I don’t see any problem with that. Even if the chances are just, let’s say, 1 in 1 million years, in terms of geological deep time this is irrelevant. What does it matter if life arose 3.826 or 3.827 billion years ago?
But you are stating that you KNOW it is true. And what if the chances are 1 in 10^39000 years? Then do you know it is true? Geological time seems long, but take a look at the probabilistic resources available (time is part of the equation, obviously), even in a best case scenario. I suggested reading Signature in the Cell. The focus is not on probabilistic resources, although it is mentioned. In fact, it’s not even about why evolution is wrong - but rather why design offers a better scientific explanation. Even if you disagreed with the conclusions, you would get a lot out of it since (I gather) you are in the biology business, whereas I’m in the electrical engineering business and can’t appreciate some of the biology references.
You are dead wrong here. Evolution does increase information, e.g. by the very ordinary process of gene duplication and then mutating the duplicated gene, and subsequent natural selection.
You seem immune to my point.
Natural selection does not make any new information. Do you agree with this or not?
Random mutations can in theory make new information, but natural selection by itself cannot. Do you agree with this or not?
None necessarily. I cannot exclude that God intervened here and there, but there is no scientific basis for the assumption that this had to be so.
So my example of someone who can tell you the day of the week for a given date thousands of years in advance, without even thinking about it, evolution is responsible for that?
Common ground. At last!
Why should God constantly intervene in a process that He created that does not need intervention?
Why should a music composer sometimes wish to be the orchestra conductor?
Of course God cares about us, and our soul is a special creation by God. But why do you need constant intervention for the material processes that made our bodies? Why would God have to intervene constantly only to show He cares?
I “need” constant (or non at least non-random) intervention because e.g. selective breeding works better than [random mutations + natural selection.] It’s the only way to get from dust to us in 4 billion years.
And if God never intervenes as you suggest, well, what does that suggest? Genesis 1 certainly suggests a God that intervenes. As does all of the Bible.
You seem to have a pretty anthropomorphic view of God.
anthropomorphic
adj : suggesting human characteristics for animals or inanimate things
No, I definitely don’t suggest that God is an animal or inanimate thing. Are you trying to insult me?
If so, you’ll need to try harder
However, I do suggest some Godlike characteristics for humans. “Image and likeness of God.” Life is practice for heaven. God made us like him for a reason (and I suppose, limited our omnipotence for a different reason).
So God also planned precisely for our particular parents to meet through all contingencies in life, and He performed a detailed mixing of our parent’s genes at the moment of conception?
We have free will, and much of what we do, with associated consequences, is our own doing. But yes, there are some circumstances in my own life in which I believe God did intervene. Have you ever thought about your own life, and looked back with “almost” 20/20 vision? Of course, if you don’t believe there’s anything to be seen, you won’t see anything regardless. And of course, everything I might mention could just be dismissed as a coincidence.
If you really want to adhere to such a theology, it makes an explanation of the problem of evil awfully hard. If God did such precise mixing, why didn’t He repair all the nucleotides in our DNA responsible for genetic diseases while He was at it?
The question of why God allows there to be evil in the world has hamstrung a lot of folks. Personally, I believe that God allows evil because without actually seeing evil, how can we appreciate “good?” Knowledge of “good” requires that there be an evil to contrast it with - and choose between. And evil acts offer opportunities for us to grow in love. If everything were hunky-dory all the time, we’d have lots fewer opportunities to grow in love.
To espouse such a ‘puppet-on-a-string’ theology would be very dangerous indeed. It would also make the concept of free will difficult, by the way.
God allows us to do evil, so that a greater good can come of it (if not for ourselves, then for someone else.) It does not make the concept of free will difficult, rather, if there were no evil, then free will would become meaningless.
Another book that I found to be very good is “Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence” - TAN books. The saints who wrote it make a case that God in fact is responsible for everything that happens to us - be it either by an act of his active will, or an act of his permissive will. But…everything that happens to us, or others, is in some way for our benefit. Defective DNA included.
