Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
14
It’s a thread response George. Anyone can respond.
Why do you question that I’m Christian? And why is my answer irrelevant if I’m not? What does it have to do with the question? You can only answer according to faith to Christian questions?
Bizarre indeed.
It’s my fault for asking
which evoked your
ding
dong
I should have said
from the get go, and further that the Holy Spirit works as advertised (and no, I don’t mean any of the normal, ordinary human ecstatic behaviour Paul included).
See? I’m no deist. But for incarnation, as I always say, except above from the get go, we have no warrant for God whatsoever. Incarnation validates the personal and corporate work of the Holy Spirit after the Ascension (and before incarnation in the evolution of the God of the TaNaKh). So doubly, I’m no deist. I accept those claims. Because I want them to be true and they can be in the spaces in reality.
Magical claims about material reality beyond them and the eternal grounding of infinite being, magical claims of healing, prophecy, God answering prayer by suspending the natural laws that emerge in being by chance, and necessity above all, have no basis in reality. Great poetry mind. Great hymn material. All for us to yearn if only it were so, but cannot be of course. In the material world. Except in us. By us. In striving for the impossible material dream of equality of outcome in universal social justice. That can only obtain in Heaven after all.
What I exactly wish for my deity to be doing is existing despite the universe operating in the eternal material cosmos as if He didn’t. Without a trace except for the claim of the earliest Church. Because if He does then all will be well in the transcendent. All our brief, meaningless suffering will have been mere conception.
Published on April 16, 2019 < Published last year!
When I talk about evolutionary creation I am sometimes asked, “Why not just say, ‘God-guided evolution’?” I hesitate to use that phrase because I know, from experience, that if I did say “God guides evolution” many in my audience would misunderstand me.
Let’s look at three of the most common misunderstandings:
Evolution is not limited to small-scale changes.
Many people would interpret the phrase “God-guided evolution” to mean something like the following. “Evolution is limited to making small-scale changes in species. For really big changes – like making new life forms or increasing complexity – God has to do something more than ordinary evolution. Instead of doing big miracles all at once, God might do a series of guided mutations over time which add up to something new and extremely improbable without God’s guidance.”
The challenge with this misunderstanding is that science does not support it– evolution is not limited to making small-scale changes1 . I believe that God designed the laws of nature so that biological evolution could, through its ordinary operation, bring about new life forms and increases in complexity. As a Christian, I believe that God could cause a series of guided mutations whenever God wanted to. As a scientist, however, I believe that God didn’t need to do so in order to create the rich diversity of complex life we see in the world today.
God is never absent in the evolutionary process.
Some people would interpret the phrase “God-guided evolution” to mean something similar to: “OK, perhaps evolution isn’t limited to making small-scale changes. But evolution left on its own would mean God wasn’t really doing anything.”
This misunderstanding is one that I call “episodic deism.” I think this is poor theology because it says that God usually lets nature run “on its own” except when God intervenes to push it in certain directions– but I don’t think that nature ever runs “on its own.” The Bible repeatedly affirms that when things happen in the natural world, God is still doing it. The sun goes down; God brings darkness. The beasts of the forest prowl; God gives them their food. Birds of the air eat seeds and insects and worms, and they receive their food from God (Psalm 104:19-21, Matthew 6:26). When things are happening in the natural world the way they always happen, in ways we can describe scientifically, God is just as much in charge as when God performs a miracle.
God didn’t need to micromanage evolution to get what God wanted.
Misunderstanding #3: Some people would interpret the sentence “God-guided evolution” to mean something like the following. “Evolution isn’t limited to making small-scale changes. And of course God is in charge all the time so evolution never happens “on its own.” But evolution had the potential to go down many possible paths. So God acted from time to time to select, or to nudge evolution down particular paths to produce particular species and ecosystems.”
The challenge with this misunderstanding is that it might be too restrictive. Some evolutionary creationists hold this view, and I think it’s a fine view. I’m OK with the science and I’m OK with the theology. But it’s not the only version of evolutionary creation.
Theologically, I believe that God sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Scientifically, I describe rainfall in terms of evaporation and condensation and warm fronts and colds fronts. I don’t think God needs to “nudge” the clouds to make it happen the way God wants (although of course God could do so). Theologically, I believe that God makes trees grow. Scientifically, I would describe trees growing through photosynthesis and transpiration and lots of other chemical processes. I don’t think God needs to nudge the molecules in order to make each tree grow (although of course God could do so).
I affirm evolutionary creationists who believe that God nudged evolution down particular paths. But I also affirm an evolutionary creationist who might say something like the following. “Theologically, I believe that God created every species, including humans. Scientifically, we describe how it happened in terms of evolutionary mechanisms. I don’t think God needed to nudge it down particular paths in order to produce what God intended.”
If I said “God-guided evolution,” some people would misunderstanding me as ruling out this second version of evolutionary creation.
Those are three common and conflicting ways to interpret the phrase “God-guided evolution.” It’s not surprising that they’re common. God’s providence and guidance of the natural world is a complicated theological topic. Evolution is a complicated scientific theory. But none of them are what I mean. So while I can affirm that “God-guided evolution,” I rarely say it. I’ll instead choose other phrases – probably a lot longer and less pithy, but harder to misunderstand.
Here is the issue, @gbrooks9 and @Klax. Is it good science to say that an asteroid, along with other factors caused an ice age which made the dinosaurs go extinct and opened the way for mammals including humans to become the dominant animal form on earth? or was that just a meaningless accident?
The science of evolution as taught in the textbooks so not teach natural selection right. It does not say that ecology and climate change in the form of the asteroid and a cold age slowly destroyed the habitat of the dinosaurs and created new ecological niches favorable to mammals and birds and different plants and trees.
Is it important that we understand evolution correctly? Yes, because we are going through a time of climate change right now, but it is not one planned by God, but initiated by humans If we mess up God’s Creation by our pollution, then we are responsible to history and God.
God guided evolution through ecology to create humans and all of the other plants and animals that have populated the earth. Today we have come of age as God’s viceroys and it is on us to do what is right. With rights and abilities come responsibilities and judgement.
God makes the universe work as it should. We must do our part in making humanity act as it should.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
21
Nowt wrong wi’ my device George!
And I can affirm all here.
All that is said rationally, theologically, liturgically, all tenets of belief.
Haarsma tends to my pole of the colour solid spectrum I suspect.
I have no problem with Evolutionary Creationism, however I would say that this phrase certainly indicates that God is guiding it. Darwin said that evolution is guided by Natural Selection in the Origin of Species. writing “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good, silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of organic being.” p. 163.
Therefore I would say that evolution is a guided process, so the only question is guided by whom? If believes that Nature controls the universe in a rational purposeful manner, then may be Nature guides evolution. Since Nature is at best a personified thing, Nature is not rational or meaningful. Only God Who created the universe and evolution can guide it in a rational and meaningful manner.
The Judeo-Christian tradition holds that humans are created in the Image of God. This means that God created humans with the ability to think and reason. The question which Darwin and Dawkins fail to address, arises then "How did evolution create an animal who can think and reason? My answer is this, since God, Who created the universe is a thinking and rational Being, the universe which God created reflects God’s ratio0nal character and this gives an evolutionary advantage to the species to whom God gave this gift.
God guides evolution in that God created the physical universe which gives rise to the biological universe, and in that God gives an evolutionary advantage to whose who best adapt to their environment. God makes possible evolution by creating the genes needed for Variati0on and change. God gives guidance to evolution by favoring those life forms which promote God’s plan. Evolutionary Creation is God-Guided Evolution.
Is English your native language. I don’t have a CLUE as to what you mean.
I clicked on the link you said it didn’t work. But it works for me. So, I think there is some sort of configuration issue - - which is common if someone is using the internet from outside of the USA.
You are quoting ME as writing the text below. I did not. I might have cited that sentence from someone else… but I am in fact the one who STARTED using the phrase God-Guided Evolution
with quite a bit of zeal.
quote=“gbrooks9, post:19, topic:42794”
So while I can affirm that “God-guided evolution,” I rarely say it. I’ll instead choose other phrases – probably a lot longer and less pithy, but harder to misunderstand.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
25
I often say, “God used evolution to create the species” or “God used the mechanisms of evolution to create.”
I’m not 100% happy with that verb, “used.” Some scholars who I respect don’t like it, and I understand their reasons. I still say it, because I haven’t thought of anything better to say that’s equally succinct.
To be use more theological terms, I might say, “God created and providentially sustains the natural mechanisms of evolution which he used to create the vast variety of life forms.”
Or I might clarify what I mean by also saying things like the following:
God uses the laws of nuclear physics and electromagnetism, and the random motion of particles in the sun, to keep the sun shining. God uses the laws of gravity and motion to keep planets in their orbits. God uses evaporation and condensation and atmospheric dynamics to send rain on the righteous and unrighteous. God uses worms to feed robins. God uses the laws of quantum mechanics and the random motion of molecules in the air to create a vast variety of beautiful and unique snowflakes. God uses the motion of continental plates to create high mountains and deep ocean trenches. God makes island ecosystems more diverse over time by using the mechanisms of evolution along with wind and ocean and birds to bring new life forms to the islands. God uses random mutation, natural selection, and all the other mechanisms of evolution to produce new and diverse species over time, and so that species can adapt to changing environments over time.
The point of giving so many examples is to encourage people to see “divine action” in biological evolution just the same way as they see (or at least, as they ought to see) divine action in every other part of the natural world.
Dr. H, I think I must agree with your usage! Though my typing fingers frequently have a life of their own (when typing oft-repeated phrases) … whenever my mind can intervene, I will be delighted to use this:
“God used evolution to create the species”.
… with the occasional spice that “God used the mechanisms of evolution to create…” can add to old school boilerplate! Thanks for taking the time out of your schedule.
P.S.:
Last thought: do you think we can get Dr. Behe to adopt any of these expressions? I am told on good authority that miracles do happen…
I think that part of the problem is with the wording of “God uses evolution” which makes it sound like evolution is an inanimate tool like a hammer and so everything that happens is all about how God uses that hammer. But evolution is not an inanimate tool any more than our use of evolutionary algorithms to solve problems or come up with new designs. It is a very animate process that produces its own solutions and designs.
So a better comparison would be with how we use democracy to govern our country or free market in our economy. It is not about control. Evolution is part of the process of life itself and all that evolutionary creationists are saying is that God is involved with the process the same way God is involved with our lives.
Extremely different. It is the difference between life and inanimate objects. Evolution is not a mechanical process. It is really just the process of learning. And no, learning does not require a brain or consciousness. This has been demonstratively established with computer programs which can learn all by themselves how to play our hardest games better than we can ourselves without any input from us regarding how to play such games well. To be sure the computer programs are technically mechanical and have to simulate randomness but evolution is in the real world where randomness is fundamental because of quantum physics.
dance around what?
The facts are pretty clear and the way you prefer to see things is no obstacle whatsoever.
By