Does evolution disprove God?

[upant]

Genesis 1 aside, does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention show that there is no need for a creator or a God? Further does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis also lend support to the idea that God is simply not needed for systems to arise and evolve?

evolution is about change, changing what is here. evolution has never created anything. 2 separate issues.

evolution can not answer who created the inanimate substances in the first place?

IMHO, it takes more faith to believe these inanimate substances always were and will be.

 

[Freddy]

YHWH_Christ:

Genesis 1 aside, does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention show that there is no need for a creator or a God? Further does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis also lend support to the idea that God is simply not needed for systems to arise and evolve?

evolution is about change, changing what is here. evolution has never created anything.

What an odd view.

There weren’t dinosaurs and then there were. There weren’t birds and then there were. There weren’t humans and then there were.

 

[FiveLinden]

Evolution is the fact of living things developing into separate species. Theories of evolution are theories as to how this fact happens. Like the fact of gravity an the theory of gravity. Or the fact of water boiling at 100C at sea level and the theory of how it happens.

None of this has anything to do with how life began, or whether there is a God.

The facts of natural life and the pain and suffering experienced by almost all living things are difficult to reconcile with the idea of an all-loving god(s), especially if you believe almost all these being do not have immortal souls and the chance of eternal life, or reincarnation.

But this is an issue that goes to the nature of god(s) not their existence.

 

[upant]

There weren’t dinosaurs and then there were. There weren’t birds and then there were. There weren’t humans and then there were.

so you don’t believe in evolution? do you believe there was nothing before the dinosaur? the bird?

these creatures evolved from other forms and were not created

hasn’t there been an endless cycle of evolution.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There weren’t dinosaurs and then there were. There weren’t birds and then there were. There weren’t humans and then there were.

so you don’t believe in evolution? do you believe there was nothing before the dinosaur? the bird?

these creatures evolved from other forms and were not created

hasn’t there been an endless cycle of evolution.

Literally everything is made from existing material. But I think it’s stretching the language to say that therefore nothing is ever created.

 

[Gorgias]

does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention show that there is no need for a creator or a God?

Note that your assertion doesn’t point to “physical systems naturally and spontaneously coming into existence”, so … no.

Further does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis also lend support to the idea that God is simply not needed for systems to arise and evolve?

“Growing amount of evidence”? From where? What evidence?

Again, even if abiogenesis were true, you’d have to show that the underlying strata from which live emerged was created by some “natural process”, right?

 

[rossum]

Genesis 1 says “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” Abiogenesis describes that process of bringing forth. Evolution describes the further development of the initial life.

The only problem that arises is with a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis. Many other interpretations are possible.

$0.02

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

No it doesn’t.
Pope Pius XII stated in Humani Generis that Catholics can believe in Evolution and study it. Pope St John Paul II stated that evolution is more than a mere theory, and Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have voiced similar opinions.
Ludwig Ott dedicated a chapter in his study on creation in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma to discussing evolution and what the Church Fathers thought of it, and surprisingly many of them accepted the hypothesis that God created many creatures as primitive seeds that later developed into something else (which is similar to evoolution).
Fr. John Hardon SJ also dedicated part of the chapter dealing with creation on evolution in The Catholic Catechism on discussing Church teaching, and he noted similar opinions as Ott, namely that by itself it does not contradict Christian theory on creation. He also noted that St Augustine, although a creationist, was open to the theory that the creation of man could have been the end result of a long process, like a child forming in the womb.

Catholics are required to abide by the following beliefs:
God created the universe out of nothing;
He created man in His own image
the creation of the soul was a single act (Humani Generis)

How God created man’s body, and process He followed, is open for debate.

 

[1ke]

does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention

That’s not a fact. That’s a hypothesis.

And not a very good one.

show that there is no need for a creator or a God?

All of the order in the universe points in the direction of Creator.

does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis

Growing amount of evidence? Um. There is no evidence.

Something out of nothing. Life out of non-life. Those hypotheses are in no way capable of denying the existence of God.

 

[Tstarzyk2491]

Hey Neighbor,

Not in the least bit. I truly feel for people that believe existence came from a “Big Bang.” Maybe it was God clapping his hands together and saying, “Time to make some friends.”

God is, was, and will always be. Although our Bibles (B.asic I.nstructions, B.efore, L.eaving, E.arth) indicate an Adam and Eve, did God ever say that they did not look like the Neanderthals or Denisovans being found? Or are they perhaps just a distant animal relative even? We know that people have been increasing exponentially in overall mass (height and girth) since Biblical times.

We need to also be concerned with the “de-evolution” of our hearts and minds.

Hope this helps.

-Tom (believer/ science teacher/ scientist)

 

[upant]

Literally everything is made from existing material. But I think it’s stretching the language to say that therefore nothing is ever created.

in evolution it is slow-change; not, nothing before but here today…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[farronwolf]

Evolution happens, there is no debate on that. Humans have evolved. We are taller, bigger than we were thousands of years ago.

Were there human like creatures on the earth before we came along, yes. Were there some on the earth the same time we were here, most likely. Is there a difference between us and them, yep.

At some point, God gave humans a soul, and set us apart from the rest of the animals that were on this earth.

There is nothing contradictory about this from a religious or scientific standpoint. Both beliefs can exist together.

 

[IWantGod]

Genesis 1 aside, does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention show that there is no need for a creator or a God? Further does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis also lend support to the idea that God is simply not needed for systems to arise and evolve?

These things do not happen via particular acts of divine intervention. But it shouldn’t bother you that there are systems that evolve naturally, because there can be no such thing as those systems without there being a nature commonly understood to be God. These systems are dependent on God for their continued existence and the possibility of their natures regardless. In a very general sense the laws of physics have been designed, not the objects that are evolving. And teleology is evident throughout nature in that we see organisms acting toward a goal.

So there is design, but not in the manner that has been popularised in these debates.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Devil’s advocate here. Isn’t that just a “God of the gaps” argument? Or perhaps moving the goal post?

 

[YHWH_Christ]

That’s not a fact. That’s a hypothesis.

And not a very good one.

No it is a fact at this point. A simple inquiry into this subject will yield mountains upon mountains of results. I don’t feel the need to debate you here as this sort of knowledge is easily accessible and those who deny this are either ignorant or afraid or both.

All of the order in the universe points in the direction of Creator.

I don’t disagree with you there. After all I am a theist. I posted this question because something like evolution seems to point in the other direction ontologically.

Growing amount of evidence? Um. There is no evidence.

Something out of nothing. Life out of non-life. Those hypotheses are in no way capable of denying the existence of God.

Once again you can easily look this up for yourself. Granted, unlike evolution, abiogenesis is indeed still a hypothesis and not fact but the evidence for it is mounting and a growing number of scientists hold to it. It has been demonstrated in a lab that the conditions of early Earth allowed for the appearance of the building blocks of life, and of course since then a lot more evidence has been discovered. Research at your own expense.

 

[1ke]

No it is a fact at this point.

No it isn’t a fact. There is absolutely no FACT that can prove God is not involved in the creative and evolutionary process. God is outside of time and nature, but acts on both.

You are stating it as a fact, but it is an assumption only.

those who deny this are either ignorant or afraid or both.

I’m neither.

None of the science precludes God. None of the science can disprove God.

You are making a leap where you should not. The evolutionary processes can certainly be created by and guided by God.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

No it isn’t a fact. There is absolutely no FACT that can prove God is not involved in the creative and evolutionary process. God is outside of time and nature, but acts on both.

You are stating it as a fact, but it is an assumption only.

I never argued that at all. You’re talking past me. Evolution is a proven fact. Whether God created evolution and allowed for humans to appear from it is outside of science.

I’m neither.

None of the science precludes God. None of the science can disprove God.

You are making a leap where you should not. The evolutionary processes can certainly be created by and guided by God.

Correct. But science can have philosophical interpretations. Although evolution by no means disproves God it seems to lend support to there being no God or at least God not being necessary. Science cannot observe God’s Providence, you’re correct. But science can observe nature. And we know that nature can and does evolve on its own. Maybe evolution was rigged by God. But that cannot be proven. What must be shown then is that natural processes like evolution cannot lend support to atheism even if they seem to. That is what I am here for.

 

[IWantGod]

Isn’t that just a “God of the gaps” argument?

No, because a nature with the attributes we commonly give to God is required in order for there to anything rather than nothing at all. This is to say that God is required for there to be such a thing as natural processes; the possibility is dependent on God. It’s an ontological requirement, not an alternative to a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Or perhaps moving the goal post?

Moved from what? It was never a requirement of Christian belief to think that organisms are designed. That is a popular idea, but it was never dogma.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Moved from what? It was never a requirement of Christian belief to think that organisms are designed. That is a popular idea, but it was never dogma.

Just because it isn’t dogma doesn’t mean it doesn’t interfere with belief in God. Before evolution at least some form of creationism was held by most theologians that involved that of organisms. Not that Genesis 1 was taken literally, it wasn’t but that’s a different topic that I am not discussing. I guess my real problem here is if God does exist (which I firmly believe he does) then shouldn’t we expect creationism? Instead what we observe is a naturalistic world that makes it look like there is no God. Sure you can reconcile evolution with God, but if I’m not abusing Occam’s Razor here, then wouldn’t the simplest interpretation of evolution lead to denial in the necessity of a creator? If you chalk it all up to Providence well we have no proof for that, that’s a philosophical interpretation that seems (notice the word seems) to have more assumptions with it.

 

[Genesis315]

Matter and the physical and chemical laws would still need their origin in God. The difference between an theist and an atheist is narrow, once you understand that atheism is really just pantheism. The question is boiled down to whether the principle by which the cosmos came into being and/or is sustained in being is a distinct, self-actualized, self-sustaining substance (God) or the cosmos itself is this self-actualized, self-sustaining substance.

The issue brought up in the OP does not in any way negate the idea the the materials engaged in those systems and processes (and in fact the very laws by which they operate and interact) are sustained by such a distinct substance (God). In fact, they provide further evidence of God, since they show the cosmos to be a composite of finite substances with potentiality and actuality, even at the basic levels of matter and energy, rather a perfectly simple, self-actualized substance.