Evolution: The Grand Experiment

[racrguy]

God does indeed fill that void. Humankind also tries to fill that void, but fails, through vain attempts at pigeonholing and theorizing creation into terms that will neatly fit within the limits of human understanding. Mankind has been trying to write his own rules since Adam and Eve, and nothing's changed yet.

He does fill the void... with lies and deceit.

[The King]

Agreed, mankind often does that very thing.

[racrguy]

Agreed, mankind often does that very thing.

I was referring to god filling the void, not mankind.

[The King]

I know, and I was referring to mankind.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

God does indeed fill that void. Humankind also tries to fill that void, but fails, through vain attempts at pigeonholing and theorizing creation into terms that will neatly fit within the limits of human understanding. Mankind has been trying to write his own rules since Adam and Eve, and nothing's changed yet.

I'm not talking about how things came into existence, but why. There's a huge distinction there. Many Atheists that I know will at least cave on this one point and admit that they could be wrong but I'm not aware of anyone filling the 'why' void with anything but some God.

I absolutely agree that we are far from understanding what we live in, but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from trying. Christians held for centuries a belief in geocentricism, which we now know, through science, isn't the case. And many are now accepting that perhaps Genesis wasn't so literal. That doesn't refute the existence of God, just redefines what we know about the world we live in and how it came to be.

To me, Genesis 1:3 might as well say this:



That's not pidgeon holing, that's putting what we live in into terms that we can understand. How absurd was it that the sun should not revolve around the earth? How absurd is it that the earth might be older than what some medieval monk calculated it to be using biblical texts? How absurd is it that the mechanics behind your God's creation should be questioned because some people take it as evidence that God doesn't exist at all?

People refuse Christ on the merits of Christianity itself, not because evolution gives them something else to believe in. Sure, evolution is a point of contention that juxtaposes religious dogma with scientific knowledge. Christians push back against it because they perceive it as a threat to the authority of the Bible. But non-believers don't need evolution to try and undermine what the bible says. Like the King says, we've been doing that just fine since Adam and Eve - without evolution.

[The King]

I'm not talking about how things came into existence, but why. There's a huge distinction there. Many Atheists that I know will at least cave on this one point and admit that they could be wrong but I'm not aware of anyone filling the 'why' void with anything but some God.

I absolutely agree that we are far from understanding what we live in, but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from trying. Christians held for centuries a belief in geocentricism, which we now know, through science, isn't the case. And many are now accepting that perhaps Genesis wasn't so literal. That doesn't refute the existence of God, just redefines what we know about the world we live in and how it came to be.

To me, Genesis 1:3 might as well say this:



That's not pidgeon holing, that's putting what we live in into terms that we can understand. How absurd was it that the sun should not revolve around the earth? How absurd is it that the earth might be older than what some medieval monk calculated it to be using biblical texts? How absurd is it that the mechanics behind your God's creation should be questioned because some people take it as evidence that God doesn't exist at all?

People refuse Christ on the merits of Christianity itself, not because evolution gives them something else to believe in. Sure, evolution is a point of contention that juxtaposes religious dogma with scientific knowledge. Christians push back against it because they perceive it as a threat to the authority of the Bible. But non-believers don't need evolution to try and undermine what the bible says. Like the King says, we've been doing that just fine since Adam and Eve - without evolution.

How absurd is it, in terms of human science, that there is order in the universe when its' natural state, again according to human science, is disorder, i.e. chaos. How absurd is it to attribute the beginning, or shall we genesis, of this "magical" deviation from the natural state of the universe to something affectionately termed "The Big Bang" (LOL) by human science. How absurd is it that there is a life form that somehow accidentally managed to evolve among all of this order/disorder that can contemplate that same order/disorder, mathematically quantify same, and come up with notion that it all began with a Big Bang.

I don't see science as a threat to the Bible at all, rather it can complement it except when scientific theory gets trumpeted as fact, or shall we say gospel. I don't know personally of any Chrustians that do, so from where you derived that assumption only you can answer.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

How absurd is it, in terms of human science, that there is order in the universe when its' natural state, again according to human science, is disorder, i.e. chaos. How absurd is it to attribute the beginning, or shall we genesis, of this "magical" deviation from the natural state of the universe to something affectionately termed "The Big Bang" (LOL) by human science. How absurd is it that there is a life form that somehow accidentally managed to evolve among all of this order/disorder that can contemplate that same order/disorder, mathematically quantify same, and come up with notion that it all began with a Big Bang.

I don't see science as a threat to the Bible at all, rather it can complement it except when scientific theory gets trumpeted as fact, or shall we say gospel. I don't know personally of any Chrustians that do, so from where you derived that assumption only you can answer.

In describing the natural state of things, no scientist would describe it as chaotic. Clearly there is order to the universe. Do you know what those equations were that I posted? They aren't trivial. What scientists say is that the interaction of matter in the universe is chaotic, haphazard, and unordered - for lack of any obvious governing source, but the laws governing how matter interacts is not unordered.

Because God is not observable, God must, through accepted scientific methodology, be discluded from any scientific endeavors. Not through any non-believer's preclusions, but because science doesn't attempt to explain anything beyond what is observable. As you have pointed out, it is mankind that has drawn conclusions about where we come from - and given the conflict between literal interpretations of the Bible and what good science shows, can you be surprised that people point to science as evidence against Christianity?

Sure, it seems implausible that we evolved by chance; anyone with enough probability theory would likely deem it providence, or a great statistical unlikelihood that we even started up, let alone got to where we are. But how can some Christians be so sure we were just winked into existence with the same arrogance that was held when geocentricism was being questioned?

I should have said 'Some Christians' but didn't meant to overly generalized that all Christians see science as a threat to the bible. When Christians push against evolution being taught in school, that shows they think it is a threat insomuch as it could be used to argue against the Bible. I've never taken a class or a course that even implied Evolution as the cure to God. Science classes teach science - even at the private christian high school that I attended. They leave God to churches.

Look I agree that it is a stretch that one should patently write off God on the basis of science and evolutionary theory because it doesn't necessarily disprove a hidden, supernatural influence. There's more to it than that, but what is observable sure does suggest the random, chance-based nature of our origin.

Evolution gives a great foundation for people who would reject Christianity to cast stones on their way out - particularly against those that would argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Christians that do buy into at least some of evolutionary theory have a real problem with the chaos aspect. That's the crux of the argument, is it random or by design?


And I know chrustians was a typo, but it really made me laugh.

[The King]

^^^^^
Good post

The key word there for me was "observable". As long as theorists qualify their theories with that limitation all is fine. God in the manner in which He is viewed as the Creator by believers would certainly not be limited to what man can observe or quantify.

Apologize to everyone for the typo, that's a big one. I could use the excuse that the "i" and the "u" are adjacent to one another on the keyboard, but I know that won't fly with this crowd so heck yes it's funny.

[davbrucas]

The problem I have with most Christians is that they believe that God is the main course when he is actually just a side dish. Science will eventually be able to explain our existence and the notion of a benevolent God will flame out just like geocentrism.

[The King]

Why should you have a problem with someone else's beliefs? Speaking for myself, I don't.

[davbrucas]

Why should you have a problem with someone else's beliefs? Speaking for myself, I don't.

I dont really have a problem. I guess I worded that wrong.

[BlackSnake]

The problem I have with most Christians is that they believe that God is the main course when he is actually just a side dish.

I think I understand what you are saying, but could you elaborate.

[davbrucas]

Religion is naiveté that gives some people comfort and it shouldnt be taken away from them. It’s like golfing, people like to golf. They shouldnt have their golf clubs taken away, and they should keep their churches, but we have to get it to a place where religion is treated at a level that it should be treated. That it is something fun that people get together and do on the weekend. A hobby. Further improvements technologically and scientifically will lead to the erosion of religion which will allow science to explain our beginnings and we will eventually get to that point where religion has taken its appropriate place as a side dish rather than a main course. Stephen Hawkings recently stated that we dont need God to explain away our existence. Sooner or later we will have direct proof of how we were created and when it shows that a benevolent God didnt just snap his fingers and we were created(and negates what is said in the Bible) many people will have to reevaluate their existence. But I am sure that people like BrianC and King will still cry that the Earth is flat even after it's proven not to be.

[davbrucas]

Are we supposed to act like it’s okay for people to say that the earth is 6000 years old? That humans and dinosaurs co-existed? That evolution is false? This is why religion is bad. It hinders our progress scientifically and technologically. If you guys are so secure in your beliefs in your God what are you afraid that science will find?

[The King]

Sounds like you're looking for a scapegoat for the limitations of science. Looking for scapegoats has recently become the American way, so welcome to that non-elite club, doctor. The only limitation to science is mankind himself, and there's nothing you can do about that.

Meamwhile, I'll gladly remain secure in my belief in God. As part of that, I am afraid of nothing, especially the advancement of science.