doesn’t own the English language, and he doesn’t get to decide what all the words mean.

That’s a strange thing to say when Der Trihs is arguing against there being a universally accepted definition of Christian.

[Rand_Rover]

@clairobscur

The OP can’t even get **Der Trihs ** on board about an hypothesis critical of Christians? I say : case closed.

My argument is not critical of christianity. It is critical of christians who say they accept evolution and specifically argues that they actually don’t.

[Contrapuntal]

@RickJay

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.

In that case, whether nor not anyone is a Christian, or believes in evolution, or anything else for that matter, was determined long before his or her birth.

[tim314]

@Contrapuntal

In that case, whether nor not anyone is a Christian, or believes in evolution, or anything else for that matter, was determined long before his or her birth.

Well sure, but I think free will if it truly exists is no less difficult to explain without God.

[Rand_Rover]

@tim314

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.

Afain, this gets into the NOMA (i.e., separate magisteria) argument. If the god hypothesis is not useful for predicting anything (because god always acts in ways consistent with scientific theory), then it can be rejected with no risk of damaging our understanding of the world. Additionally, it shows that the idea that god and science can coexist is false since god could always change his mind whereas the sun will not decide to act in ways that defy the theory of universal gravitation.

[Fantome]

@tim314

But if a God who is controlling everything chooses to act in a way that is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution

I responded to that already, if random mutation is God mutation and natural selection is God selection, that’s not consistent with the theory of evolution.

@tim314

But if that being chooses the outcomes in a way that is indistinguishable from true randomness, then does it make a difference?

Of course it does. It means our explanations for how and why things happen is all wrong. You don’t think it makes a difference if lottery winners are chosen by an intelligent being?

@RickJay314

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?

This is what I’ve been explaining throughout the thread.

@tim314

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.

We’re not talking about predictions; we’re talking about choosing. You said, “So God might choose to have me win the lottery” and “A lottery can have an intended result, and still work randomly to select the winners.”

If a lottery has an intended result (a being fixed it), it can not “still work randomly to select the winners”. This isn’t about whether or not there is true randomness in the universe; it’s about your declaration that a lottery can still be considered random on any level if someone rigged it in any way to make sure a specific person wins.

[Lemur866]

And one more point.

There’s nothing contradictory about guided evolution, or some sort of intelligence interfering in the process of evolution. We know for a fact that such a thing is possible, because there actually exists at least one intelligence that influences evolution.

Now imagine a million years later and that interfering intelligence is gone, and intelligent racoons evolve and start developing their biological sciences. Their theory of evolution would have to take into account the influence intelligent humans had on the biosphere and genetics of life on earth, and they may even find that their species was genetically engineered for intelligence.

It’s logically and physically possible that such a thing could have also happened to humans, it’s just that there’s no evidence to suggest that it actually did.

[LonesomePolecat]

@fantome

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.

Will you please fucking pay attention??!? They’re aiming for an overall result, they’re not choosing the specific winners!!!

[LonesomePolecat]

@Pleonast

That’s a strange thing to say when Der Trihs is arguing against there being a universally accepted definition of Christian.

Inasmuch as there will always be some cretinous buffoon who will try to make himself seem clever by endless nitpicking and quibbling over definitions, I submit that there is no “universally accepted definition” of anything. Der Trihs said a ridiculous thing about Christians which in effect makes the term meaningless and any conversation about Christians impossible.

[Liberal]

@Rand_Rover

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?

Christ teaches that man is a dual creature. Consider this passage from scripture:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

John 3:1-6This means that each of us is both a biological animal, born when our mother’s water breaks, and a spiritual being, born when God imbues us with His spirit.

When the Bible says that God created us in His image, it does not mean that God is a bipedal creature with lateral symmetry in the likeness of man. It means that man is essentially spirit in the likeness of God. It is this spiritual being that God creates.

Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter to me as a Christian whether God created the universe or not; it serves His purpose all the same. Inasmuch as His frame of reference is eternity, it doesn’t make any difference whether there had to be a googol universes before one emerged with creatures having sufficient temporal lobes to hear Him and frontal lobes to contemplate Him. The beginning, middle, and end are all the same to Him. From His perspective, the entire multiverse has not yet begun, is ongoing, and is finished — all in the same instant.

So from a Christian perspective, it matters whether by “man” you mean the animal or the god. Christ teaches that we all are gods, and that on the spiritual level we are one with Him and His father. I hope that clears things up for you.

[Fantome]

@LonesomePolecat

Will you please fucking pay attention??!? They’re aiming for an overall result, they’re not choosing the specific winners!!!

I paid attention; apparently you didn’t:

*“So God might choose to have me win the lottery” *

[Liberal]

@LonesomePolecat

Inasmuch as there will always be some cretinous buffoon who will try to make himself seem clever by endless nitpicking and quibbling over definitions, I submit that there is no “universally accepted definition” of anything.

Including life.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Rand_Rover

Well, I’ve attempted to somewhat hijack a couple of threads with this topic, so I thought I would try to give it a full airing.

Point the first: The theory of evolution does not have a goal or an endpoint. Rather, new species are created through descent with modification, and those that fit best in their environment live (until the environment changes). It is possible that dinosaurs could have been the dominant land animal for earth’s entire history (i.e., no humans ever) if the environment had always remained optimal for dinosaurs and had not changed so that the mammals took over. I think that to “accept the theory of evolution” means to believe all of the above is true.

Point the second: A Christian must necessarily believe that God intended to create humans. A Christian need not necessarily believe in the literal truth of one of the creation stores in the Bible (or anything else really). Therefore, the defining characteristic of a Christian for this purpose is one who believes in a god that intended to create humans (I know this definition includes lots of other religions, but Christian evolutionists are the ones I run up against).

Point the third: Human beings exist. They are thus a result of whatever process resulted in their existence. If God intended human beings to exist, and human beings do in fact exist, then whatever process resulted in their existence was sufficent to achieve God’s intention.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Fantome

I paid attention; apparently you didn’t:

As you are being deliberately obtuse, I have no more time for you.

[mlees]

@monavis

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.

Monavis

I am receiving regular visits by some Jehova’s Witnesses, and we touched on some of this (but not exactly in this way).

The answer was that God wanted us to have free will. The pre-Noah folks chose poorly.

Apparently, God created something (free will) that even He couldn’t control, nor predict. More fun for all, I guess.

(I could be misunderstanding their reply. Heh.)

[sqweels]

@Frylock

The idea that God exquisitely fine tuned things from the beginning such that mankind would naturally evolve as it did invites the question why God would do it that way instead of simply creating the universe by fiat. Why the rigmarole?

Why does always go without saying that God can create even vastly complex systems in the blink of an eye. I say that even God has to start simple and test and perfect His designs before moving on to more complex ones, and that takes time.

[RickJay]

@Contrapuntal

In that case, whether nor not anyone is a Christian, or believes in evolution, or anything else for that matter, was determined long before his or her birth.

Certainly, all scientific evidence would suggest this is true.

[tim314]

@Fantome

I responded to that already, if random mutation is God mutation and natural selection is God selection, that’s not consistent with the theory of evolution.

I saw your response, but I think either I’m not understanding you, or you’re not understanding me. To me, being “consistent” with a scientific theory means “no experiment you could ever possibly do would contradict the predictions of the theory.”

If God has preordained everything, but has set it up to happen in a way that exactly follows the predictions of the theory of evolution, then the theory of evolution can also be considered correct.

In particular, if the laws of physics are deterministic (which may not be true at the quantum mechanical level, but otherwise seems to hold), then this just amounts to God picking the initial conditions of the universe and letting these laws play out until the desired end result was achieved. The theory of evolution says nothing about the initial conditions of the universe, so this suggestion isn’t inconsistent with evolution.

Of course it does. It means our explanations for how and why things happen is all wrong. You don’t think it makes a difference if lottery winners are chosen by an intelligent being?

If I have the same chance of winning the lottery as everyone else, why would it make a difference? The fact that God has already decided the outcome doesn’t seem any more important than the fact that the deterministic laws of physics have already decided the outcome. As far as the lottery concerned, all that matters is “Is it fair?” If it’s equally likely God will pick me as anyone else, then that’s fair.

Again, if the laws of physics are deterministic, then the outcome of that lottery drawing was predetermined even without God. What makes it “fair” is:
(1) There’s no reason in advance to expect a particular lotto ticket to be the winner
(2) If you repeated the lottery sufficiently many times, any ticket would win the same percentage of the time as any other.

If God picked the outcome while adhering to these rules, then God is just as fair as pulling ping bong balls out of a bucket, or whatever.

We’re not talking about predictions; we’re talking about choosing. You said, “So God might choose to have me win the lottery” and “A lottery can have an intended result, and still work randomly to select the winners.”

If a lottery has an intended result (a being fixed it), it can not “still work randomly to select the winners”. This isn’t about whether or not there is true randomness in the universe; it’s about your declaration that a lottery can still be considered random on any level if someone rigged it in any way to make sure a specific person wins.

How are you defining “random”? If you define random as “unaffected by the choices of any conscious entity”, then no, it wouldn’t be random. But in this context I think a more reasonable definition of “random” is basically points (1) and (2) that I use to define “fair”, above.