Do you believe in evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And none of that evidence, so far as I have been able to determine, denies God.
Did God create human beings? Evolution says “no”. Humans emerged from a random process. Are humans ontologically different (a different kind of being) from animals? Religion says Yes, evolution says No. Evolution claims that humans are animals that were modified by mutations. Thus, the human soul is the product of natural processes, and that denies God’s creation of the soul.
Is God necessary in the development of life and of human life? Evolution says “no”.
 
Last edited:
You’re exaggerating
I am most certainly not. Let’s see:

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention.”
FALSE

" The theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered over time, like an impossible perpetual motion machine."
FALSE

" The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental truth about the tendency towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention."
FALSE

" The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the result of the intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in quantum mechanics"
FALSE

" The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the [atheistic] Theory of Evolution and Theory of Relativity"
FALSE

That article is the product of total, unmitigated ignorance. The only thing the author gets right, he gets right by accident, in the same way that a broken clock occasionally shows the correct time. And just as the clock is still broken, the author of that article still doesn’t know anything about the topic: he’s merely parroting words that he doesn’t understand.
 
Last edited:
Is it bad that I’m agnostic on evolution and couldn’t care less?
 
I’m a Mechanical Engineer with nearly thirty years of experience, and can absolutely assure you that the conservapedia take on the Second Law (item #3 at the link you provided) is a work of mind-boggling ignorance. Whoever wrote it hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s talking about.
My favourite creationist take on the Second Law comes from a blog. The poster is frustratingly close to a correct understanding but just misses by inches:
“One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.”

Source: God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From? | Page 6 | Smashboards
Yes there is such a source. Yes scientists know about it. That source explains short-term and temporary local entropy decreases on Earth. You supply energy to a fridge to locally decrease entropy by cooling. An external energy supply can decrease entropy, as the poster correctly says.

This piece is sometimes quoted as “N perngvbavfg nyzbfg qvfpbiref gur Fha”. ROT13 to discover the answer.
 
There are a few errors in your characterization of what evolutionary theory states.
1 - Evolution does not say that God was not involved; it only describes the process, but does not necessarily insist on randomness. Evolution cannot speak to God either pro or con as God is outside the theory and of science as a whole.
2 - Evolution says absolutely nothing about the soul as it, like God, is outside its area. God and souls cannot be measured by Man and so are not proper subjects for science.
3 - Evolution does not deny the necessity of God to human development, nor does it affirm His necessity. God is simply not part of the theory as God cannot be measured and is therefor not a subject that any science as we know it today can investigate.
 
Is it bad that I’m agnostic on evolution and couldn’t care less?
Well, a simple faith in God and obedience to His Church is sufficient - so not bad in itself. But if you have the capability, it’s essential for your theology to understand what evolutionary scientists are claiming these days. Many promote a belief in atheism, using evolution as evidence against God.
 
1 - Evolution does not say that God was not involved; it only describes the process, but does not necessarily insist on randomness. Evolution cannot speak to God either pro or con as God is outside the theory and of science as a whole.
Evolution either describes the process correctly or it does not.
If God was necessary to the process, but evolution explains the process without God, then evolution is false.
2 - Evolution says absolutely nothing about the soul as it, like God, is outside its area. God and souls cannot be measured by Man and so are not proper subjects for science.
Evolution claims to give a full explanation of the origin of human beings.
The soul is an essential element of a human being.
Evolution explains the origin of a human being, without referencing this essential element.
Therefore, evolution’s explanation of the origin of human life is false (since all humans possess a soul, an essential characteristic of human life, without which we cannot understand what a human is).
3 - Evolution does not deny the necessity of God to human development, nor does it affirm His necessity. God is simply not part of the theory as God cannot be measured and is therefor not a subject that any science as we know it today can investigate.
Evolution gives a theory for the development of all life on earth.
Here, you are saying that “God is not part of that theory”. So, God is not necessary in the development of all life on earth.

Otherwise, as I believe - God is necessary and since evolution claims to understand the development and creation of human life, without God being a part of it - then evolution is wrong.
 
Last edited:
If God was necessary to the process, but evolution explains the process without God, then evolution is false.
A Hindu scientist might consider that Vishnu was necessary to the process of evolution. What evidence do you have to show that such a scientist is wrong?
 
Here, you are saying that “God is not part of that theory”. So, God is not necessary in the development of all life on earth.
Is God necessary for planes to fly? Because aerodynamics doesn’t mention God as part of that theory at all. So do planes fly because angels lift their wings?
 
I don’t think Pope Benedict XVI supported intelligent design as in the “Intelligent Design” pseudo-science movement, which argues (iirc) that there is no natural cause for some adaptations of species. B16 supported teleology, of course, and encouraged that as a powerful argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer, with which all Catholics should agree. Modern biology of course can never support that kind of teleology in its methods, but it is extremely difficult not to use teleological language to explain natural selection (aka teleonomy), a difficulty which in itself supports the classic argument.
 
Last edited:
A Hindu scientist might consider that Vishnu was necessary to the process of evolution. What evidence do you have to show that such a scientist is wrong?
I’ll expect the Hindu scientist to explain why he has drawn that conclusion. Vishnu has done something, and here … are the good reasons to accept that claim. I evaluate those reasons, and use counter-evidence from what we know of God’s involvement in nature.
That’s how it works.
 
Is God necessary for planes to fly? Because aerodynamics doesn’t mention God as part of that theory at all. So do planes fly because angels lift their wings?
You think you can have planes without God?
 
Certainly not from a theistic standpoint, so applying what you said about evolution above that means scientific understanding of aerodynamics, as it doesn’t mention God, must be wrong. So why do planes fly?
 
A Hindu scientist might consider that Vishnu was necessary to the process of evolution. What evidence do you have to show that such a scientist is wrong?
What is Vishnu? We need some kind of rational coherence. Vishnu is either a kind of being in the world or is not. If not, it is either a necessary being or not. If not, then disregard as it’s irrelevant.
 
Certainly not from a theistic standpoint, so applying what you said about evolution above that means scientific understanding of aerodynamics, as it doesn’t mention God, must be wrong.
A human being is ontologically different than an artifact manufactured by humans. Agreed? God is necessary to explain the direct causation of human beings - the soul.
It would be like claiming to explain the development of airplane flight without explaining the origin of aircraft engines.
 
Last edited:
What is Vishnu? We need some kind of rational coherence. Vishnu is either a kind of being in the world or is not. If not, it is either a necessary being or not. If not, then disregard as it’s irrelevant.
So, where is your evidence that Vishnu is either necessary or contingent?

We know that God does not always create directly, He can use indirect methods: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” All that evolution does is to explain a part of that bringing forth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top