NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok. Here’s the thing. I've watched the debate over evolution vs. creation on these threads for almost two years now. While the players have changed, the arguments have remained the same; evolution is true and the unexplained or "missing" bits of evolution (such as the "transitional forms" red herring) are merely issues that are subject to further discovery, but that don't do away with the overall theory, or; evolution is a total fabrication based on a desire to deny the existence of God and/or based in a refusal to acknowledge that evolutionary theory has short comings that cannot be explained absent the existence of a "supreme being." I disagree with both and possit that evolution and creation can co-exist without conflict (I will at this time acknowledge that I have read a few posts that seem to agree with this idea, but they seem to have been few and far between in my existence on NS General). Sadly (IMHO), the positions taken by most seem to dictate that belief in one neccissarily negates belief in the other. I intend, with this post, to explain why I believe they can exist side-by-side.

First, it cannot be proven, via the scientific method, that God does or does not exist. If he does exist, his very nature requires that his existence not be proveable in this fashion (if you have issues with that assertion take it to another thread, accept it as a given for this thread). If he does not exist, then clearly his existence cannot be established. However, by the same token, it cannot be disproven since you cannot prove a negative.

Second, full blown evolutionary theory (that is the idea that people exist due to completely explainable natural circumstances without the intervention of supernatural forces) requires a belief in the idea that human consciousness is the result of random chemical and biological interactions. It is at this point where I part company with the "pure" evolutionists (i.e. let the criticism begin :) ). Here is my idea/theory/belief:

God created a universe (please note that quantum mechanics and temporal theory is not an issue in this thread, I don't want to stir up the debate over where "the universe began" The issue here is whether creation and evolution can coexist - damn, I'm creating a corner, ok, hold on, I'll deal with this). In the universe God created, he put into motion the mechanics of evolution and he did so deliberately. The book of Genesis is merely symbolic in its description of creation. At some point, as the evolutionary process continued, God imparted consciousness to people. To explain this idea by example - I think that that after he created created the universe and evolution began he "noted" the existence of "cavemen" (sorry, but I can't spell Austrio . . . . . Leaky's discovery in Africa). However, these creatures were nothing more than "monkeys" (OK so I used the forbidden term, so sue me :D). It was then that the supernatural stepped in and imparted self-awareness/consciousness to people.

In other words, evolution took us to the point of physical existence, but it was God that created self-awareness and consciousness within our physical beings; Genesis is but a symbolic representation of that fact. Evolution, in the sense of physical progression and the emergence of creatures that are capable of a continued existence due to their physical characteristics is true. However, creation in the sense that the universe was created by a supreme being - God - (I told you I'd get back to this idea) and a creature that evolved in that universe was granted self-awareness and conscious thought via supernatural means, is also true (OK, admittedly, I can't prove the idea is true, but you can't prove it isn't, just like the existence of God). In other words, I think God created a universe and put evolution in motion and that he then instilled self-awareness and consciousness in people. God's creation of man in Genesis is not about how we came to be physically, but rather how we came to be intellectually. Evolution accounts for or physical existence, creation accounts for our self-awareness. It is possible for both to exist side-by-side.

OK, I'm sure the above is replete with logical holes and fallacies, it's late and I don't care about those right now. What I'd like to see discussed is the idea that some sort of creation by (a) God (any God, take your pick) and the idea that evolution is true, can co-exist peacefully. As I've tried to note above, I think they can based on my belief that it is self-awareness/self-consciousness that is the true "creation" of man that the story of Genesis is about. I find it interesting and supportive of my idea that Genesis states that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and after having done so realized they were naked and hid themselves in shame. What a great description of a cro-magnon "waking up" one day with God imparted self-awareness and consciousness and realizing he needed clothes of some sort to protect himself from the elements and the idea that some things members of his tribe did should be discouraged and even punished because they were "wrong."

OK, time to stop and listen to the debate now and learn something. Please, just no claims that "you're an idiot to believe in God and creation" and vice-versa. I want debate on the central idea that it is "self-awareness" that God created in a supernatural fashion, not our physical bodies.

EDIT: As I re-read the above ramblings, I conclude that all I've said can be condensced into the statement that I do not believe evolutionary theory can account for human conscienious and self-awareness, but that it is the intervention of God that caused that to come into being and that therefore evolution and creation can co-exist as one explains our physical existence and one explains our intellectual "being."

I agree that Evolution isn't a direct refutation of the Bible. In fact, I feel the same thing about the Bible and the Big-Bang theory - I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

I think the Big Bang Theory and the first verses of Genesis have some remarkable similarities.

Theory: Before the big Bang, our space and time did not exist. There was a complete lightless Void.

Bible: In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth, the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,


Theory: Then, out of an area smaller than a molecule, an enormous blast of energy erupted, not only creating energy but space and time as well. Scientist speculate on the cause, but no one has any cogent theories. It is very mysterious. But most interesting:

At about .02 seconds into the Big Bang, the Universe is mostly light (photons). It was light that then formed the dominant constituent of the universe, and ordinary matter played only the role of a negligible contaminant.

Bible: and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

It seems to me that the first three verses of Genesis could be a very exact description of the Big Bang.

Ok. Here’s the thing. I've watched the debate over evolution vs. creation on these threads for almost two years now. While the players have changed, the arguments have remained the same; evolution is true and the unexplained or "missing" bits of evolution (such as the "transitional forms" red herring) are merely issues that are subject to further discovery, but that don't do away with the overall theory, or; evolution is a total fabrication based on a desire to deny the existence of God and/or based in a refusal to acknowledge that evolutionary theory has short comings that cannot be explained absent the existence of a "supreme being." I disagree with both and possit that evolution and creation can co-exist without conflict (I will at this time acknowledge that I have read a few posts that seem to agree with this idea, but they seem to have been few and far between in my existence on NS General). Sadly (IMHO), the positions taken by most seem to dictate that belief in one neccissarily negates belief in the other. I intend, with this post, to explain why I believe they can exist side-by-side.

First, it cannot be proven, via the scientific method, that God does or does not exist. If he does exist, his very nature requires that his existence not be proveable in this fashion (if you have issues with that assertion take it to another thread, accept it as a given for this thread). If he does not exist, then clearly his existence cannot be established. However, by the same token, it cannot be disproven since you cannot prove a negative.

Second, full blown evolutionary theory (that is the idea that people exist due to completely explainable natural circumstances without the intervention of supernatural forces) requires a belief in the idea that human consciousness is the result of random chemical and biological interactions. It is at this point where I part company with the "pure" evolutionists (i.e. let the criticism begin :) ). Here is my idea/theory/belief:

God created a universe (please note that quantum mechanics and temporal theory is not an issue in this thread, I don't want to stir up the debate over where "the universe began" The issue here is whether creation and evolution can coexist - damn, I'm creating a corner, ok, hold on, I'll deal with this). In the universe God created, he put into motion the mechanics of evolution and he did so deliberately. The book of Genesis is merely symbolic in its description of creation. At some point, as the evolutionary process continued, God imparted consciousness to people. To explain this idea by example - I think that that after he created created the universe and evolution began he "noted" the existence of "cavemen" (sorry, but I can't spell Austrio . . . . . Leaky's discovery in Africa). However, these creatures were nothing more than "monkeys" (OK so I used the forbidden term, so sue me :D). It was then that the supernatural stepped in and imparted self-awareness/consciousness to people.

In other words, evolution took us to the point of physical existence, but it was God that created self-awareness and consciousness within our physical beings; Genesis is but a symbolic representation of that fact. Evolution, in the sense of physical progression and the emergence of creatures that are capable of a continued existence due to their physical characteristics is true. However, creation in the sense that the universe was created by a supreme being - God - (I told you I'd get back to this idea) and a creature that evolved in that universe was granted self-awareness and conscious thought via supernatural means, is also true (OK, admittedly, I can't prove the idea is true, but you can't prove it isn't, just like the existence of God). In other words, I think God created a universe and put evolution in motion and that he then instilled self-awareness and consciousness in people. God's creation of man in Genesis is not about how we came to be physically, but rather how we came to be intellectually. Evolution accounts for or physical existence, creation accounts for our self-awareness. It is possible for both to exist side-by-side.

OK, I'm sure the above is replete with logical holes and fallacies, it's late and I don't care about those right now. What I'd like to see discussed is the idea that some sort of creation by (a) God (any God, take your pick) and the idea that evolution is true, can co-exist peacefully. As I've tried to note above, I think they can based on my belief that it is self-awareness/self-consciousness that is the true "creation" of man that the story of Genesis is about. I find it interesting and supportive of my idea that Genesis states that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and after having done so realized they were naked and hid themselves in shame. What a great description of a cro-magnon "waking up" one day with God imparted self-awareness and consciousness and realizing he needed clothes of some sort to protect himself from the elements and the idea that some things members of his tribe did should be discouraged and even punished because they were "wrong."

OK, time to stop and listen to the debate now and learn something. Please, just no claims that "you're an idiot to believe in God and creation" and vice-versa. I want debate on the central idea that it is "self-awareness" that God created in a supernatural fashion, not our physical bodies.

EDIT: As I re-read the above ramblings, I conclude that all I've said can be condensced into the statement that I do not believe evolutionary theory can account for human conscienious and self-awareness, but that it is the intervention of God that caused that to come into being and that therefore evolution and creation can co-exist as one explains our physical existence and one explains our intellectual "being."
Well, i'm glad you qualified it as your idea/theory/belief.
Also you're welcome to punch up what's going on with the fossil record, since there's quite a bit going on that many people that argue against it are apparently unaware of, especially the transitional fossils.
But sure, it could all be a big illusion to keep us on our toes, afraid of our world and only hoping for a father figure to rescue us all from it and our emotional/psychological/mental destitution.

Well it looks like you came to the same conclusion as Pope Pius XII did then.

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

First, it cannot be proven, via the scientific method, that God does or does not exist. If he does exist, his very nature requires that his existence not be proveable in this fashion (if you have issues with that assertion take it to another thread, accept it as a given for this thread). If he does not exist, then clearly his existence cannot be established. However, by the same token, it cannot be disproven since you cannot prove a negative.Correct.
God created a universe (please note that quantum mechanics and temporal theory is not an issue in this thread, I don't want to stir up the debate over where "the universe began" The issue here is whether creation and evolution can coexist - damn, I'm creating a corner, ok, hold on, I'll deal with this). In the universe God created, he put into motion the mechanics of evolution and he did so deliberately. The book of Genesis is merely symbolic in its description of creation. At some point, as the evolutionary process continued, God imparted consciousness to people. To explain this idea by example - I think that that after he created created the universe and evolution began he "noted" the existence of "cavemen" (sorry, but I can't spell Austrio . . . . . Leaky's discovery in Africa). However, these creatures were nothing more than "monkeys" (OK so I used the forbidden term, so sue me :D). It was then that the supernatural stepped in and imparted self-awareness/consciousness to people. A simple question. What would be more miraculous than creating a universe in such a way that it would create this planet with these living conditions that allow our species to develop a consciousness? If there was no intervention since the creation of the universe and all these "random" events leading up to the creation of human consciousness were intended from the start, wouldn't that be a miracle?

However, I do think God creating awareness in human beings flys against Genesis. Isn't the eating of the forbidden fruit the point at which humanity became conscious? Wouldn't that mean that we developed consciousness on our own?

I agree that Evolution isn't a direct refutation of the Bible. In fact, I feel the same thing about the Bible and the Big-Bang theory - I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

I think the Big Bang Theory and the first verses of Genesis have some remarkable similarities.

Theory: Before the big Bang, our space and time did not exist. There was a complete lightless Void.

Bible: In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth, the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,


Theory: Then, out of an area smaller than a molecule, an enormous blast of energy erupted, not only creating energy but space and time as well. Scientist speculate on the cause, but no one has any cogent theories. It is very mysterious. But most interesting:

At about .02 seconds into the Big Bang, the Universe is mostly light (photons). It was light that then formed the dominant constituent of the universe, and ordinary matter played only the role of a negligible contaminant.

Bible: and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

It seems to me that the first three verses of Genesis could be a very exact description of the Big Bang.
works for me

Well it looks like you came to the same conclusion as Pope Pius XII did then.

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Are you saying I should be the Pope then? :)

Correct.
A simple question. What would be more miraculous than creating a universe in such a way that it would create this planet with these living conditions that allow our species to develop a consciousness? If there was no intervention since the creation of the universe and all these "random" events leading up to the creation of human consciousness were intended from the start, wouldn't that be a miracle?

However, I do think God creating awareness in human beings flys against Genesis. Isn't the eating of the forbidden fruit the point at which humanity became conscious? Wouldn't that mean that we developed consciousness on our own?

I could also accept the theory that God started with the Big Bang and deliberately set into motion a process that he knew would result in our evolution and the development of conscienceness via a pure evolutionary process. That would be as viable an idea as the one I posit. It's just not the one I have ascribed to since I do believe God has intervened since the "big bang."
As to your second question, I disagree. People were aware from the beginning, Adam and Eve knew they were not to eat the forbidden fruit - they knew from the get go that something was in fact forbidden and would be wrong to do, but they did it and then they felt guilt over having done the wrong. In other words, humanity was conscious before the forbidden fruit was eaten, the Genesis story is merely illustrative of how people first reacted when they did what they knew to be wrong.

Sadly, it tends to be religion that cannot cope with science.

The bible insists that the world is only 6000 years old, and that every specie of animal, was at one time, on a big boat, riding out a 40 day rainstorm.

Now, we all know damn well, thats just silly, but...the bible "says so", so it must be true, right?

Im fairly certain that no scientists get paid to discredit anyones religion, so primraily, the hostility comes from religion, when science pokes holes in its doctrines.

"Since we know that the world is billions of years old, that blows much of Genesis away.
If we cant believe Genesis is accurate, how can we take any of it seriously?

Nobody really thinks that way.

The issue is that science deals in facts, and religion deals in faith.
A fact is something real, and tangible.

Faith, is believing in something that cant possibly exist.

Most of the time, these things cab be fairly polar.

I disagree on the technical details (I think humans evolved to a certain point of conciousness, maybe tool-using before God took any serious notice but then I'm also the one who likened God to a Dictator which kinda surprised the teacher last weekend ;D)

But I believe the basic idea is sound.

Evolution is a theory that works logically and can be supported by available evidence.

Creationism is a doctrine held by the Church which can also be seen in a rational manner (though it lacks for objective evidence, I have plenty of personal evidence).

The two are more than compatible.

The bible insists that the world is only 6000 years old, and that every specie of animal, was at one time, on a big boat, riding out a 40 day rainstorm.

The Bible is also the records and legends of a people who didn't get to writing things down for a good while. Any story changes in it's telling unless it is confined to a written form.

Creationism is a doctrine held by the Church which can also be seen in a rational manner (though it lacks for objective evidence, I have plenty of personal evidence)..

The problem with personal evidence is that it isnt evidence.
You cant prove you have had any contact, or communication with any kind of God, thus, it isnt real evidence.

Again, science deals in facts, and theories based on facts.
Religion, deals solely in faith.

Faith, does not require facts, and in facts, is supported by ignorance (not stupidity, im talking about simply not knowing) of the truth.

The two are eventually incompatible.

The Bible is also the records and legends of a people who didn't get to writing things down for a good while. Any story changes in it's telling unless it is confined to a written form.

The story continues to change even after its written down.
The Hebrews under Moses werent described as mercenaries, but they may in fact, have been.
Wich is why they may have been allowed to simply leave Egypt, and would likely not have been allowed to do so, if they were truly slaves.

The problem with personal evidence is that it isnt evidence.
You cant prove you have had any contact, or communication with any kind of God, thus, it isnt real evidence.

Again, science deals in facts, and theories based on facts.
Religion, deals solely in faith.

Faith, does not require facts, and in facts, is supported by ignorance (not stupidity, im talking about simply not knowing) of the truth.

The two are eventually incompatible.

So all these religious university professors and scientists are in a state of constant internal war?

Faith does not require facts. But faith and fact are coincident on certain matters. It is a fact that God exists (OK, we get trapped in a circle here...).

Faith is easier to sustain through ignorance - a small mind is easily filled with faith - but it is not incompatible with knowledge and understanding.

Also, if my testimony isn't 'real evidence' then why would it suffice for a criminal trial where guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt?

So all these religious university professors and scientists are in a state of constant internal war?

Internal conflict, maybe.
If you were a Kansas professor, required to teach Intelligent Design, yet, were pissed that you must teach such drivel as actual science, I would certainly say so.

Also, if my testimony isn't 'real evidence' then why would it suffice for a criminal trial where guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt?

Becuase God's existance wasnt on trial, with you a witness.

If it were, and you were to say that you personally felt god's influence, and know for certain that he existed, nothing you could say, would be actually entered as evidence, becuase you wouldnt be able to back up your story with any eye witnesses, or any physical evidence.

Faith is the belief in things unseen. Belief in God requires faith since he cannot be proven.

Faith is the belief in things unseen. Belief in God requires faith since he cannot be proven.


X-rays are unseen.
Radon is unseen.
Gamma radiation is unseen.
As is anything sub-atomic.

Yet, we know they exist.
Science can prove it.

Faith is believing that wich cannot exist.

'snip' (introduction about evolution and religion being compatible)

My first reaction is to look at this from a religious point of view. If the Bible was given to us from God, then we ought to be careful with regard to making changes in the message. The Bible clearly says that when God created the world, He made it in such a way that He was pleased with it. I don't know what you think God is like, but a God of love is not so compatible with nature that is 'red in tooth and claw' in my view. The whole point of Genesis is to tell us that not only was God responsible for creating the world as a paradise, but how the world came to be less than a paradise (the point where evil enters creation). Your scenario of evolution forming humans (albeit without a consciousness) means that the world was not such a paradise (natural selection requires death and struggle and pain).

My second point is that we need to look at your idea from a scientific point of view. In that case, it certainly is possible that God spoke to evolutionary developed human-like creatures and gave them a consciousness. Science is not yet in a postion to be able to determine exactly where humans came from, and may never be, we can't say. So I would have to say that it seems a possibility from that point of view.

However, a closer look at evolutionary theory has left me with the general feeling that it is unlikely to 'work', although if it is possible, than I suppose anything really is possible. The theory itself is rather problematic and tends to rely more on speculations than on real evidence, although there is certainly some situations in the natural world that do seem to fit in with evolution. A closer look at the details of the two big causes in evolutionary theory (mutation and natural selection) leaves me wondering how anyone could have very much confidence in the theory.

In conclusion, we cannot use science to investigate the possibility of God's involvement, so we cannot say whether God was involved (from the scientific point of view). We cannot use science to prove that evolution is true. The more we try, the more holes and gaps we uncover. Some people are convinced that the holes will be filled in given time. But I suspect (and it has been true in my own investigations) that a closer look at the details makes the holes bigger, not smaller. The conclusion is that we just can't say.

We cannot use the Bible to prove that evolution did not exist, although it does appear to be an unlikely way to form pre-humans from a common ancestor, e.g. because that requires natural selection and mutation, processes that the God of the Bible could hardly describe as 'good'.

Thus, religion and evolution are not incompatible from a scientific viewpoint, or from a religious view point. But it does appear to be unlikely.

X-rays are unseen.
Radon is unseen.
Gamma radiation is unseen.
As is anything sub-atomic.

Yet, we know they exist.
Science can prove it.

Faith is believing that wich cannot exist.

My guess is that you have never seen the evidence for gamma radiation for yourself, but have taken someone else's word for it. Not just anyone's word, but a reliable expert who knows what he or she is talking about. You believed their conclusions, rather than proving it for yourself. Therefore, you have the capacity for faith. In fact, your acceptance of the word of an expert is not unlike faith itself.

And you are trying to say that faith is believing in that which cannot exist? You have got it the wrong way around. Faith is believing in something that you know to be true, but are unable to prove it. It is not altogether unlike knowing that gamma radiation exists, but being unable to prove it right here and now.

My guess is that you have never seen the evidence for gamma radiation for yourself, but have taken someone else's word for it. Not just anyone's word, but a reliable expert who knows what he or she is talking about. You believed their conclusions, rather than proving it for yourself. Therefore, you have the capacity for faith. In fact, your acceptance of the word of an expert is not unlike faith itself.

And you are trying to say that faith is believing in that which cannot exist? You have got it the wrong way around. Faith is believing in something that you know to be true, but are unable to prove it. It is not altogether unlike knowing that gamma radiation exists, but being unable to prove it right here and now.

I can provide some evidence of Gamma radiation that any christian would have to agree is real, by doing a simple Google search.
This is becuase it is very real.

Googling some irrefutable proof of God is impossible.

If you believe something you know to be true, but cannot prove it, how can you know it truly exists?

I can provide some evidence of Gamma radiation that any christian would have to agree is real, by doing a simple Google search.
This is becuase it is very real.

Googling some irrefutable proof of God is impossible.

If you believe something you know to be true, but cannot prove it, how can you know it truly exists?

No, you can provide links to locations and sites which you believe to be credible, which provide information persuant to gamma radiation.

Faith == Belief, both are coexistive, and is nothing else but simple trust in the truth of something, in the case of biblical faith trust in God and His operations. And faith can be exercized in many different things; law, government, medicine, religion, etc.

Not only are you a horrible theologian, you're a terrible scientist too.

My problem, in a nutshell, is that most discussions of subjects like evolution make unjustified leaps between the realms of science and philosophy. To make matters worse people who often point out such illogical leaps are often seen as being "against" science.

Evolution (science) can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God (philosophy) and people who assume this is true or implied are making the illogical leap across disciplines.

It is the same mistake that Gallelio made when he went from the argument that since the sun is in the center of the universe the Bible, which says at one point the sun stood still, is clearly in error and is false. (Ignoring for a moment that his science was still imperfect as there is no center of the universe his leap between science and philosophy was clearly unwarrented.) Evolution does not in any way shape or form prove the absence of God. Anyone who insists otherwise is mixing the apples of science and the oranges of philosophy.

Evolution also has another problem. It is somewhat based on statistics. But there is a problem here. There is, last time I checked, only one obserable universe. There is only one habitble planet. There is only one human race. Statistics require multiple events in order to have meaning. They become meaningless in the case of the single event. While we might look at the DNA evidence between one species and another and we might see and speculate how natural selection might work over time, we cannot prove, beyond a resonable doubt as to which method was employed in any specific case.

Fortunately the question of whether or not a specific species was created from natural selection, selective breeding encouraged by a second species or by direct DNA manipulation is a scientific moot point. Unfortunately people who love to make the leaps between science and philosophy cling to them like sacred writings carved in some unchangeable medium forever more.

I will end with one famous leap of science / philosophy made by a very brilliant man. The great Hawkings once suggested because the universe was closed in space and time that the universe simply "is" and thus since it had no need of being created (that's the first leap because once you create a static universe you have to think outside space time dimensions and verbs like "create" suddenly become exceptionally weird) that God didn't exist.

Assuming that the science is correct (because open ended universe models are still on occasion winning out over closed ones) one can argue from a philosophical perspective that a non temproal creator can make a non temporal object. Or in other words only an "I AM" can make an "IT IS."

That of course "proves" nothing because you don't prove things in philosophy.

X-rays are unseen.
Radon is unseen.
Gamma radiation is unseen.
As is anything sub-atomic.

Yet, we know they exist.
Science can prove it.

Faith is believing that wich cannot exist.
No, faith is believing in things which cannot be proven to exist by the scientific method. An inability to prove the existence of God is not proof that he cannot exist.

If you believe something you know to be true, but cannot prove it, how can you know it truly exists?

It's that kind of knowing, when you know your mother loves you but you cannot ever prove it, and neither would you want to prove it (i.e. test it).

That example wouldn't work for you if you never had a mother that loved you, but perhaps, in that case, you could use your imagination.

I think the whole debate boils down to if you're going to trust a book written by numerous crazy isrealites many thousands of years ago and edited by many crazy italians to suit their personal agenda since then over scientific discovery.

I think most people would choose the latter, if you prefer the former: thats nice *pat* run along

I think the whole debate boils down to if you're going to trust a book written by numerous crazy isrealites many thousands of years ago and edited by many crazy italians to suit their personal agenda since then over scientific discovery.

I think most people would choose the latter, if you prefer the former: thats nice *pat* run along
leaving aside your Ad Hominen, strawman attacks on how the bible came into being, you've missed the entire point here. I am saying that "scientific discovery" (as you phrase it) does not negate the existence of God. Nor does the existence of God negate "scientific discovery." If you understood what you read in my first post (you did read it didn't you?) then you understand that I am taking the position that both can (and IMHO, do) exist side-by-side with no problem.

Second, full blown evolutionary theory (that is the idea that people exist due to completely explainable natural circumstances without the intervention of supernatural forces) requires a belief in the idea that human consciousness is the result of random chemical and biological interactions.

Just to be pedantic, the theory itself does not require this. Only the additional interpretations added to it by those who would make it the basis of a belief have to cut God out of the equation.

As for your description of the creation story, I see things in a similar light, although I do not necessarily think that God had to actively impart the traits of humanity if the mechanisms were set in motion earlier on. I do, however, think that the story of Adam and Eve and the tree is one of humanity realizing the implications of their knowledge - that with knowledge comes responsibility - that they could no longer be content in the innocence of lower order animals, which do not understand the consequences of their actions.

The only problem I see with your idea is that there isn't an entire planet full of animals with no self-awareness or consciousness and then, boom!, human beings with full-fledged awareness and consciousness. Human beings are far from being the only creatures with these traits. We simply seem to have them developed to a more advanced degree.


The problem with personal evidence is that it isnt evidence.

It is to the person in question.

Faith, does not require facts, and in facts, is supported by ignorance (not stupidity, im talking about simply not knowing) of the truth.

My faith is not in any way supported by ignorance. In fact, a great deal of my beliefs are based around attaining as much knowledge as possible.

The two are eventually incompatible.

Only if one attempts to use one or the other in a realm where it does not belong.

X-rays are unseen.
Radon is unseen.
Gamma radiation is unseen.
As is anything sub-atomic.

These things can all be "seen", ie. observed.


My first reaction is to look at this from a religious point of view. If the Bible was given to us from God, then we ought to be careful with regard to making changes in the message. The Bible clearly says that when God created the world, He made it in such a way that He was pleased with it. I don't know what you think God is like, but a God of love is not so compatible with nature that is 'red in tooth and claw' in my view. The whole point of Genesis is to tell us that not only was God responsible for creating the world as a paradise, but how the world came to be less than a paradise (the point where evil enters creation). Your scenario of evolution forming humans (albeit without a consciousness) means that the world was not such a paradise (natural selection requires death and struggle and pain).

You do realize that this entire paragraph basically says, "God is exactly as I say God is, therefore your interpretation doesn't work." Who are you to suggest that you understand God?

I see nothing wrong with nature. In fact, I find it quite beautiful, "evil" natural selection and all.

We cannot use science to prove that evolution is true.

We cannot use science to prove anything true. That isn't how it works.

The more we try, the more holes and gaps we uncover.

You've been trying to prove something using science? No wonder you don't understand it.

Some people are convinced that the holes will be filled in given time. But I suspect (and it has been true in my own investigations) that a closer look at the details makes the holes bigger, not smaller. The conclusion is that we just can't say.

That is how *all* science works. Every investigation answers some questions but opens up still more. If that weren't the case, we would have ground to a complete halt in science years ago.

Sadly, it tends to be religion that cannot cope with science.

The bible insists that the world is only 6000 years old, and that every specie of animal, was at one time, on a big boat, riding out a 40 day rainstorm.

Now, we all know damn well, thats just silly, but...the bible "says so", so it must be true, right?

Im fairly certain that no scientists get paid to discredit anyones religion, so primraily, the hostility comes from religion, when science pokes holes in its doctrines.

"Since we know that the world is billions of years old, that blows much of Genesis away.
If we cant believe Genesis is accurate, how can we take any of it seriously?

Nobody really thinks that way.

The issue is that science deals in facts, and religion deals in faith.
A fact is something real, and tangible.

Faith, is believing in something that cant possibly exist.

Most of the time, these things cab be fairly polar.

Faith is believing in something that can't possibly exist? Pardon? And here all along I thought faith was believing in something that can't be or hasn't been 'proven' (proven here referring to being supported objectively). Now, that I understand that it's only believing in something impossible, I realize that almost no one operates on faith. Thanks for clearing that up.

X-rays are unseen.
Radon is unseen.
Gamma radiation is unseen.
As is anything sub-atomic.

Yet, we know they exist.
Science can prove it.

Faith is believing that wich cannot exist.

Haha. I remember a time when the things you said weren't laughable and ridiculously false. Oh, how I miss those times.

To the OP, I think to suggest that God couldn't have done exactly what you said, put the world in motion with all of its laws and such, and also created in such a manner as to create a consciousness when it was appropriate is to limit God in a way, I'm not willing to do.

Also, it should be noted that some of the more prolific posters in those threads, like myself and Dem, believe in God and evolution. The problem is our view of 'creation' has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is scientific which is why our posts don't concentrate on such things.

To the OP, I think to suggest that God couldn't have done exactly what you said, put the world in motion with all of its laws and such, and also created in such a manner as to create a consciousness when it was appropriate is to limit God in a way, I'm not willing to do.

Also, it should be noted that some of the more prolific posters in those threads, like myself and Dem, believe in God and evolution. The problem is our view of 'creation' has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is scientific which is why our posts don't concentrate on such things.

Sorry, maybe I'm having a brain fart, but I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying here. Are you saying that anyone who claims it couldn't have happened the way I posit limits God in a way you disagree with or are you saying that if it happened the way I posit it is limiting God in a way you don't agree with?

As to your second point, I knew I had seen some posts from people who believed in both as I do. Could you explain your view a bit though, I'm not sure I understand it (sorry, again, must be a brain fart).

Sorry, maybe I'm having a brain fart, but I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying here. Are you saying that anyone who claims it couldn't have happened the way I posit limits God in a way you disagree with or are you saying that if it happened the way I posit it is limiting God in a way you don't agree with?

As to your second point, I knew I had seen some posts from people who believed in both as I do. Could you explain your view a bit though, I'm not sure I understand it (sorry, again, must be a brain fart).

I think you are limiting God in a way I don't agree with. You make it sound as if God looked down one day and said, hey, why don't I impart them with consciousness, knowledge of good and evil, etc. It makes it seem like either He failed to plan (which is silly when you are considering a being that exists outside time) or that he couldn't simply make it a result of natural law. I think it was planned for and the laws of the universe were created in such a way that we would come about. Was it the only possible outcome? No. But it was the oucome that God knew was coming.

Essentially I hold that the scientific evidence we find and analyze in this world was meant to give us a particular insight about the world around us. This was an intent of God. Through science we get the answers we need to advance as a species.

Religion is how we get the answers we need to advance as an individual provided we're actually listening. The amazing part to me is not that some Atheists don't believe in God, it's that so many people believe in God and Christ and go completely against what he said and do so, in the name of God. Jesus summarized the Law and the Prophets for us in such a way that it seems nearly impossible to misunderstand, but people bend that statement to the point of breaking simply because if they follow that command, they have to stop forcing their beliefs on others, judging others, persecuting others, mistreating others and they have to look inside to what they really are. Many religions, right or wrong, are ways that people find to drive themselves to be better people, more than they are. The disappointing thing about Christianity is that there are so many Christians that use my faith as a blunt weapon to beat people about the head with, rather than as a precise tool to make us each better people by changing from within.

We cannot use the Bible to prove that evolution did not exist,


Of course we can't.

It'd be like trying to use Harry Potter to disprove the Salem Witch Trials...


although it does appear to be an unlikely way to form pre-humans from a common ancestor, e.g. because that requires natural selection and mutation, processes that the God of the Bible could hardly describe as 'good'.


You might want to re-read your scripture... not everything that follows the 'ordained plan' would necessarily fit the profile of what "the God of the Bible could hardly describe as 'good'..."

Look at the 'hardened heart' of Pharaoh, for a start.

My guess is that you have never seen the evidence for gamma radiation for yourself...

I have.

Of course we can't.

It'd be like trying to use Harry Potter to disprove the Salem Witch Trials...



You might want to re-read your scripture... not everything that follows the 'ordained plan' would necessarily fit the profile of what "the God of the Bible could hardly describe as 'good'..."

Look at the 'hardened heart' of Pharaoh, for a start.

Sometimes, you have so much more patience than I. I look at posts like that and think, "How can your read the Bible you're holding up and not have learned the folly of pride?" I simply don't have the energy to bother trying to correct someone so clearly unwilling to see. What could possibly be more prideful than claiming that the God of the Bible can and cannot do?

Sometimes, you have so much more patience than I. I look at posts like that and think, "How can your read the Bible you're holding up and not have learned the folly of pride?" I simply don't have the energy to bother trying to correct someone so clearly unwilling to see. What could possibly be more prideful than claiming that the God of the Bible can and cannot do?

Absolutely! It always knocks me out when people seem to think they know the will of God better than God himself... brings to mind one of those conversations where someone told me that an 'unsaved' soul could never get into heaven.... oh, there are scriptural justifications, to be sure... but how hard is it to remember "with God, ALL things are possible'?

That is how *all* science works. Every investigation answers some questions but opens up still more. If that weren't the case, we would have ground to a complete halt in science years ago.
...millennia ago.

I think you are limiting God in a way I don't agree with. You make it sound as if God looked down one day and said, hey, why don't I impart them with consciousness, knowledge of good and evil, etc. It makes it seem like either He failed to plan (which is silly when you are considering a being that exists outside time) or that he couldn't simply make it a result of natural law.

I think this is a bit harsh and very colored by your own view. Nothing in the OP suggested that God *couldn't* have had it all happen through evolution or that God didn't plan (the plan could very well have been there and included intervention).

When it comes right down to it, the OP doesn't seem to be limiting God any more than you or I do when we say, "Well, this is what I think happened...." We both disagree with the OP, and probably for similar reasons - the fact that such a description seems to invoke an unplanning God. But we must realize that a plan need not lack direct intervention, as none of us fully understand God.

I think it was planned for and the laws of the universe were created in such a way that we would come about. Was it the only possible outcome? No. But it was the oucome that God knew was coming.

How does saying this limit God any less than someone saying, "I think God created the universe 5 minutes ago with all our memories and everything intact?" or "I think God created the universe, with the mechanisms for evolution, but intervened directly to add self-awareness and consciousness to humanity."? Perhaps the OP sees these things as such gifts tha they must have been specially imparted.

Faith is believing that wich cannot exist.

There are plenty of things that we cannot scientificly prove exist but we know for a certianty they do. For example, logical absolutes. As follows

- An object cannot exist and not exist simultaniously
- Something cannot bring itself into existance

We know these to exist, but science does not prove their existance

I think this is a bit harsh and very colored by your own view. Nothing in the OP suggested that God *couldn't* have had it all happen through evolution or that God didn't plan (the plan could very well have been there and included intervention).

I didn't say he said that. I said it makes it sound that way.

When it comes right down to it, the OP doesn't seem to be limiting God any more than you or I do when we say, "Well, this is what I think happened...." We both disagree with the OP, and probably for similar reasons - the fact that such a description seems to invoke an unplanning God. But we must realize that a plan need not lack direct intervention, as none of us fully understand God.

No, it needn't, but if we rely on such intervention as explanation then our ability to explore these things scientific shrinks to nothing, at least at the point of the intervention. As I see it, since it appears God intended for us to explore the universe throught reason and intellect, why leave such a gigantic hole as to be unable to scientifically explain consciousness? If we believe that interference can occur in such large areas as that, then the entire reason for believing science has any validity in exploring our creation begins to diminish.

How does saying this limit God any less than someone saying, "I think God created the universe 5 minutes ago with all our memories and everything intact?" or "I think God created the universe, with the mechanisms for evolution, but intervened directly to add self-awareness and consciousness to humanity."? Perhaps the OP sees these things as such gifts tha they must have been specially imparted.

I think he's capable of having done that. But it makes God a bit of a trickster and this is where I part ways with the theory.

His reasoning for adopting the theory IS similar to ours, and I was merely pointing out that the point in the theory where he injects intervention begins to unravel the reasoning for the theory in the first place. It makes it no more relevant than a six-day creation or the theory that the world popped into existence yesterday with all of our memories intact. I find it to be logically inconsistent and the only reason for such inconsistency is to limit God to having to create intelligence in an immediate way rather than simply be indirectly creating it through the laws of the universe.

There are plenty of things that we cannot scientificly prove exist but we know for a certianty they do. For example, logical absolutes. As follows

- An object cannot exist and not exist simultaniously
- Something cannot bring itself into existance

We know these to exist, but science does not prove their existance

Pardon? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Science does address things that are logically inconsistent as in what you just suggested. The more you talk about science the more I have to giggle.

I think you are limiting God in a way I don't agree with. You make it sound as if God looked down one day and said, hey, why don't I impart them with consciousness, knowledge of good and evil, etc. It makes it seem like either He failed to plan (which is silly when you are considering a being that exists outside time) or that he couldn't simply make it a result of natural law. I think it was planned for and the laws of the universe were created in such a way that we would come about. Was it the only possible outcome? No. But it was the oucome that God knew was coming.
Ah, got it. Well I wasn't intending to limit God in this fashion, I agree it was part of his plan. I was just trying to explain how I square creation with evolution and don't find them to be mutually exclusive as many on these forums seem to argue (present company excluded :) ). I do believe it was part of his plan that man, as a coscious being, would come about though. I was just offering up my idea of how it came about.

Essentially I hold that the scientific evidence we find and analyze in this world was meant to give us a particular insight about the world around us. This was an intent of God. Through science we get the answers we need to advance as a species.
you'll get no argument from me on this.

Religion is how we get the answers we need to advance as an individual provided we're actually listening. The amazing part to me is not that some Atheists don't believe in God, it's that so many people believe in God and Christ and go completely against what he said and do so, in the name of God. Jesus summarized the Law and the Prophets for us in such a way that it seems nearly impossible to misunderstand, but people bend that statement to the point of breaking simply because if they follow that command, they have to stop forcing their beliefs on others, judging others, persecuting others, mistreating others and they have to look inside to what they really are. Many religions, right or wrong, are ways that people find to drive themselves to be better people, more than they are. The disappointing thing about Christianity is that there are so many Christians that use my faith as a blunt weapon to beat people about the head with, rather than as a precise tool to make us each better people by changing from within.
Yep, also agreed.

There are plenty of things that we cannot scientificly prove exist but we know for a certianty they do. For example, logical absolutes. As follows

- An object cannot exist and not exist simultaniously
- Something cannot bring itself into existance

We know these to exist, but science does not prove their existance

How do we know these things? How do we know that logic actually applies to reality?

We don't. We simply assume that it does.


I didn't say he said that. I said it makes it sound that way.

But it only makes it sound that way to you because you have come to a different conclusion, not because it is a logical outcome of the idea.

No, it needn't, but if we rely on such intervention as explanation then our ability to explore these things scientific shrinks to nothing, at least at the point of the intervention. As I see it, since it appears God intended for us to explore the universe throught reason and intellect, why leave such a gigantic hole as to be unable to scientifically explain consciousness? If we believe that interference can occur in such large areas as that, then the entire reason for believing science has any validity in exploring our creation begins to diminish.

Why indeed? And that is why you have come to the conclusion you have - because you started with the idea that God intends for us to explore the universe and its history through scientific means and learn as much about it as we can.

If you started from the idea that self-awareness, consciousness, knowledge of good and evil, etc. were an incredible gift, you might come to the conclusion that they must be imparted directly. (You might not).

The point is that either POV limits God, to a point. Your limits to a God that has certain wishes for humanity. The Young-Earth Creationist viewpoint limits it to a God who did things exactly as described in parts of Genesis. The OP limits God as a God who would view certain traits as so wonderful that they must be imparted directly. *shrug* We all limit God in some way, as we have to in order to try and wrap our understanding around the whole concept.

I think he's capable of having done that. But it makes God a bit of a trickster and this is where I part ways with the theory.

How does it make God a trickster? Would any intervention make God a trickster? Would a virgin birth or resurrection that could not be described by natural means make God a tricktser?

You think this only because you have already decided that God wants us to figure these things out through science.

How do we know these things? How do we know that logic actually applies to reality?

We don't. We simply assume that it does.



But it only makes it sound that way to you because you have come to a different conclusion, not because it is a logical outcome of the idea.



Why indeed? And that is why you have come to the conclusion you have - because you started with the idea that God intends for us to explore the universe and its history through scientific means and learn as much about it as we can.

If you started from the idea that self-awareness, consciousness, knowledge of good and evil, etc. were an incredible gift, you might come to the conclusion that they must be imparted directly. (You might not).

The point is that either POV limits God, to a point. Your limits to a God that has certain wishes for humanity. The Young-Earth Creationist viewpoint limits it to a God who did things exactly as described in parts of Genesis. The OP limits God as a God who would view certain traits as so wonderful that they must be imparted directly. *shrug* We all limit God in some way, as we have to in order to try and wrap our understanding around the whole concept.



How does it make God a trickster? Would any intervention make God a trickster? Would a virgin birth or resurrection that could not be described by natural means make God a tricktser?

You think this only because you have already decided that God wants us to figure these things out through science.

No, because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise, actually, other than are possibly spurious belief that intervention can't happen. But for the things that appear to happen to us, like memories, to be false, then we are being tricked. We are led to believe something that we couldn't possibly recognize not to be true given the fact that our method of observation and analysis is so effective everywhere else. That's the point.

Meanwhile, He agreed with me, so he admits his assumptions were the same as I guessed. His reasoning for making that claim was for the purposes of the argument not because it believed it to be the most likely scenario. I didn't realize he was just trying to parallel creation or I would have never questioned him. (or her)

<snip>

EDIT: As I re-read the above ramblings, I conclude that all I've said can be condensced into the statement that I do not believe evolutionary theory can account for human conscienious and self-awareness, but that it is the intervention of God that caused that to come into being and that therefore evolution and creation can co-exist as one explains our physical existence and one explains our intellectual "being."Interestingly, i had this very discussion the other day in my invertebrate biology lab with a muslim classmate.

Here is how i think about it:

think of conciousness, and inteligence, that we posses in a greater degree than any other creature on earth, to be a highly derivred trait that contributes to our succes as a species. Much like every other animal has a suite of traits that are a combination of ancestral and derived charachters, we do too. A certain type of worm, for instance, (actually not a worm, but we won't get into details) has a unique slime gland that coats and immobilizes prey when it hardens. No other animal has this trait - it is said to be a "synapamorphy" for the species.

If you have no trouble believing that such a charachter could be arrived at via an algorithmic, blind process like natural selection, which i assume you don't given your statements, I see no reason tto disbelieve the possibility of conciousness andd intelligence (charachters arguably even more advantageous that slime glands) in a similar manner.

Just because we are self-aware, and therefore able to ponder these questions, does not make us any more "special" or "unique" than other creatures. After all, every organism on earth has had an equal amount of time to evolve, and all have derived charachters that work, whether they are derived in the streamlined and minimal direction of bacteria, or in the complex and expensive direction of humanity.

Ah, got it. Well I wasn't intending to limit God in this fashion, I agree it was part of his plan. I was just trying to explain how I square creation with evolution and don't find them to be mutually exclusive as many on these forums seem to argue (present company excluded :) ). I do believe it was part of his plan that man, as a coscious being, would come about though. I was just offering up my idea of how it came about.


you'll get no argument from me on this.


Yep, also agreed.

I see. You were simply trying to make it make sense to Creationists without discarding evolution. That's fair enough, but I'm led to reach another conclusion that doesn't undermine creation of the Bible at all (nor does yours), but also doesn't REQUIRE intervention.

By that, I mean that intervention is possible, I just don't require it in my view.

I see. You were simply trying to make it make sense to Creationists without discarding evolution.
Yes and also explain to evolutionists a point of view that allowed for God and evolution to co-exist as well.
That's fair enough, but I'm led to reach another conclusion that doesn't undermine creation of the Bible at all (nor does yours), but also doesn't REQUIRE intervention.
And your view is ok with me as well. It is also a valid method of explaining how creation and evolution can co-exist. I just take my view because as I read the bible, and some books that didn't make it into the bible like the book of Enoch, Jubilees, etc., God did/does engage in direct intervention sometimes and our "existence" so to speak is so remarkable that in my view it is the result of such an intervention. However, I can't say that your view is any less valid as "planned evolution" since both views take the position that our existence was the result of a plan of some sort.

By that, I mean that intervention is possible, I just don't require it in my view.
As noted, I have no problem with that. We're reaching the same conclusion, just using a different proof to get there.

No, because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise, actually, other than are possibly spurious belief that intervention can't happen. But for the things that appear to happen to us, like memories, to be false, then we are being tricked. We are led to believe something that we couldn't possibly recognize not to be true given the fact that our method of observation and analysis is so effective everywhere else. That's the point.

Oh, I didn't know you were talking about the "five minutes ago scenario." I thought you were referring to the "special Creation of consciousness" idea. Makes much more sense now.

Yes and also explain to evolutionists a point of view that allowed for God and evolution to co-exist as well.

And your view is ok with me as well. It is also a valid method of explaining how creation and evolution can co-exist. I just take my view because as I read the bible, and some books that didn't make it into the bible like the book of Enoch, Jubilees, etc., God did/does engage in direct intervention sometimes and our "existence" so to speak is so remarkable that in my view it is the result of such an intervention. However, I can't say that your view is any less valid as "planned evolution" since both views take the position that our existence was the result of a plan of some sort.


As noted, I have no problem with that. We're reaching the same conclusion, just using a different proof to get there.

Here's the thing between unique intervention and general intervention. God inspires me to do a cartwheel or saves me from a burning building or wakes me up to prevent my child from catching the house on fire or whatever, and those things aren't researched by science, so who cares. God intervenes in the general course of evolution and now you have an area that necessarily will be explored by science and either the evidence is going to mislead science, a trick, or it's going to prove God, a violation of the requirement for faith. Both seem to me to go against the Biblical idea of God, but I suppose I could be wrong. Won't be the first time.