Would God use a version of Evolution that does not reflect His true Nature (Romans 1)

Romans 1 : 20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship,

We agree that Evolution is real, and that if God is creator He must have included it in His working. But

Does the scientific view (TOE) reflect God’s Nature?

BY definition TOE excludes a view of God! So how can God’s Nature be reflected in TOE?

God is Love. That is an almost universal view. Where is the Love in TOE? Where is the care for the underdog? The weak and helpless? Where is the equality of opportunity?

God is also considered to be the creator. More than just bringing the universe into being, He is seen as wanting a specific setting for His people. How does TOE accomplish this?

This is not about whether God uses evolution. This is about whether God would use a version that excludes both Him and His qualities


1 Like

I am of the view that it is a mistake to focus on a single discipline of the sciences (be that ToE or any other) when we discuss theology and science. The following quote may stimulate the correct approach:

"Science is a values-neutral endeavor seeking to discover the nature of created things. it studies the nature of the ‘creature,’ but does not pertain to worship. Theology, on the other hand, is an ascent in the realm of grace, toward a knowledge that is a gift from God. God is so far removed from the creature that we dare not even represent him except as he appeared in the flesh in the person of our lord Jesus christ.”

1 Like

I am sorry, but that is just a “get out of jail free” card.

Evolution is an ongoing topic, discussed ad infinitum. This is an attempt to get the right angle of discussion and the right understanding of the discussion.

I am tired of being fobbed off, and criticised for mixing theology and science.

This is a legitimate approach, with a scriptural backing.


1 Like

Well you do keep mixing the two. How about this?

Science says nothing for or against God’s involvement in the process in question. And as they say, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Theology says how God is involved in the process. And as evidenced in these discussions there is a wide range of opinions on the extent of that involvement. So while you may have strong feelings on how God should be included in the process that doesn’t mean the science must include them.

If I understand you correctly, you believe God should be included in the TOE but not in meteorology. Which I can’t understand because they are both parts of His creation and per Romans we should be able to see “His eternal power and divine nature” in them.


Just what does this mean? I am stating that science provides insights into the nature of the creation, while Christ provides the revelation of a caring Creator. This nonsense about what God would use is just that - a human being is not able to critically examine God and determine what He uses - as I said, that is just nonsense. We can, to a limited extent, obtain information on what the Creator has made and through Christ, we further understand additional attributes of God.

1 Like

Where do you want God in meteorology! It is irrelevant!

But Christians are claiming that God is using it! As science says!

Why can’t you (et al) understand what iI am getting at.

It is as plain as can be in the OP

God is supposed to be visible in His creation. He is not visible in TOE!
So if He is using evolution it is not TOE, it is something else.

TOE is a specific version of evolutionary theory. It is that explanation I am challenging. (Not the inclusion or exclusion of evolution) It s the reasoning of TOE. The way it is explained. The ignoring of God’s Love and care. TOE is brutal and lacking the qualities of God.
He would not use that sort of methodology. It is against His nature.

What is so outrageous about this?

But there is no room in TOE for God. It can explain everything without Him (or so it claims) So absence becomes paramount.


1 Like

It is relevant because it is just as much a part of creation as evolution. Where I put God in meteorology is determined by my theology. Probably doesn’t agree with your theology. But that doesn’t change the fact that the study of weather doesn’t say anything about God.

Science doesn’t say anything about God. My theology determines how I view God’s involvement and it says God is involved even though the TOE doesn’t mention God.

Circle of life. Is it brutal when a predator kills its prey? Or is it part of God’s creation? The OT appears to say the circle of life is from God.

The TOE only explains the things we can see. People that extend that to include or not include God are mistaken.



It does not matter what people see. I know better.

This appears to be the stance here

Everybody is happy yo include evolution in their theology and it doesn’t actually matter what form or version it is.

It doesn’t matter what TOE might say about God. As long as I know God is there, everything is hunky dory.

Sounds like a flock of Ostriches


For me it is the other way around. My theology informs how I view evolution. It is an addition to TOE. TOE isn’t included in my theology. There is no way to do so.

Care to explain why the circle of life isn’t considered to be “brutal?” It is an indication of God’s nature.

Oh dear. You will probably be accused of conflating science and theology, but from what I have seen it is what everyone does. And when I try and separate TOE off as a specific view people cannot see what I am getting at.

I would look at it as morally neutral., which is also how I view God. God claims not to think as we do and we are very good at imposing our morals and justice onto him and/or nature,


Richard, is it your belief that within all the sciences it is only within evolutionary theory that things are taught as fact that ought not be taught as fact?

Did you know that scientists recently revised the age of the universe? And then, there’s covid. What is so unique about evolutionary theory?

1 Like

God’s nature is reflected in everything God created. It is the creations of man, things like religion, which don’t reflect God’s nature very well.

How? There are many many answers to this, but people see different things of God in the work of science. Explanations of this abound on this site. But in my case what I see of God in medicine, electronics, and evolution is God’s intention to create a universe which operates according to autonomous mathematical laws to provide a structure for life apart from Him and thus a basis for free will. It all speaks of God’s desire for a relationship with those who are other than Himself.

This sounds like something you made up. Certainly it is the work of science to look for natural explanations for things, where your beliefs about God and religious beliefs play no part. This is why it discovered so much… refusing the enslavement to religious preconceptions.

So how can God’s Nature be reflected in medicine or electronics?

Because these are things which God created and thus they reflect His will and desire for things in this world He created.

Love requires choice and evolution provides us with the capacity to make choices.

You find them in the evolution of the community. And it is in the evolution of the community which are the most important advances in evolutionary development. And when God saw all His creation discovering this truth that cooperation is the greatest survival strategy, He said, “It is good.”

Seriously? You see God as an interior designer or a set director for a movie? I see God working on far more important things than such trivialities.

One of the things I like so much about the Bible is how much it talks about the problems with religion. This is not about whether God uses religion. This is about whether God uses a version which exaggerates the importance of men, especially men using religion for their own advantage.

As soon as you ask this you prove that you have no idea what I am talking about.

It is a misconception… And that is where it stays

The fact is that TOE does reflect your view of God. As far as you are concerned God will forge a relationship with any creature who is able. And TOE has provided humans.

IOW you diagree with the precepts behind the OP…


I guess I don’t see this as about the natural world. It seems to be about the spiritual world and spiritual powers. I think it’s connected to the hosts of heaven and how mankind tried to reflect them through idol worship. I don’t think it’s about things like the theory of evolution or learning doctrine by watching this or that event.

Romans 1:18-23
New American Standard Bible
Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.

Closest thing to being potential about the natural world here is “ within them it was evident his invisible attributes” which I think is love and justice and that humans in general know when they are doing something bad. They are choosing to be wicked despite having a consciences saying to love.

By your response you prove that you are not interested in any answers to the questions you asked. If we are not led by the nose to your conclusion, then you will not read any more.

Yes in agreement with the Bible that God is a Shepherd not a watchmaker, and we are living beings not machines.

I never had such a thought. But I find your repudiation of this rather surprising. You believe in a God who is not interested in relationships? Me? Definitely. It is why God created the universe.

…or is this about God only wanting a relationship with those with the right shape and color… yeah… I don’t buy into such an effort to use God to justify prejudices like that.

And God provide everything for evolution to do that – created the universe with the natural laws which made the self organizing process of life (like evolution) possible.

This is like saying electronics gave us computers. True… but pretty weird in your implication that it cuts God out of the picture…

The only precepts before you started asking questions were: Romans 1:20, that evolution is real and God must have included it in His work of creation. …or are there other precepts invisible to the human eye? Clearly I have followed those which are visible.

Hey Richard,

You’ve said a couple times that the Theory of Evolution by definition excludes God.

Do you know of an alternative (scientifically plausible) theory of human origin that does include God?

1 Like

I have no idea why you think that being designed by God makes us machines. It is a misconception you have shown before

That is implying a racist viewpoint which is inaccurate.

I find your whole attitude derogatory for no good reason other than my view clearly differs from yours.

has nothing to do with prejdice.

That is how you see God? Uninterested in how His universe looks? Any old thing will do? As long as it works.

No, only yours (and probably others with a scientific bent)

You understand mechanics. You do not seem to be able to see beyond them to the principles that govern them. Or what those principles mean philosophically.

And that is the other point. Your view of design is jaundiced.


A gentle reminder to those involved in this discussion:

  • Focus on discussing other people’s ideas, not on evaluating their character, faith, communication style, or perceived “tone.” Please avoid attributing beliefs, motivations, or attitudes to others. [In other words, avoid “You” statements, please].
  • Be willing to learn from the perspectives and expertise of others and respect the diversity of your conversation partners…
  • State your case and then respect other people’s right to agree or disagree.

Please see the FAQ/Guidelines for more details.


As scientists investigate and understand how living organisms work they see the machinery of biology and others use this knowledge to design things with it. I resist the dominant trend to see living things as nothing more than machines by pointing out the one difference between them and machines – design. Machines are designed and living organisms are not.

It is not jaundiced to seek out the one way of preserving the dignity of living organisms. The desire of religiogs to make it all about designing the perfect tin Christian soldiers will certainly not deter me.

Oh yes I see what you mean. This idea that God will not desire a relationship with just anything having the capabilities to do so does imply a racist viewpoint – or at the very least a humanist viewpoint which puts all the value of human beings in the most trivial differences between homo sapiens and other species. Even if color isn’t all that important to you, I will not stand by while people persecute others for other differences like growing a tail, for example.

It is obvious that I see God differently than you do. While you have Him hung up on trivialities, I see God as interested in far more important things like the abilities to love, communicate, sacrifice, and serve others. Not any old thing will do. He made it abundantly clear in the flood, that a homo sapiens shape without love and service to others will only have His contempt – better to wipe them out and start again with a shape which doesn’t inspire such vanity.

You say no and then turn around and say there are invisible precepts which I am not accepting. This is empty rhetoric unless you can explain and describe them.

Maybe it would help to send a personal note to those who are saying things which make you think such a reminder is needed. Sometimes it can be hard for people involved in the details of the discussion to see what you see. Sure I may not agree, but it is still better to know and think about it.

I think you are intuiting something that you think should be as obvious to everyone else as it is to you. It is obviously not obvious to others, lo these many conversations. To communicate whatever that something is, you need to be able to articulate it, using words that are well-defined and understood, or if you have an idiosyncratic and esoteric definition of a word, you need to explain it to us. Just saying that something is obvious to you and that we’re all hopeless in not intuiting it doesn’t go anywhere except in circles.

1 Like