Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

Not wholly without foundation - you have asserted in the past you believe atheists have no foundation for morality other than pure selfishness.

Misrepresentation. I have clearly stated materialists have no rational foundation for morality because they attribute our existence to valueless and purposeless events.

I believe goodness and justice are not human conventions but facts.

If so, they are facts about humans, facts about how humans interact with each other, facts about how we (in general, on average) respond emotionally to certain states of affairs.

Facts about how **persons wherever they exist **should interact with one another both rationally and emotionally. Emotion without reason is insanity.

You would have objected if I specified what you** think**

I had in mind! In fact my statement applies to all physical urges and desires, not the one you single out for special attention! -Then all physical urges and desires are inherently objectionable? Or, at least, to be subordinated to other sorts of urges and desires? What might the latter be, exactly?

**All **urges and desires, whether mental or physical, should be subordinated to the well-being of oneself and others.

A false dilemma. Our emotional well-being is the consequence of living as we are intended to do: in accordance with the Golden Rule - which has no rational basis in an accidental existence.

The topic is not the origin of Design - which merits a separate thread - but conclusive evidence for Design.

And of course it has a rational basis in an ‘accidental’ existence, as I described - we act in such a way as to maximise our well-being.
"a rational basis in an ‘accidental’

existence" is self-contradictory. How can fortuitous events be rational? And what enables us to choose?

As it happens, treating others as we prefer to be treated is, on average, the most successful means to ensuring that we are treated well in our turn.

That success - or failure - is recognised in the Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma, which amount to belief in cosmic justice and constitute further evidence for Design.

What could be more rational, in the light of our inherent emotional needs?

How could our inherent emotional needs have emerged by Chance?

“ascetic” made me laugh! You are the first person who has used that term about me in my entire life!

Perhaps so - and perhaps in relation to my attitudes, yours are more ascetic; certainly more bound to beliefs regarding adherence to what is called (largely erroneously, I believe) ‘natural law’.

I have never invoked “natural law” because it is such an ambiguous expression. I simply believe that personal well-being depends on self-control and consideration of both the short-term and long-term effects of our behaviour on ourselves and others, particularly children.

Please specify the parts of intelligent, creative and benevolent persons - and explain how they are integrated.

How many parts would you like me to specify? The primary area of concern is the nervous system with its constituent parts; neural connections, extending throughout various parts of a body that functions both as a tool for manipulating the external environment, and a powerhouse for maintaining life; these neural connections, with their furthest extension in sensory perceptive organs, allow for intimate interaction with others as well as the rest of the environment. In many organisms, a complex (to varying degrees) brain acts as control and storage centre for information gleaned from both the internal and external environments of the organism in question.

None of those factors explains personality, intelligence, creativity, self-control, morality or responsibility. A person doesn’t consists of parts according to the law or any other civilised point of view…

There is no evidence that intelligence and creativity exist in the absence of complex brains and nervous systems.

There is certainly no evidence that intelligence and creativity are the product of complex brains and nervous systems - which certainly cannot by their very nature be rational or responsible for their activity. There is plenty of evidence that persons influence the activity of their brains and nervous systems simply with the power of thought.

The idea they could is a remnant of a dualistic view of the world and humans that holds an immaterial soul or mind or whatever the ‘nonphysical’ part of a person is supposed to be, to be the seat of consciousness and intelligence and personality and so forth.

You are clutching onto the relics of logical positivism, i.e. materialism, which has been long since abandoned by logical thinkers who can understand that the principle of verification by the senses is self-refuting. The absurdity of that primitive view is abundantly demonstrated by the very way in which every sane person lives, not as an animal whose behaviour is totally conditioned by its genes and environment but as a rational being who can choose what to think and how to behave.

This concept of ‘mind-stuff’ ignores mounting evidence pointing to the mind being a function of complex arrangements of matter and energy, namely brains and nervous systems.

The concept of “mind-stuff” is a myth perpetuated by those who worship “matter-stuff” and think solely in terms of their bodily functions while using the term mind" as if it is a reality. The mounting evidence is that neuroscience will demonstrate how blind faith in neuroscience is destructive not only of itself but also of every vestige of human decency and responsibility by attributing every single thought and decision to factors beyond our control.

The mindless brain is a consummation devoutly to be detested…

 

[buffalo]

** Information - the Word, The Logos **

This is a video worth watching. The Q an A is also interesting. The tide is turning…

More support for IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

“the displacement problem - where every attempt to explain the origin of information absent an intelligent agent either fails or it surreptitiously smuggles in the effect of intelligent agency…”

… “a byproduct of this artificial restriction on reasoning that excludes the reality of something of which we all know, which is mind, agency has certain causal powers that nature itself by itself does not have and when we encounter effects that we know only agents can produce it is rational to infer the activity of agency not to exclude it on principle and say well we must be scientific”

 

[tonyrey]

** Information - the Word, The Logos **

This is a video worth watching. The Q an A is also interesting. The tide is turning…

More support for IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

“the displacement problem - where every attempt to explain the origin of information absent an intelligent agent either fails or it surreptitiously smuggles in the effect of intelligent agency…”

… “a byproduct of this artificial restriction on reasoning that excludes the reality of something of which we all know, which is mind, agency has certain causal powers that nature itself by itself does not have and when we encounter effects that we know only agents can produce it is rational to infer the activity of agency not to exclude it on principle and say well we must be scientific”

Many thanks for your reference to a superb website. Anyone who ignores your invitation is obviously determined not to face the facts out of sheer prejudice. I would be fascinated by any attempt to explain them away but I doubt very much that an atheist will venture into that dangerous territory. They have too much to lose!

 

[cornbread_r2]

In this discussion, we were talking about Creation and evolution…that has everything to do with the subject. How old is the earth? Who really cares, I don’t! That’s not really the goal.

For someone who claims to have studied these subjects “a lot”, it seems more than a little odd that you would not care about the age of the Earth. I don’t see how someone can even begin to attempt to question the ToE without first addressing that issue.

Also, I have talked to atheists before and that’s usually the question they ask when all of their assumptions have failed.

In all fairness, you can hardly blame someone for making assumptions when you decline to answer such a basic, relevant, straightforward question about your position.

While it’s to your rhetorical advantage to attempt to frame the discussion in terms of theological positions, I think you’d be surprised by the number of Catholics on these forums – including some commenting in this tread – who might strongly disagree with your position, should you ever care to clearly express it.

In any case, thanks for responding.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Many thanks for your reference to a superb website. Anyone who ignores your invitation is obviously determined not to face the facts out of sheer prejudice.

Though I don’t think that it has yet been adequately demonstrated scientifically, I can concede that there exists the possibility that the universe was designed. Can you concede that the possibility exists that it wasn’t?

I would be fascinated by any attempt to explain them away but I doubt very much that an atheist will venture into that dangerous territory. They have too much to lose!

Again, it’s only rhetorically advantageous to ignore the fact that atheists aren’t the only people who object to the design thesis.

 

[tonyrey]

Many thanks for your reference to a superb website. Anyone who ignores your invitation is obviously determined not to face the facts out of sheer prejudice.

Of course. Everything is theoretically possible but we base our beliefs, choices and decisions on probability. It is possible that we are all irrational but if we were not one of our conclusions is worth considering - even the conclusion that we are irrational! Otherwise we would be getting something for nothing (which is unrealistic).

I would be fascinated by any attempt to explain them away but I doubt very much that an atheist will venture into that dangerous territory. They have too much to lose!

Again, it’s only rhetorically advantageous to ignore the fact that atheists aren’t the only people who object to the design thesis.

If your objection is to have any weight you need to give at least one good reason… Otherwise your response is only rhetorically advantageous…

 

[Jesusaves777]

Jesusaves777;10206107:

So your evidence is a statement recorded in hagiographical writings composed several decades after the probable lifetime of their subject.

I don’t - as I’ve pointed out - deny the probable existence of the man upon whom the Jesus stories are based. This does not mean I give any credence to the notion that he was in any way divine.

I think you can be fairly sure that all monotheistic religions claim that any other possible conceptions of god(s) are contrary to their teachings. Judaism denies the divinity of Jesus, and Islam relegates him to the rank of ‘prophet’, rather than ‘son of God’. They have as much evidence - that is, statements in their own scriptures - as Christianity does for its truth claims.

And you’re right, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, they are still waiting for their messiah. However, They didn’t believe who He was in the New Testament either. Unless you consider Messianic Jews who do believe Jesus is the Messiah. Christianity is the completion of Judaism, it’s a shame that Jews don’t see that…They will. As for Muslims, Islam started 600 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven. Again If anyone preaches a NEW gospel they are accursed. Muslims don’t even believe that Jesus was crucified…even though they have evidence of that. As I said before, check the evidence for yourself, you probably won’t. We are all given a knowledge of God but we suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness. The Jesus “stories” as you call them are actual accounts…not mere stories. One other thing, if you take Muslim beliefs and the belief of Mormonism, you will see a lot of similarities. There were Pagans in the Old Testament and New, but they all worshiped Baal in different forms. All other Pagan religions which are all except for Christianity, came either during or after Christ and thus deeming them invalid.

 

[Jesusaves777]

Though I don’t think that it has yet been adequately demonstrated scientifically, I can concede that there exists the possibility that the universe was designed. Can you concede that the possibility exists that it wasn’t?

Again, it’s only rhetorically advantageous to ignore the fact that atheists aren’t the only people who object to the design thesis.

Who else?

 

[Jesusaves777]

For someone who claims to have studied these subjects “a lot”, it seems more than a little odd that you would not care about the age of the Earth. I don’t see how someone can even begin to attempt to question the ToE without first addressing that issue.

In all fairness, you can hardly blame someone for making assumptions when you decline to answer such a basic, relevant, straightforward question about your position.

While it’s to your rhetorical advantage to attempt to frame the discussion in terms of theological positions, I think you’d be surprised by the number of Catholics on these forums – including some commenting in this tread – who might strongly disagree with your position, should you ever care to clearly express it.

In any case, thanks for responding.

Well, the discussion of evolution is a circular argument. Most of the Catholics on here have condemned the hypothesis or educated GUESS! I have given a lot of resources, but you still argue that evolution is possible with no credible proof, no references, and no studies. To me it is a dead subject. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, I just have a problem with lies in science, I love science. But this isn’t science against religion, this is religion against religion. As Dr. George Wald(a now deceased evolutionist atheist professor) said, “When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion – that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” - Scientific American, August, 1954. There are only 2 and there is no 3rd option, If you would like to start a thread on how old the earth is you can do that. Your question is a good one however, it doesn’t fit the discussion. That’s like someone coming in here and asking why do bad things happen to good people. Start the other thread and I will respond. Thank You!

 

[tonyrey]

Of course. Everything is theoretically possible but we base our beliefs, choices and decisions on probability. It is possible that we are all irrational but if we were not one of our conclusions is worth considering - even the conclusion that we are irrational! Otherwise we would be getting something for nothing (which is unrealistic).
If your objection is to have any weight you need to give at least one good reason… Otherwise your response is only rhetorically advantageous…

A grammatical correction - for the benefit of the purists(!) :

It is possible that we are all irrational but, if we **were, **not one of our conclusions would be worth considering.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Well, the discussion of evolution is a circular argument. Most of the Catholics on here have condemned the hypothesis or educated GUESS! I have given a lot of resources, but you still argue that evolution is possible with no credible proof, no references, and no studies. To me it is a dead subject. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, I just have a problem with lies in science, I love science. But this isn’t science against religion, this is religion against religion. As Dr. George Wald(a now deceased evolutionist atheist professor) said, “When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion – that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” - Scientific American, August, 1954. There are only 2 and there is no 3rd option, If you would like to start a thread on how old the earth is you can do that. Your question is a good one however, it doesn’t fit the discussion. That’s like someone coming in here and asking why do bad things happen to good people. Start the other thread and I will respond. Thank You!

I strongly disagree with this. This overlooks a very simple reconciliation between the two “alternatives.” As I am wont to do, I will illustrate my point first with a (rather silly) analogy:

If God wants a fully decked Christmas tree, why should we assume that he would have to make, ex nihilo, a fully grown tree and then come back and create individual ornaments, tinsel, etc. with which to decorate the tree? Being all powerful, why could he not create a seed which would grow into a tree which would subsequently sprout ornaments, lights, etc?

Similarly, why are so many theists adamant that the emergence of life must have been an act of intervention into his creation? It takes nothing away from God to believe that He created the universe as a seed (or singularity, if you will) which then sprouted into a tree (the material universe) which then sprouted ornaments (lifeforms). In fact, this would be quite in keeping with the general theme of Scripture (the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed… ring any bells?) as well as the thought of many of the most prominent minds in both Judaism and Christendom, including Nachmanides and Augustine.

 

[Jesusaves777]

Jesusaves777;10206107:

So your evidence is a statement recorded in hagiographical writings composed several decades after the probable lifetime of their subject.

I don’t - as I’ve pointed out - deny the probable existence of the man upon whom the Jesus stories are based. This does not mean I give any credence to the notion that he was in any way divine.

I think you can be fairly sure that all monotheistic religions claim that any other possible conceptions of god(s) are contrary to their teachings. Judaism denies the divinity of Jesus, and Islam relegates him to the rank of ‘prophet’, rather than ‘son of God’. They have as much evidence - that is, statements in their own scriptures - as Christianity does for its truth claims.

Tablets from Babylonia, Acadia, and Sumerian and Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to be exact. And you’re basing your evidence from opinion? Still waiting for references and scientific proofs.

 

[Jesusaves777]

I strongly disagree with this. This overlooks a very simple reconciliation between the two “alternatives.” As I am wont to do, I will illustrate my point first with a (rather silly) analogy:

If God wants a fully decked Christmas tree, why should we assume that he would have to make, ex nihilo, a fully grown tree and then come back and create individual ornaments, tinsel, etc. with which to decorate the tree? Being all powerful, why could he not create a seed which would grow into a tree which would subsequently sprout ornaments, lights, etc?

Similarly, why are so many theists adamant that the emergence of life must have been an act of intervention into his creation? It takes nothing away from God to believe that He created the universe as a seed (or singularity, if you will) which then sprouted into a tree (the material universe) which then sprouted ornaments (lifeforms). In fact, this would be quite in keeping with the general theme of Scripture (the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed… ring any bells?) as well as the thought of many of the most prominent minds in both Judaism and Christendom, including Nachmanides and Augustine.

OK now the Christmas tree sprouting ornaments (Which I don’t know why that’s a silly analogy…I decorate Christmas trees.) Everything coming with the tree all together is the same silly explanation of evolution. God created everything separately based on the fact that everything has a specific purpose…I’m shocked you didn’t piece this together. The mustard seed is referring to faith, if there is another piece of scripture that mentions otherwise may I have it?

 

[Jesusaves777]

Perhaps because they were deeply indoctrinated in religious faith, and subscribed to the ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ concept put forward by the likes of Stephen J Gould. I note also that none on your list are evolutionary biologists…

Well, this sounds like an admission of divine irrelevance to me.

How’s that?

In keeping with my supposition above, Lord Kelvin did much of his significant scientific work prior to the publication of Darwin’s work.

And we’ve shown time and time again Darwin was wrong, and even admitted he might be wrong in the book, “Darwin’s black box”

And how much more amazed he might have been had he been able to study, as 20th and 21st-century microbiologists have, the evolution of various strains of bacteria…

The study is still essentially the same, “We don’t want to believe in God.”

Planck did not necessarily believe in a personal god - he might be considered more a pantheist than otherwise.

Sources? references?

Thompson, an Anglican, does indeed seem to have believed that the role of science was to elucidate the workings of God.

Sources? References? Even if the person agrees with God we still need the info.

Heisenberg’s ideas about religious faith seem to be quite interesting and very complex - although raised as a devout Lutheran, he questioned the idea of God as more transcendent than imminent, and the idea of mind and matter as separate entities.

Then he was given into the Cathar heresy, and sources? References?

Compton, a committed Presbyterian, seems to have appreciated quantum mechanics precisely because it allowed sufficient uncertainty to include God as a possible causal agent in the universe.

Sources? References? If there are none how are we supposed to believe this isn’t and invented story in your mind?

Born converted - probably in name only - from Judaism to Lutheranism due to socio-political pressure, it seems, and led a rather miserable life, also one subject to depression. Indeed, if he were at all inclined towards atheism, it might well not have been science that led him in that direction…

That’s not what this link to his biography says, it says nothing you had mentioned?
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1954/born-bio.html

Yes, it is a few - but there are plenty more who go the other way, especially in contemporary scientific circles. A couple of things need to be pointed out, of course - quoting a handful of scientists, eminent though they may be, with regard to their beliefs about God, does not constitute evidence of God - you’ll notice that none of the quotations you furnished stated that science actually demonstrates the existence of God, merely allows scope for some form of belief. Secondly, and as I intimated above, there’s a difference between an emotional attachment to a religious belief, stemming from childhood experience and familiar stories, and a belief that is thoroughly grounded in evidence (not merely not contradicted by the evidence). All the scientists you quote were raised in religious families; your argument would carry a lot more weight if you could demonstrate some significant number of atheists who were persuaded to religious belief by their scientific investigations…

There were a lot of atheists that were converted, and a lot of evolution teachers who became creationists because of the evidence. Incidently, If an atheist family were to raise their child to be an atheist, and secular schools teach them at a young age about evolution…wouldn’t it be the same? You keep wanted evidence of God, but yet we have yet to get any evidence from you not to mention references…How long are we going to hear your guesses, assertions and assumptions? One more thing, why do they call it free thought if an atheist family kicks their child out of their home for becoming a Christian? It’s happened.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Well, the discussion of evolution is a circular argument. Most of the Catholics on here have condemned the hypothesis or educated GUESS!

One of the regrettable results of having the topic of evolution banned on these forums – while still allowing the discussion of creationism and/or ID – is that it gives the false impression that Catholics don’t accept the ToE. If the Catholics here are anything like the Catholic respondents in this Pew survey, it would seem that that impression is mistaken.

I have given a lot of resources, but you still argue that evolution is possible with no credible proof, no references, and no studies. To me it is a dead subject.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else as I haven’t even attempted to defend the ToE in this tread. I just asked a question.

You can choose to believe whatever you wish, I just have a problem with lies in science, I love science. But this isn’t science against religion, this is religion against religion. As Dr. George Wald(a now deceased evolutionist atheist professor) said, “When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion – that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” - Scientific American, August, 1954. There are only 2 and there is no 3rd option, If you would like to start a thread on how old the earth is you can do that.

See this article for the context and a discussion of your quote from Wald.

Your question is a good one however, it doesn’t fit the discussion. That’s like someone coming in here and asking why do bad things happen to good people. Start the other thread and I will respond. Thank You!

Your refusal to answer that fundamental question is like someone wanting to have a discussion all about trout fishing while declining to offer an opinion on whether or not they live in the water. In any case, I wasn’t asking for a discussion of the age of the universe or Earth, I just asked for a number. It seems a waste of time to start a new thread just to save a few keystrokes here.

 

[Sair]

There were a lot of atheists that were converted, and a lot of evolution teachers who became creationists because of the evidence. Incidently, If an atheist family were to raise their child to be an atheist, and secular schools teach them at a young age about evolution…wouldn’t it be the same? You keep wanted evidence of God, but yet we have yet to get any evidence from you not to mention references…How long are we going to hear your guesses, assertions and assumptions? One more thing, why do they call it free thought if an atheist family kicks their child out of their home for becoming a Christian? It’s happened.

And presumably you have a detailed list of these converted atheists stashed away somewhere, to be revealed as a trump card if I went off and did some extensive social research on the subject and returned with statistics regarding the predominance of atheism amongst those with a scientific education…

For the most part, regarding the education of their children, most atheists (those who bother to speak up on the subject, anyway) would - at least, here in Australia - prefer to have comparative religion taught as a subject in school, as part of cultural and social education. That way, their children can make up their own minds.

What more evidence do you require, given the ongoing ‘temporary’ ban on discussion of evolution? You have the ability to read and research, I’d wager - not only that, but the ability to observe the natural world and see for yourself the truth of our relationship to the rest of life and to our environment.

 

[Sair]

Sair;10209263:

Tablets from Babylonia, Acadia, and Sumerian and Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to be exact. And you’re basing your evidence from opinion? Still waiting for references and scientific proofs.

A quotation from Jesus regarding his being ‘the way, the truth and the life’ recorded even before Jesus existed? That truly would be impressive. It’s one thing to have manuscripts or even stone tablets - it’s quite another to examine them for their reliability and historical value…

 

[prodigalson2011]

OK now the Christmas tree sprouting ornaments (Which I don’t know why that’s a silly analogy…) Everything coming with the tree all together is the same silly explanation of evolution.

A few things you should understand: evolution is not a new idea. It predates Christianity. The form of evolution that conflicts with Christianity is pure atheistic evolution. That is evolution wherein life was an accidental product which has reached its current level of diversity by mutation and natural selection. There are other theories of evolution.

God created everything separately based on the fact that everything has a specific purpose…

There is nothing to prevent things with different purposes from emerging from a common source. Look, here are the facts as best we can tell thus far: the universe began from a singularity, which exploded into a mass of energy. As that energy spread out, cooled and condensed it turned into hydrogen and helium, which make stars. These stars fuse hydrogen and helium into more complex elements, such as carbon (the element upon which life is founded), and as stars explode and release these elements, they coalesce into planets, solar systems, etc. Stars even produce some quasi-organic compounds.

Now, the thing to keep in mind is that the laws that govern all this behavior are immensely complex and sensitive. The slightest alteration in any of them would render this whole process moot. This is why the largest percentage of atheist scientists are evolutionary biologists and the largest percentage of religious scientists are physicists: the biologists are focused on one small phenomenon within the universe whereas physicists are looking at the big picture. And the big picture shows us a most staggeringly creative order that cannot possibly explain itself. There is no “natural” reason that the laws of nature should be what they are with the particular strengths/forces they possess. The universe looks, simply, like a set up. Because it is, of course!

But ultimately, we can observe these things happening (the stars making elements, specifically) and everything in the universe (including ourselves) is physically composed of these elements. It takes away nothing from God to say that he could design a universe capable of assembling the things he wants. It’s not like he wouldn’t know what was going to come of it. He is God after all. And that, of course, is where atheistic and theistic evolution must part ways. The diversity of life is not a chance or unintended development. For the theist, the dizzying array of lifeforms we see on Earth were all planted in the very foundation of the universe.

And as I said, something like the big bang theory (which was formulated by a Catholic priest, btw) and the theory of evolution has been postulated by numerous Judeo-Christian theologians/philosophers throughout history. Let’s start with St. Augustine (who is honored as a Doctor of the Church):

“Augustine draws out the following core themes: God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Using more technical language, Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation. The development of God’s creation is always subject to God’s sovereign providence. The God who planted the seeds at the moment of creation also governs and directs the time and place of their growth.”

Even more impressive is the Jewish Torah scholar Nachmanides, who was well schooled in the particular subtleties of the Hebrew language and ancient Jewish symbolism. His commentary on Genesis reads as follows:

…At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.

This is essentially a point for point summary of the scientific big bang theory, penned nearly 700 years before it would be developed. (And you’ll note, the theme of the mustard seed appears again.) For this is exactly what science has concluded: in the first seconds after the Big Bang, the universe was composed of formless energy which expanded and condensed into matter which then developed into the universe as we know it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m shocked you didn’t piece this together. The mustard seed is referring to faith, if there is another piece of scripture that mentions otherwise may I have it?

Consider the phrase: "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Yes, this was, in the literal sense, referring to the faith, but it also mirrors the way God works throughout salvation history: the term “mustard seed” is not used specifically, but throughout Scripture the theme of gradual development over time from very humble beginnings plays out constantly–he starts with one man (Abraham), one chosen people, and he gradually reveals Himself to men over time, finally coming physically into human history in the fullness of time. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always been an “evolutionary” faith in the sense that it starts small and grows more and more, just like the rest of God’s creation.

 

[Sair]

A few things you should understand: evolution is not a new idea. It predates Christianity. The form of evolution that conflicts with Christianity is pure atheistic evolution. That is evolution wherein life was an accidental product which has reached its current level of diversity by mutation and natural selection. There are other theories of evolution.

So as long as evolution potentially leaves some room for divine action (or, more accurately, perhaps, leaves something - anything at all - for God to actually do) then it’s perfectly acceptable to theistic believers.

We can happily ignore the fact that there is not - and has never been - any direct evidence for the actual hand of God playing a part in anything that has been observed to occur, or inferred to have occurred in the past, in the natural world. As long as God’s activity is not openly negated, theists can breathe a sigh of relief and continue to believe in a distant creator god with a long-term plan, an absentee father, or whatever concept best fits the present state of scientific elucidation…