quote:

---

I think God caused evolution and continues to watch it every step of the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mackillian:

quote:

---

I think God caused evolution and continues to watch it every step of the way.

---

...and giggles.

---

You are so wrong!

















It's definitely more of a deep belly laugh.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
I like the idea of God giggling.
 

---

Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
 
AoD,

Evolution did not, and does not require God's assistance in either being or working.

I don't mean this to be inflammatory, it is simply a statement of fact.

JW.
 

---

Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
I don't see how that can be a statement of fact. You'd have to do two experiments: one with God guiding evolution and one without and see if evolution worked in one, both, or neither of the test samples. Since we can't prove or disprove the existence of God, such an experiment is just silly.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Evolution did not, and does not require God's assistance in either being or working.

I don't mean this to be inflammatory, it is simply a statement of fact.

---

Science may be able to show that evolution could create complex life with out being guided by intelligence. But it will never show that it would have created this particular set of life if not so guided. Neither will it show that wouldn't have created this particular set of life if not so guided.

Your statement also ignores the possibilities that initial conditions were selected precisely so that they would lead to the evolution of life. It is clearly not a statement of fact to say evolution did not require God's assistance, because if the universe wouldn't have existed without God, then neither would evolution.
 

---

Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
 

 

---

Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
 
I was suggesting that science is limited to providing explanations of observed phenomena in the real world and must involve the collection of data, i.e. things measured.

Questions that relate to God do not easily lend themselves to testing, primarily because questions about God are fundamentally about faith. It seems to me that God is the only one qualified to test faith.
 

---

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Gospel according to Douglas Adams?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Megan:
I like the idea of God giggling.

---

Despite what mack might think, she is NOT god.

At least not yet.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

Science may be able to show that evolution could create complex life with out being guided by intelligence. But it will never show that it would have created this particular set of life if not so guided. Neither will it show that wouldn't have created this particular set of life if not so guided.

Your statement also ignores the possibilities that initial conditions were selected precisely so that they would lead to the evolution of life. It is clearly not a statement of fact to say evolution did not require God's assistance, because if the universe wouldn't have existed without God, then neither would evolution.

---

quote:

---

However, evolution can explain how we got here from the initial starting conditions. It won't ever be able to say that any current species was an inevitable outcome of the process. As for "guidance" that may not be necessary. What we know is the current condition and the path taken to get to it. Whether that path was a random walk or a guided trip, we can't know. But we know that the mechanism of evolution offers a sufficient explanation of the history that got us here.

---

quote:

---

The second part is wrong, I think, because it assumes that the initial conditions determined the final outcome. I believe this is demonstrably false and also leads to an anti-Christian deism in which God merely gave the world a kick start and then left it alone.

---

It most certainly does not make that assumption. It allows the possibility that initial conditions were a necessary yet not sufficient condition. In either case, it is not proveable whether initial conditions were selected, and if that selection was necessary, then evolution needed the selector to occur.

Remember, I'm stating this as a possibility. I'm saying we don't know if it's true or not. If they are true, then johnson's statement that it is a fact that evolution does not require God's assistance in either being or working is wrong.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I was reading the National Geographic about Africa and there was a statement that "those who question evolution question the whole enterprise of science."

Since when was science a singular enterprise? Makes it sound like the freemasons or something. "We must build the edifice of knowledge." as opposed to "I have to get published so I can win tenure."
 

---

Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
 
good show tonight.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
pooka, it rests on the priciples that every science bases itself on.
 

---

Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
 
Questioning evolution is like questioning gravity. If fact can be dissolved and hidden away by myth, then how can science possibly flourish.

And it was a good show. Great show actually. Seeing Kurt Vonnegut made my week.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
As a possible explanation here, evolution does not require god to have created it or to watch over it. Nor, however, does evolution deny that god created evolution or watches over it. It is simple fact that evolution does not need god in order to be the mechanism by which things occur.

I look at the original statement, and see "require" as in "well, god doesn't have to exist for this to be true, because its a seperate question from the question of god. Both can be true, one can be true and not the other, or neither can be true."

Please note much shorthand in this post.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I agree with Paul, up until neither can be true. Since evolution is being promoted here as fact/very strong theory so in the minds of some we couldn't say evolution might not be true.

And isn't gravity still a mystery, when it comes right down to it? I mean, unified field theory vs. quantum mechanics and all that.

Even within evolution theory there is tension between punctuated equilibrists and uniformitarians.
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
I said that I thought God watches over evolution, but I don't think he is interfering with its development much.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Dag, re the 2nd part, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood where you were placing God in the process.

Re the first part, I think we're in agreement. It didn't follow from that that the 2nd part was wrong, IMO. Those were two disconnected thoughts.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Ah, ok, Bob, I misunderstood which part you were referring to.

quote:

---

As a possible explanation here, evolution does not require god to have created it or to watch over it. Nor, however, does evolution deny that god created evolution or watches over it. It is simple fact that evolution does not need god in order to be the mechanism by which things occur.

I look at the original statement, and see "require" as in "well, god doesn't have to exist for this to be true, because its a seperate question from the question of god. Both can be true, one can be true and not the other, or neither can be true."

---