I don’t understand how attributing the history of life on earth to a natural, mechanical, understood process would inspire anyone to believe in a Creator God.
However, I do understand how attributing the history of life on earth to a natural, mechanical, understood process would inspire someone to believe that no Creator God was necessary, thus opening the door to atheism.
Because it is such a fantastic (and fascinating ; - ) way of producing incredibly complex, beautiful and even awe inspiring diversity?
It’s not a huge leap from Psalm 19.
If you ask me, it’s nowhere near as awe-inspiring as God creating life ex nihlio.
Miracle vs Mechanical Process … no contest.
A storm. On the Sea of Galilee. Men in a boat. Several of them said something. The storm ended. No natural laws were broken – it was just ‘Mechanical Processes’. NOT!
I don’t think you’re getting the big picture of God’s sovereignty.
Not if he created it through providence. Then your awe would be misplaced and mistaken. The diversity, complexity and beauty of the biological realm is more awe-inspiring to me than how life got started, ‘poof’ or providence. I think I would pick the latter, knowing how cool it is firsthand. And it’s pretty amazing.
I should say, in the context of this thread, that I am not disputing the science of biological evolution, of which the core has been well established by the vast majority of credible Biologists.
At issue to me is the existence of true altruism among non-human animals, and any theological implications of that. I admit that this may be mostly unknowable, as I don’t even fully know when I truly act in an altruistic way. Further, non-human animals don’t have languages to document their thoughts in a way that we humans can understand.
The case of the chimpanzee adopting a non-related chimpanzee, documented by Jane Goodall, appeared in her book “Reason for Hope” in the chapter titled “Compassion and Love”. Yes, the case could be made that it was kin selection, since they were likely at least distantly related. Maybe the adopter/adoptee relationship could be better described as friendship in that case, since we don’t see the adopter making supreme sacrifices like a parent.
I expect that any anecdotes that I have read could be classed as being at least partly reciprocal, even with the benefit received being friendship for social animals.
I still find the question of altruism in animals interesting. I will do some further research on it and perhaps report back. I should use a PM for that, as we are really on a tangent from the main discussion (or perhaps argument 
).
Yes, certainly, feel free to PM. It’s an interesting subject!
The last 16 or so responses have been very interesting. Instead of just mocking and insulting they have been attempting to confront the problem of extolling evolution from a Christian standpoint.
If you are talking scientifically it cannot be done but that doesn’t stop (most) of you just talking scientifically and thinking you are still talking as a Christian. you are not.
But you cannot see that by arguing pure science you are hiding God.
[quote=“JerryN, post:309, topic:51646”]
Many people have been trying to tell you that evolution is not about God at al
[/quote].
No, I have been saying that. All I am hearing is that science must be right. And if science is right
This statement becomes absolutely wrong. It does not show anything about God at all
This shows you have never understood me at all.
It was never about making evolutionary theory into theistic evolution…So instead of me looking foolish…
Oh dear.
My criticisms of evolution are not related to God and never have been.
Is you admitting what I have been arguing about…
Why can’t you understand that if scientific evolutionary theory is complete it does leave God out?
No.
Science is without God because science cannot recognise God.
Trying to justify excluding God because God gave us a godless science is unbelievable circular reasoning!
That you cannot see that arguing science is excluding God is what is reallyy sad. You have tried to justify it and failed. A Divinometer? what absolute… (I will not lower myself to speaking a Latin insult)
Then don’t do it!
Richard
abiogenesis = science = intelligent design
What a pity you can’t prove that that “pretty amazing” feat even happened.
It’s like saying “it’s pretty amazing” that there are Little Green Men on Mars and that aliens fly around in UFOs.
Then you haven’t really grasped the theory of evolution; it’s akin to finding that a computer program that handles the entire array of human communications was just a half-dozen lines of code – that code would be so subtle and powerful the obvious conclusion would be that no human write it. Evolution comes down to chemistry that is guided by a “code” that itself was generated by simple rules governing earlier chemistry – and that is extremely elegant, an elegance that drove a number of my fellow university students to drop their atheism or agnosticism and conclude that there must be a Designer.
I would say that anyone who reaches that conclusion hasn’t thought the matter through, having missed the question of where the small set of rules that govern the “natural, mechanical, understood process” came from! The answer to that ultimately goes back to the Big Bang, where a small set of relationships and constants defined how an entire universe was going to look, including right down to the organic molecules in space clouds.
I don’t know if there’s a chemical ‘bridge’ from organic molecules to cellular life or whether God tweaked things, but if He did it was likely just a one-time tweak; the possible exception would be if He had humans in mind as we find ourselves, in which case (if one of my fellow students can be believed) He made seven tweaks along the way [and as another pointed out, settled for “good enough”]. But the progression from a simple cell to savanna sparrow can be described with just a set of simple rules – and that is sublimely elegant!
Or as Dale puts it:
There’s an interesting aspect there: it was from those heavens that came the dust from which we are made! “We are stardust” is something a slightly more knowledgeable Psalmist could have written as a declaration of God’s awesomeness.
God’s intervention should be very obvious to anyone studying the science of abiogenesis.
Why would those students conclude there must be a Designer when the process of evolution is explained and accepted as purely mechanical and natural???
As I advised @Buzzard, don’t quit your day job to become a comedian. I’ll do it in all caps, underlined, highlighted, italics and bold (not that it has any real effect ; - ) – it is YOU who cannot see God in the realities of his creation, how he did it. You don’t get it about methodological ‘pure’ science – it cannot hide God because it cannot find God without a divine-o-meter. So you are not arguing pure anything, and definitely not reality. You want God to have ‘poofed’ the changes that you in your incredulity deny that he accomplished through evolution.
Try telling that to all those evolutionary scientists out there who are atheists. LOL
The ‘mechanics’ of the awe-inspiring heavens don’t automatically make theists, does it? So why should you expect the awe-inspiring mechanics of biology to? Those mechanics including the very intricate detail of cellular biology, DNA, molecular biology, genetics and more?
I don’t understand why you’re so desperate to believe that evolution is a fact. You go so far as to disingenuously claim ToE is a fact, when it clearly isn’t.
Such fanatical zeal for a scientific theory is really quite bizarre.
There are your pathetic comedic skills failing you again. 
We’ve been over this before. I really wanted evolution to be true. Yeah, right. 
Is gravity a fact?
You need to be careful with self-righteous accusations, calling others disingenuous where they are not!
It is not clear because because you are myopic and need corrective lenses? You misunderstand the science – that is clear to most of the rest of us!
What is fanatical? Understanding the science and trying to inform other Christians who are fanatical about their anti-science stance so they don’t repulse unbelievers with an analogue to flat-earthism? Hm, I think I am acquainted with some.
Another huge argument against your silly false accusations about fanatical desire is the almost necessary and inevitable pain that understanding the science entails among conservative Christian – it is not as big a deal for other Christian traditions. (I’m sure part of Dr. Collins motivation in launching BioLogos was to try and avert and hopefully assuage some of that, as well.)
Thankfully my acceptance of evolutionary science was not traumatic because my wife understood the providential aspect to it as I was explaining it. Many of us have had issues at church and have less in common with folks there as well. We want this? Boy, are you off base!
Actually, I think you should be listening to yourself. Accusing others of being desperate, calling them disingenuous because of your beliefs, accusing them of fanaticism and saying they have bizarre zeal really says more about you, you who are quite conspicuously not ready to address the science calmly without prejudice.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.