Thank you for responding! I now understand why there is such a big conflict.
As I said to @Marley_Whitney, @Bella_Jue
Itās OK, donāt sweat it. Just be kind.
[As for these NOMA, this NOOMA guy tells it better than anyone I know.]
Evolution is the fact of life, Genesis is part of our cultural evolution, a living fossil. The reality of Jesus is way beyond both.
In the Bible it says that God brings rain, but in science it is condensation of water droplets that brings rain. Are those in conflict?
https://biologos.org/articles/atheistic-meteorology-or-divine-rain
1 Like
As a rational argument against creationism this is quite effective. But we can turn it around and ask the question why object to evolution and not meteorology from a psychological perspective and the answer is obvious. There is a big difference because evolution reflects upon ourselves, where WE come from, and what WE are. Obviously the theory of evolution hits much closer to home. So sure, from an objective standpoint we can ask whatās the difference. But in reality, it is much harder to be objective when the microscope is turned upon ourselves.
1 Like
Human ego certainly plays a role. We have all probably witnessed people expressing revulsion at the idea of being related to other animals. Ironically, those same people will also talk about how beautiful and wonderful creation is . . . until they are told they are related to that creation. There is an inconsistent and uneven relationship between humans and nature in many theological topics.
I also get the feeling that evolution seems too impersonal for some people. Humans seem more important if they are directly created (from mud, no less) than the end product of a natural process that ran for billions of years. However, no one thinks they are not special because they were created naturally the āold fashioned wayā, so that is a bit inconsistent as well.
Perhaps a bit of humbleness would go a long way.
4 Likes
Which just goes to show that the humility / self-importance angle is not what this is about. Religion, Christianity included, revels in the idea that we are just dirt. No. Clearly the objection is more about God. Theistic religions cast us as dirt in comparison to God, who is so much much more. So the problem it has with evolution is taking away the role of God as designer in control of everything and giving Him a smaller one. The focus of theistic religion is all about making us feel gratitude to God from whom we have everythingā¦ and thus gratitude by association to those running the religion and claiming to speak for this deity. Evolution shifts from God giving us all these things to us as a species (or chain of species) figuring out this stuff for ourselves by trial and error. It downgrades Godās role in things from a designer in control of everything to a shepherd who watches over us, while we do such things for ourselves. Indeed, instead of giving us a more humble role it puts the responsibility for both good things and bad things in our makeup back on us. Thus it gives us less of a reason to look to the religion mongers for solutions to our problems, donāt you think?
Guiding evolution over billions of years is a smaller role?
Are you saying that evolution was out of Godās control?
Are you also saying that if our species was specially created we are not responsible for our actions?
Thatās not making much sense to me.
Yes. Guidance is definitely a smaller role than design and control.
In the sense of God not having absolute controlā¦ yes I do say so. I believe in the God who chose love and freedom over power and control and this is why God created life. Life serves no purpose in the making of tools. Why in the world would you want your tools to have the ability to say, āno, I want to do that!ā
I have frequently encountered the argument by atheists that if we are a product of Godās design and exactly what God made us to be then God is ultimately responsible for what we do. Sounds like a good argument to me. So my response to say we are not a product of design ā not just what God made us to be. We are participants in our own creation with our own choices, not only for what we do but for we become.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
That would seem to challenge Godās omniscience.
Iām and atheist and that sounds like a horrible argument. It is even stranger if it supposed to be part of a religion where people have to seek out redemption for sins.
1 Like
Only according to logically incoherent definitions of omniscience which makes God incapable of things which any human being can do.
And I am a Christian telling you that the opposition to evolution is not about a lack of humility.
True, but there are sectors of Christianity (not mine) which donāt give people such a role. For them it is all God calling people to Him.
There is no guidance in nature.
Opposition to evolution is all about fear of loss of meaning. Lack of humility. Lack of faith. Lack of love.
God providentially intervenes and guides whenever he wants, but it is not detectable scientifically. His providential M.O. is recognizable in peopleās lives, though.
In what class of event is it possible for Him to intervene and for it to be undetectable? No natural event. Including illness. I have no idea what His MO could be beyond incarnation and into the first degree of separation; the disciples and first apostles, emissaries. If He does what He wants, that tells us what He wants to do.
He intervenes in mutations, for example, since the beginning of life and even in the beginning of life. He chose the timing and placing of the carcinogenic mutations in my kidney, even to the day of the month.
Yeah, I know. For those who have eyes, Maggieās sequence is wonderful.
His providence gave us our moon, as noted elsewhere.
How does He undetectably intervene in mutations which happen naturally? To what end? What would not happen if He didnāt undetectably intervene in mutations. Or other accidents?
Well, if I knew how he did it, I wouldnāt have said undetectably, would I. Was there anything āunnaturalā in Maggieās sequence?
There are trillions of moons in our average galaxy alone. They are in the providence of the instantiation of the prevenient laws of physics which need no guidance.
Sure.
Is that a rhetorical question?