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

1). By “this” I meant your argument by anecdote. But after thinking some more I’m not sure you grasp what I was saying, which is that they don’t truly accept evolution, not that they aren’t true christians.

A). Yeah, it’s supposed to be like one part Rand lover (cuz I like several of her ideas, not necessarily her personally mind you) and one part range rover (to intentionally invoke the image of an SUV driver to piss off liberal hippy douchebags) to mean like one who searches for Rand-related ideas and the application thereof. But I just kind of through it together and am kind of meh on it now really.

And on your second post, I meant the genius of the theory of evolution, not the process itself.

I’m sure this has been addressed upthread, but I think the error in your thinking is equating “Christian” with “believer in the literal truth of the Bible.” The two are not synonymous. The minister I referred to in my earlier post, for instance, not only does not believe in the literal truth of the Bible, but in fact says that doing so is borderline sinful, as it is an abdication of each individual’s responsibility to use her or his mind and judgment to make responsible moral choices. She considers the Book of Genesis, in particular, to be almost entirely metaphor, and has given more than one sermon on passages in the Bible in which she believes God is depicted as having behaved wrongly and which she explains as being the work fo men, not God–i.e., not to be believed, but included because they help illustrate certain truths.

I’m sure a lot of people would say she’s not a Christian, but she certainly genuinely accepts evolutionary theory.

What about dog breeding is natural selection?

I think you’re not understanding me. God selecting for mutations is not natural selection. God making sure certain mutations happen, and making sure others don’t, is not random mutation.

You can’t have it both ways. Once we find out that there’s a god behind the scenes preordaining, then natural selection isn’t correct at all; it just looks that way to those that don’t have the further information of what God’s been pulling off.

Because now there’s an intelligent being behind the scenes picking who wins instead of chance?

Seems important to me. I play the lottery, I want chance effecting the outcome, not someone fixing the contest.

If it’s equally as likely, then God wouldn’t bother. Since he is, it makes sense that some sort of favoritism is involved. Which is why I’m assuming the lottery analogy was brought up in the first place- because God didn’t just randomly choose natural occurrences and mutations, He did so with an agenda- that humans come into existence in the first place.

How we can distinguish is irrelevant. Also, God would have to be doing more than making sure the environment has the right conditions at all times (which isn’t natural to begin with); He’d have to make sure He selects all mutations, making random mutations a fallacy.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Exactly. If a god has made sure all the conditions were always right and mutations always happened (and others didn’t), He breeded all creatures and natural selection is an illusion. And random mutation would be more akin to magic then anything ‘natural’.

I’m making the same points over again, so I’ll drop out of this now as I’m just repeating myself.

I disagree. The only criterion for a “christian” for purposes of this thread is someone who believes in a god that intended to create humans.

That’s ridiculous. By your definition, Jews and Muslims are Christian.

Everything.

Just because humans (or something else) are affecting the environment doesn’t mean the environment isn’t affecting which genes get propagated.

I think your problem is that you don’t understand the limits of science in this respect. The contention that the asteroid was purely random vs planned is untestable without the power to observe something interfering with it. Being untestable, the problem can’t be resolved by science. We can predict the results of the collision based on our understanding of evolution, and see if the actual results match (which they do) but not the cause of the collision. For all we know some aliens might have altered the course of the asteroid.

Say you have a machine where you see the results of a dice roll, but not the roll itself. You punch the roll button a few thousand times, plotting the results, and find that they are explainable by chance to the 99% level. However, you have no way of proving that there is not a person inside the machine who, for some unknown reason, wanted to create exactly that result. Given that man showed up at this point in the evolutionary process, we don’t know if we are around because of the combination of chance and natural selection, or if God fixed the dice.
This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t study evolution as if it were purely naturalistic, of course. But the Razor is a heuristic, not a rule.
I personally believe in no gods, and can’t see why God would go to all the trouble of fixing the process of evolution to confound those who believe in the accuracy of the Bible. Doing it the way it is described in Genesis, or in another creation myth, would seem much simpler. But my skepticism doesn’t rule out the alternative of theistic evolution.

There is another reason why this doesn’t matter. Arthur C. Clarke said (and I quote loosely) “the belief that god created man in his own image is ticking like a time bomb in the heart of Christianity.” The context of this is that the discovery of intelligent aliens very different from us will cause a problem. I disagree, since I’m sure the response would be that the image of God is intelligence, not our bodily structure. This line is left over from a time when God was believed to walk in the garden and be more like us.
Given this, why is theistic evolution even necessary? Whatever intelligence involved would be in the image of, and loved by, God. If Jesus came as an intelligent dinosaur, would anything be really different?

The Roman’s couldn’t have crucified a dinosaur, could they? Burgers, maybe…

IMHO, you’re still not accounting for the difference in context between a mortal being and an omnipotent one that lies outside of the universe.

From our perspective, the course of the universe is fundamentally random because it is not possible to know the state of all matter and energy. Predicting the course of evolution, or any other complex phenomena, is impossible because it’s not possible to account for all the data. We can’t even accurately predict the weather. Shit, you can’t accurately predict how a “Plinko” chip is going to fall on “The Price Is Right.” To accurately do so to perfection would require data in volumes beyond conception.

From our perspective, the universe follows a set of rules. Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing. Matter is made up of atoms. Atoms have a nucleus, made of protons and neutrons, and electrons in valences that move from atom to atom. Light behaves this way, X-rays behave that way. We don’t yet fully understand all the rules, but nonetheless we know they exist.

From our perspective, the universe can be treated, in most cases, as containing a large number of events that are inseparable from random chance. Not all things are random, though. Some things can be predicted with confidence; if I pick up my keyboard right now and let go of it, it will very likely fall back towards the center of the earth. It will not pass through my desk, but instead will stop there. I know this because gravity and the nature of mass give us reasonably predictable outcomes.

But consider, say, the lottery. In the Lotto 6/49 they pick six balls out of 49 in one of those tumbly-rolly lottery machines. The odds of any given combination coming out are just under one in fourteen million, and from our perspective, it’s effectively a random pick. There is simply no way to predict what six numbers will come out. But it’s not actually random. The six balls that come out are a direct product of physics - the way the tumbly-thing rotates, the exact construction of each of the lottery balls, the way they hit each other, the movement on air inside the lottery machine, all the tiny little imperfections in each ball, even the microscopic bits of dust inside the machine, gravitational flucations, the state and spin of every electron in every atom in every peice of matter involved - information and data in amounts beyond the limits of human conception affect which six numbers will roll out. If you could know all those gazillions of bits of data and calculate accordingly, you could predict the lottery results every single time. But you don’t know it all. You can’t. All the human minds and all the computers and adding machines that have ever existed in the history of the Earth or will ever exist will never, ever know a noticeable fraction of all the information you’d need to predict the results of a lottery draw. The lottery draw is, to us, a random event - totally, utterly unpredictable, with any one number combination being equally as likely as any other, at least so far as we know. But it’s really not random - it’s predetermined by physical law, one of bajillions of predetermined events that the universe has been building towards in fourteen billion years of existence.

We treat complex events as random because for our purposes that’s the mathematically, philosophically convenient way to treat them. Very simple events can be predicted with accuracy; a dropped object will usually fall down. Moderately complex events can be predicted with only general accuracy. Complex events cannot be predicted at all, so we call them “random.” But the extent of randomness in a system is purely subjective. If you had more information, you could predict more, and if you had all information in the universe, you could predict everything. We can’t have all the information in the universe, and we never will, so some things are just plain random.

But if you believe in the Christian God - and I’m not saying you have to, or even that I do - that God, pretty much by definition, HAS all the information. He is not limited by physical law or the temporal limits human being are. So to Him, all things are predictable. The results of a lottery are known to a being with an understanding of every quantum of mass and energy.

To us, the progress of the universe is, scientifically, a phenomenon filled with randomness simply because we have only an eensy-teensy bit of the information required to understand it. But as we understand more, we eliminate randomness. There are many things that appeared to be random that we now understand follow patterns. To people in the time of the Roman Republic, the arrangement of stars in the sky would have seemed random; we now know why there’s more stars in part of the sky than in the rest, and some of the physical forces that govern that. The appearance of many diseases would have seemed capricious and random to people in the past; now, thanks to a better understanding of biology, we see it is not random at all, but that it follows predictable patterns. Weather, beyond regional variations, would have seemed essentially random, but we now understand some of its creating factors.

While there’s still a lot we have to learn at the subatomic level, the general movement of science has been towards concluding that everything happens for a reason, but that the level of data involved is such that most things must be e treated as random events for the purpose of study, because we cannot know enough to treat them otherwise. The evolution of life on earth would have taken a dramatically different course had the K-T Event not exterminated most of the world’s large terrestrial animals - the Earth might well still be dominated by dinosaurs. But whatever caused it, it was an event that resulted as the culmination of theoretically predictable physical events that (it is widely assumed) caused an asteroid, by following the consistent laws of physics, in eccentric orbit around the Sun to collide with the Earth. We can’t even predict when the next asteroid impact will be, but if we knew every possible peice of data we could.

But God can. Now, then you say…

But to science, who cares? It doesn’t matter if God preordained everything at the Big Bang. In terms of our scientific understanding the universe it makes no difference at all who wrote the script. Our treatment of the universe remains the same, and the conclusions of scientists are no less valid. God, by definition, lies outside of the universe. Science concerns itself with what’s happening in the universe, which is convenient because it’s all we have access to.

For that reason, I just don’t feel believe in God is incompatible with acknowledging the simple fact that evolution happens. “The Theory of Evolution” is not a commentary on whether or not God exists, it’s a set of observations of facts, that things mutate into other things and new species emerge. That appears to be unquestionably true, whether or not God set it into motion.

(Now, I would acknowledge that SOME believers in God do think that God actively interferes with the laws of the universe, but for the most part, at least if you believe what’s in the books, apparently all the interferences started happening about four thousand years ago, which is pretty far past the point at which humans had evolved.)

Voyager, what do you think of Rand Rover’s definition of a Christian: “someone who believes in a god that intended to create humans”?

What church is she a minister for?

-Kris

Let’s say a liberal, mainline, dwindling protestant denomination and leave it at that.

I do.

Again, that we know God plans something is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that if you believe God planned for humans to exist all along, then the following is not how things work:

Once again, what we know and don’t know is irrelevant. If God fixed it so mutations aren’t random (as random is explained in evolutionary science) and that nature isn’t an unguided process, then natural selection is an illusion. Whether or not we can determine if God is doing this is not an issue.

Again, my rationale has nothing to do with true randomness vs. fundamentally random.

I understand that. Really. It’s irrelevant to my points. My points rest on whether an intelligent being planning our existence rules out natural selection as I quoted.

As I already explained, the Christian God as I understand Him did more than see the future, He highly manipulated all events as to render natural selection as explained an incorrect explanation.

Now I really am just repeating myself. Seriously gotta go and get some work done. :slight_smile:

Oh, knock it off. He said, “The only criterion for a “christian” **for purposes of this thread **is someone who believes in a god that intended to create humans.”

You know he just meant that the thread is dealing with those that believe God planned our existence and not necessarily Biblical literalists, right?

Yes, that’s correct, but it’s irrelevant. It’s hard to fit “people who believe in a god that intended to create humans” in the thread title, and I live in the USA, and the catholic church officially accepts evolution, so I picked the term “christian.”

Well, that’s just crazy. If we’re picking words out of a hat to substitute for unrelated long phrases, I’ll just sum up my rebuttal to your OP with, “Bullshit”.

And I’ll just sum up my rebuttal to this post with :rolleyes:

Also, nice “argumentum ad qubbling with irrelevanciesum.”

What makes your post even weirder is you’ve already posted at length in this thread. This post therefore shows that you haven’t understood my argument all along.

:confused:

O… kay…

-FrL-

You are defining evolution in a way that precludes any non-natural impact on it. But evolution is descent with modifications, as Darwin called it, and you don’t need to exclude any mechanism for the modifications. First, I don’t see theistic evolution as requiring divine intervention in natural selection. If enough copies of a favorable characteristic gets into the genome, it will increase. That’s the power of natural selection - it amplifies small but advantageous modifications.
Second, the environment can come from an artificial source. Do you consider the adaptation of numerous animals and insects to our artificial environment not evolution? I’m not counting deliberate modifications for domestication.

But the intelligent being can use natural selection.

If you define evolution to exclude any, invisible, manipulation by deities, then you are right that Christians thinking God did something to cause humans to appear can’t believe in evolution.