the idea of God vs the idea of evolution

[aardvarkcore]

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time—life and death—stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.

* Richard Feynman, quoted in Davies,
P.C.W. and J. Brown. Superstrings: A Theory of Everything, 208.

I think the idea of evolution is just as much used to explain mystery as of the idea of God or a god is.



-

[Stabbytheclown]

I think the idea of evolution is just as much used to explain mystery as of the idea of God or a god is.



-

Indeed. Scientific theories do explain mystery. They do so with evidence.
The difference is that they replace mysteries, rather than invent new ones. Lighting is no longer caused by a mysterious, temperamental being, but by understood meteorological processes. Species aren't created by a mysterious being painting pictures on a wall or sculpting them out of clay, but by natural selection.

[KingDavid8]

Actually, for me, my belief in God is very similar to my belief in evolution.

While it's true that the theory of evolution hasn't technically been "proven", it does seem to me to be the only theory that really explains the evidence (why the fossil record shows a gradual process of simpler creatures to more complex ones), which is why I believe in it. I suppose it's possible that evolution isn't true, and the fossil record is the way it is due to some sort of random coincidence (all creatures were around from the beginning, but the simpler ones happen to be the only ones whose fossils we've found), but I can't really buy that. A theory which actually explains why the fossil record is the way it is is far superior to one which attributes the existing fossil record to some sort of random coincidence (it just is that way!).

Similarly, while it's true that the theory of a purposeful creator hasn't technically been "proven", it does seem to me to be the only theory that really explains the evidence, which is why I believe in it. I suppose it's possible that the universe is orderly enough (to make life exist and capable of thriving for billions of years) due to some sort of random coincidence, but I can't really buy that. A theory which actually explains why the universe is this orderly is far superior to one which attributes the orderly universe to some sort of random coincidence (it just is that way!).

Some people bring up the "multiverse theory". While such a theory is possible, using it to explain why we live in an orderly universe is really kind of weak. If it worked, why couldn't we use it to explain the fossil record, say that with an infinite number of universes, it's possible that we would have a universe in which evolution did not happen, but which would have a fossil record which is the way ours is?

David

[Carpedm9587]

Actually, for me, my belief in God is very similar to my belief in evolution.

While it's true that the theory of evolution hasn't technically been "proven", it does seem to me to be the only theory that really explains the evidence (why the fossil record shows a gradual process of simpler creatures to more complex ones), which is why I believe in it. I suppose it's possible that evolution isn't true, and the fossil record is the way it is due to some sort of random coincidence (all creatures were around from the beginning, but the simpler ones happen to be the only ones whose fossils we've found), but I can't really buy that. A theory which actually explains why the fossil record is the way it is is far superior to one which attributes the existing fossil record to some sort of random coincidence (it just is that way!).

Similarly, while it's true that the theory of a purposeful creator hasn't technically been "proven", it does seem to me to be the only theory that really explains the evidence, which is why I believe in it. I suppose it's possible that the universe is orderly enough (to make life exist and capable of thriving for billions of years) due to some sort of random coincidence, but I can't really buy that. A theory which actually explains why the universe is this orderly is far superior to one which attributes the orderly universe to some sort of random coincidence (it just is that way!).

Some people bring up the "multiverse theory". While such a theory is possible, using it to explain why we live in an orderly universe is really kind of weak. If it worked, why couldn't we use it to explain the fossil record, say that with an infinite number of universes, it's possible that we would have a universe in which evolution did not happen, but which would have a fossil record which is the way ours is?

David

I'm not big into having discussions about evolution, for reasons I have noted in other threads. But this post of your has to be one of the more articulate treatments of why someone might have a belief I have heard for a while. And your aligning the unacceptability of "just because" between evolution and creation is effective.

At the end of the day, we still disagree on the creation portion, but we disagree because of how we interpret the evidence, not because we hold different philosophies about the importance of evidence in trying to ascertain what is real and what is not.

I'm with you on evolution. I'm not with you on creation. We differ in our beliefs about the concept of "order" and what it is and what it says. We differ in our acceptance of the argument from "design."

But despite that - I enjoyed the post. Nicely done.

Pearls!

Michel

[Zeluvia]

Add DNA and epigenetics to the fossil record, and evolution approaches incontrovertible.

LIfe, consciousness, awareness however are still on the "what, how, when, why, where" table as far as I am concerned.

To me, intelligent design is just another movement of the god of the gaps, and an attempt to say that despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution, god was still involved in creating humans.

I am boggled by the idea that intelligent design in some way supports creationism. As far as I can tell, it doesn't. It accepts most of the precepts of evolution, and old earth, and just postulates that at points in evolution someone interfered to "correct" or "modify" the natural process.

To me this actually creates another whole area of problems for theists. Was god just experiementing with design when we did the dinosaur thing? Did god send the comet to wipe them out because they were a failed experiement after a million years? Did he finally realize of opposable thumbs, constant regulation of body heat, brain size, and bipedalism would be necessary for what he wanted the final outcome to be?

Were all the other mass extinctions we have in the fossil record god cleaning out the lab to start over?

If this is so, how can we be sure that we are the final form? If this is the god idea of ID, how can you relate that to the Christian god?

Oh well, just musing.....

And yeah, I read some ID.

[KingDavid8]

To me, intelligent design is just another movement of the god of the gaps, and an attempt to say that despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution, god was still involved in creating humans.

Personally, I'm not a fan of "god of the gaps" arguments. If someone's faith is built on them, what happens if and when science fills those gaps? I don't see the Bible as encouraging that kind of thinking.

I am boggled by the idea that intelligent design in some way supports creationism. As far as I can tell, it doesn't. It accepts most of the precepts of evolution, and old earth, and just postulates that at points in evolution someone interfered to "correct" or "modify" the natural process.

My main problem with ID theory is that, if it was God who got the ball rolling (as I believe it was), why did He have to step in and correct or modify anything? Was the process He created not capable of working effectively on its own? Some might argue that He purposely made it so that He had to step and fix things, just to show us that He was truly part of the process, but that would only make sense if science was completely perplexed and unable to fill those gaps, and science has done a pretty good job of filling them so far, leaving little doubt that they'll eventually fill whatever ones are left.

To me this actually creates another whole area of problems for theists. Was god just experiementing with design when we did the dinosaur thing? Did god send the comet to wipe them out because they were a failed experiement after a million years? Did he finally realize of opposable thumbs, constant regulation of body heat, brain size, and bipedalism would be necessary for what he wanted the final outcome to be?

Were all the other mass extinctions we have in the fossil record god cleaning out the lab to start over?

The main problem with your thinking here is that the lab wasn't cleaned out. While much didn't survive that era, much did, including our ancestors. IMO, it was all part of the process to bring us here.

If this is so, how can we be sure that we are the final form?

Based on this alone, we can't.

If this is the god idea of ID, how can you relate that to the Christian god?

Personally, I believed in God in general, based on the apparent purposefulness of creation, several years before believing in the Christian God. I believe in the Christian God not based on the apparent purposefulness of creation, but on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, which I find persuasive. If one could persuade me that Jesus wasn't resurrected, I'd still believe in God, just a different one (perhaps the deist version).
[QUOTE]

[Zeluvia]

Still, it was a long and messy process. Unless it was so well planned, that the entire purpose of the plestiocene was to create reserves of crude oil.....

[KingDavid8]

Still, it was a long and messy process. Unless it was so well planned, that the entire purpose of the plestiocene was to create reserves of crude oil.....

That kind of assumes it's all about us. While I suppose I do see homo sapiens as more important than other life forms, I don't assume that the "entire purpose" of the creatures of the plestiocence was about how they affect us in the here and now. Life isn't just about what eventually happens to you, or what you become millions of years after you die, but also about what happens to you while you're around.

David

[Galen]

Very eloquent response KD8. My belief in God, evolution and the resurrection mimics yours for the most part. I guess that I am sometimes guilty of Gould's NOMA concept. I tend to stay away from evolution arguments though, b/c they almost never end in a positive discussion

On the discussion of evolution, I tend to view life being frontloaded and I think the data is in that favor. For example, the phyla body plans appearing all at once (yes a few million years is a short time comparatively), animals having genetic capabilities for body parts millions of years in advance (Hox genes; example shark, the genetic information for fingers/toes), and then ultimately intelligence. To me when Genesis states that God made us in his image, I believe that image is intelligence.

I do however have some hang-ups regarding the Theory of Evolution. I can not wrap my mind (yes I do believe in the mind, no pun intended) around such concepts as whale evolution. Not to get tied up with ID, but IC is a tough challenge to answer from a completely natural concept (please no flaming me over this statement and yes, I have read Ken Miller etc.) One of the many arguments against ID is why does God have to intervene if he laid the process out. My answer is that we totaly expect God to intervene when we pray, so why can God not intervene in life processes as well. But in general, I see ID more as philosophy than science.

I guess I imply NOMA when describing the above deistic view of God with what I believe in regarding the resurrection. To me, in comparison, I believe the resurrection has as much evidence as the Theory of Evolution does. I think the problem becomes having to accept a completely natural answer for something that I believe does not have a natural answer.

So that is where I stand. I tend to think that the Theory of Evolution has the prevailing evidence (from a frontloaded perspective) and I think that there is more evidence for the resurrection than against it.

[Zeluvia]

That kind of assumes it's all about us. While I suppose I do see homo sapiens as more important than other life forms, I don't assume that the "entire purpose" of the creatures of the plestiocence was about how they affect us in the here and now. Life isn't just about what eventually happens to you, or what you become millions of years after you die, but also about what happens to you while you're around.

David

But, isn't that the point of Intelligent Design, and Genesis both? That is IS all about US?

[KingDavid8]

But, isn't that the point of Intelligent Design, and Genesis both? That is IS all about US?

No, I don't see either one that way. IIRC, ID teaches that God filled in the gaps for creatures than our ancestors, so that's clearly not just about us. And while Genesis suggests that we're more important than other creatures, I don't feel it teaches that we're all that matters.

David