If we follow your line of thought, this implies that God is not perfect (How do you improve on perfection?).

Unless you want to take the view that "evolution" simply means change, whether good or bad.

Following this line of thought, we could be "devolving" from perfection. However, I think most take "evolution" to mean progress/getting smarter/better adapted, etc.

If you replace every part on a car with new parts, is it still the same car or a new one?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392406689
source: https://i.imgur.com/8NwzdP3.jpg

Why does it mean that?

Let me be more clear:

1: Presuppose the existence of God.
2: Presuppose that, as Genesis says, God created the universe and the things in it.
3: Who is to say the exact physical processes by which these tasks were performed?

Or:

If I say to you "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa," would you counter by saying to me "No, the Mona Lisa was painted with a brush?"




Metaphysical answer: Do cars have souls?

Philosophical answer: Define what makes something "a car."

Pragmatic answer: Did you replace that portion of the firewall which has the VIN stamped into it?

Because if we are created in His image and he is perfect:

"perfect - excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement
or
entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings"


How can there be any ability for improvement (evolution)?

I'm not speaking of the "how" we were made, that's irrelevant to what I'm getting at, I'm speaking to the result.

In other words, if we are perfect, how can we evolve?

*Again, unless you are using "evolution" to mean "any change."

What if God is continuously evolving?

What if God (being, you know, infinite and all) does not manifest itself in a single physical form, but rather in an incomprehensibly large (infinite?) number of forms?

What if (things that I cannot possibly comprehend or imagine, because I am mortal)?

In other words, most of the common objections which I hear along these lines tend to presuppose facts not in evidence, or beliefs which are not supported by actual religious canon but rather are the modern invention of individuals with a limited capacity for understanding and a tendency towards binary and literal interpretations of doctrine.


Nothing in the Abrahamic scriptures contradicts the suggestion that Darwinian evolution might have been used as a tool by The Creator, nor does it require that Homo Sapiens be understood to be the final and ultimate result of said evolution.

It's an interesting question, but it does not follow down our previous supposition that "God is perfect and created us in His image."


One of the things I've always wondered, why hasn't God/Jesus/Holy Spirit ever decided to make a return trip to clear up all the misrepresentations regarding His teachings?

Why not?

I ask this seriously, though of course it's merely one conjecture among many.




An interesting question, but one which is tangential to the nature of the matter at hand.

I've no real interest (in this context) to debate the existence of God. To think otherwise is to miss the point of what I'm trying to say. That, simply, is this:

1: For those people who are already strongly convinced of the existence of God the Creator, why must they fear the notion of evolution as threatening to their beliefs?

and

2: For those who are strong proponents of the truth of evolution, why would they then make the leap towards assuming that this disproves the existence of God? It seems to me that, for some, Darwinism is an excuse to justify an underlying and pre-existing atheist faith, rather than atheism being the natural and obvious result of an understanding of Darwinism.

In my deliberately literal sense of the words used, there simply is no capability for improvement on perfection.

If God is still evolving (in a positive way, which I'll assume since you haven't countered that point), he was never a perfect being to begin with, which takes me back the Epicurus quote.


Then as someone who enjoys debate, I'd be curious what context you would want to debate the existence of God.

Back on topic:

1. I think it goes back to my literal use of the word perfect. Implying something/one/entity can get better means it wasn't perfect, of Godly, to begin with.

2. I would agree that if you get rid of the idea of God being perfect, then it's perfectly plausible.

I still feel like we're having two separate conversations here, where you're trying to analyze whether the bible is true, whether God exists, and so on.

I really couldn't care less. What's far more interesting is how people react to faith, both positively and negatively. The real question is not whether God exists. The question is:

1: for those people who are already convinced that God exists, why do many view the idea of Darwinian evolution as incompatible with that faith and an attack upon it,

and

2: for those people who accept Darwinian evolution as factual, why do so many of them vocally oppose the fundamental idea that God exists?



Can you not see the distinction that I am making here? Darwinian evolution describes a physical process by which life changes from one form to another, but makes no effort to explain how the very first life sprung up from non-living matter, now how the universe itself (and all the material within it) came to be in the first place.

By contrast, the Judeo-Christian religions offer an explanation for the origin of the universe and the initial spark that created the fundamental concept of life, but doesn't go into great detail about the exact physical processes which took place thereafter.


The two concepts, Genesis creation theory and Darwinian evolution, are not at all at odds with one another. They are, in fact, complimentary. Regardless of whether both are in fact true, they CAN both be true without creating any paradoxes.

So, why do so many people want to view the two concepts as an inherently either/or dilemma?

And this is possibly why we aren't on the same page, or I'm being too obtuse or pedantic, maybe it's my own personal viewpoint getting in the way.....

From what I know of both sides, going back to my "perfect" thing, prima facie they seem to be mutually exclusive. And I've given the reason why I think so, however, you maintain, that they are not mutually exclusive, yet provide no reasoning for why you think this way.

Perhaps, explaining to me why you think they don't create a paradox will help me understand your viewpoint. I realize this is all theoretical, but the "What if God is evolving?" doesn't really fit with the creationists position in any shape or form.

1: I thought that I'd done a rather comprehensive job of that by way of example, so long as you consider that I am analyzing people's reactions to faith, and not analyzing the validity of faith itself.

2: I'm on a train right now approaching Catskill, and will be away from technology for most of the weekend. I will check back in this thread after I emerge from beneath the Blanket of Infinite Snuggling, and reply further then.

Precisely.

For the 1st group: the primary issue is often Young Earth vs Old Universe, evolution being an issue in that it requires the Old Universe. A literal interpretation of Gen 1-6 requires for them a Young Earth. This is based on the concept that Christ and Paul both quote and refer to Gen 1-6, and further requires that it be literally interpreted, wholly true, or else one must reject the Christian faith outright.

For the 2nd group: By pushing for the dichotomy only (no possible blending) yields that the proving of evolution disproves a God; and allows them
to justify their atheism and frees them to define their own morality.

Yes, rightfully so. I agree with you. I love debate, I realize I'm not always as good at being objective as I should be. I await your response.

I'll only speak to your 2nd para, I'm hoping I read you wrong that you are implying that without religion there is no morality.

I could be wrong, I'm many Guiness and Jamison into the evening.

I'm saying that there are many who wish to define their personal morality, usually defined as ethics, rather than by Divine authority. And though I may digress, I am of the opinion that the heavy thinkers do, within an atheistic perspective, develop reasonable ethics; which are grossly mis-interpreted / applied by lesser men.

Agreed.

However, I don't think a "decent" moral code takes much thinking. Apply the "Golden Rule," show some empathy, donate to charity and keep living.

I guess the obvious counterpoint that I feel has not been made is that just because God (assuming his existence for the argument) created us in his image does not mean he made us exact copies of himself. I mean for a real world example look at Chinese turbos. They are created in the image of garret turbos. That does not mean they are the same thing. One is the inspiration for the other but inspiration does not equate to identical.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that God could be using humans (and everything else in the universe for that matter) as an ever evolving experiment or project. To the second part of your quote, that would defeat the purpose of faith.

That's an interesting thought, but I wonder why? If he is all seeing, all knowing.........what would happen that he doesn't already know?

Or do you wish to discuss the "God has a plan for us, yet we have free will" paradox?

And, yes, that was the sole purpose of the 2nd part of my quote. Joe has already pointed out I'm not particularly good at separating my own feelings in this debate. However, I still enjoy the debate.

Why is "Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty" any more of a problem for the theist than "Free Will vs. Determinism" is for the atheist? It's essentially the same paradox, no?

I'm confused by your question.

Determinism vs Free will isn't a problem for the atheist, because they don't believe there is a pre-determined plan that they have no effect on.

Whereas many theists purpose that not only does God have a plan, yet they have their own free will to act as they see fit.

The idea that I have free will to do as I see fit, yet God has already mapped out our existence........those to ideals are fundamentally opposed to each other. They are at complete odds with each other.

It's entirely possible I've missed what you are asking though.

The fact that God is all knowing and has a plan for you does not contradict free will. He is all knowing and would know your free will reaction to any set of circumstances. He is therefore the master manipulator. He can, in effect, control your life (all life, in fact) without actually taking away free will by manipulating circumstances around you or others to change the circumstances or environment. Think of it like the butterfly effect. He knocks a rock down a hill at the right moment and creates a completely different scenario. Multiply that one incident by a million or trillion events orchestrated by an omnipotent being and you have in effect manipulated everything with out "controlling" any being's actions per se.

Oh, I think you're mistaken there. Atheists don't believe in a predetermined plan in the sense of a sovereign deity, but many of them do profess to believe that the world operates by entirely natural and logical processes, a series of causal relationships.

The wiki on determinism would be helpful to read, but here's an extremely quick summary of one way of looking at the free will vs determinism debate.

So, what you believe are your internal thoughts and choices are really a product of brain chemistry. Your brain chemistry is a product of biological processes. Those biological processes are, in turn, products of the physical attributes of your component molecules. Those component molecules are, of course, products of the physical attributes of their component atoms, which are in turn products of the very structure and nature of the universe.

It could then be argued that you've never actually made a "choice" -- any appearance of free will is merely a post hoc explanation for what was really just a natural product of the movement and interaction of the multitude of atoms in the universe. Thinking of yourself as an individual who makes choices is simply a convenient story to avoid the reality that you have no choices at all; you are simply playing out the predetermined results of natural forces.



Alternatively, we could affirm free will, but this has consequences for causality and the uniformity of nature. If we accept that you are the product of nothing more than natural causes, but we also affirm that you actually have free will, that is, you are free to choose different actions in response to the exact same situation or stimuli, then we have likewise affirm that effects do not necessarily follow from causes. You can hit a billiard ball the exact same way, but it might go right or it might go left. This obviously would have severely detrimental consequences for our ability to understand or gain reliable knowledge about the universe.



That is the crux of the philosophical debate over free will and determinism.

I've read articles before like what Sam Harris mentions later down in that page. It's an interesting idea, but I have trouble with it.

Unrelated to your point, I just ran across this earlier. This kind of thinking is frightening.

Returning to the conversation, after a weekend spent violating the Third and Sixth commandments (as well as some of the dietary laws set down in Leviticus), the conversation continues...


This is a good point, and one which I sometimes forget on account of its complete absurdity, despite the fact that my mother is a biblical literalist. I'm going to diverge a bit into analysis of scripture itself (even though I said I wouldn't) because it's important to have some background.



What I find quite interesting about this argument is that the book of Genesis actually contains two entirely separate accounts of creation. The first is the one which most people are familiar with, starting out "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." and going on to describe various acts of subsequent creation taking place over a six day timeframe. (Gen 1:1-31)

Turning the page, however, there is a second telling of the creation story in Gen 2:4-23. This account differs greatly from the first not only in the tone and style of writing, but in the "facts" presented, specifically the order of events.

The first account breaks out creation such that one significant event happens on each consecutive day, as follows:

1. Big Bang.
2. Earth cools, atmosphere forms.
3. Continents appear, plant life forms.
4. Dust and fallout settle, atmosphere becomes clear enough to see the night sky through.
5. Marine and avian life form.
6. Mammals appear, culminating in homo sapiens.

The second account, by comparison, reads not so much like an instruction manual as a fireside fable. It breaks down creation not by day, but rather meanders through the process in a sort of poetic tone, pointing out major milestones along the way. What's really important, however, is that it lays out specific events in a different order than the first account. Man before animals, for instance. Man before woman, vs both at the same time. Man before plant life (?!) vs. after. And so on...


Now, scholars have debated these points to death for centuries, and there's little incentive for me to continue that analysis. While I'd love to have been a fly on the wall to hear this debate at the First Council of Nicaea which, in 325 AD under the commission of Roman Emperor Constantine, pieced together all the little scraps of ancient manuscript into a "coherent" text which we today recognize as the modern Christian bible, that's clearly a moot point.

The best explanation which I have heard for this is also the simplest. That what we have here are simply two different transcriptions of a story whose origin comes from a pre-literate society, passed down over thousands of years through oral tradition until fixed in stone (literally) by two very different cultures in two very different languages.


Now, that having been said, it becomes impossible to state that every single word in the entire bible is literally true. It simply cannot be the case, nor would we EXPECT it to be, given that no autographic sources for any of the Old Testament exist. If we presuppose an extant, underlying faith in the fundamental concepts of Christianity, then we must view the Bible as being ALLEGORICAL in nature.




Where did the six-day model come from? Who knows- no person was standing there watching the universe being created and writing it all down in real-time. Perhaps whoever wrote down what we know as Genesis 1 heard the story told over the course of six nights sitting around a campfire in his ancient village. Perhaps whoever originated the story in pre-historic times received it in the form of Divine Revelation from God (eg: while hallucinating a burning bush on top of a mountain) over a period of six days. These are all just guesses (which I hesitate to even write, for fear that z31maniac will latch on and start critiquing them rather than the larger argument) and in the end, it doesn't matter at all.

What matters is that since Gen 1 and Gen 2 contain material which is even trivially and superficially inconsistent, it becomes not mere unnecessary but unreasonable to require a strict, literal interpretation of either.




As such, I cannot accept the argument that a "Young Earth" is necessary to a Creationist model of the origin of life, nor that the notion of an "Old Universe" (as is generally held to be necessary by ALL branches of modern science, from Astronomy to Zoology) is in any was incompatible with Creationist doctrine.




And THAT, in case it was unclear earlier, is why Darwinian Evolution and Biblical Creationism are not inherently incompatible ideas.


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392659005

That is a very interesting take on the subject.

Joe, I was speaking specifically to Young Earth Creationists, of whom Ken Ham is a major leader. Yes, there are other creation and ID branches that do not adhere to a young earth, but Ken does not like them, and I was not discussing them.

Indeed.

Having now watched that whole video, I must say that I am unimpressed both by Mr. Ham's message and the manner in which he presents it.

To be fair, I am also unimpressed by the manner in which Mr. Nye automatically makes the leap from "Evolution is obviously factual" to "therefore, God must not exist," without covering much ground in between. In legalese, he seems to be assuming facts not in evidence. It would have been fairer for Nye to conclude "... therefore the Young Earth theory is obviously wrong," and with this I would have agreed intuitively.

But speaking directly to the Young Earth notion in particular... going back to z31maniac's query in re: "Perhaps, explaining to me why you think they don't create a paradox will help me understand your viewpoint," your mention of Young Earth made me think that perhaps this was an assumption which was causing the disconnect between what I was saying and what he was hearing, and decided that devoting some time to dissecting that specific point (and demonstrating why I believe it to be laughably false and unnecessary) might bring some clarity to the discussion.