Does evolution disprove God?

[whatistrue]

then wouldn’t the simplest interpretation of evolution lead to denial in the necessity of a creator?

No. Evolution is a change in life form(s), not creation ex nihilo.

 

[gama232]

There are some who think that evolution is a wind-up toy that God let go to do whatever “it” wanted.

Some think evolution was too complicated to explain to people living at the time the Bible was written. God could have said: “In ages long past, men looked like animals and lived like animals. But as time passed, men changed and became the men you are today.” But Jesus never said that.

Evolution, as explained today, is perfectly suited for atheists. With all due respect to atheists. For the Catholic Church, it’s a bit more complicated.

 

[IWantGod]

Evolution, as explained today, is perfectly suited for atheists.

Not really. Even if you take Christianity out of the equation, we still have a system in which goal direction exists and there are some traits which emerge that presuppose foreknowledge of an environment. All of this is taken for granted by the atheist, but nothing that science has revealed so far favours metaphysical naturalism or atheism.

 

[rossum]

there are some traits which emerge that presuppose foreknowledge of an environment.

No. Experiment shows that mutations are random. Some happen to be useful, others do not. Given the spread of different mutations in the population a few will be suited to any change, while the majority will not be suited. If you fire 1,000,000 arrows at random then a few will hit on or near the target. That does not show that those arrows were aimed.

 

[IWantGod]

No. Experiment shows that mutations are random

It’s irrelevant. If a trait emerges, random or otherwise, which presupposes an environment, then the existence of such a trait requires foreknowledge. If there is an environment that can in principle be sensed and that trait emerges then what difference does it make if the mechanism for that traits emergence is random? None whatsoever because the existence of the trait, even the mere possibility of it, presupposes an environment. This becomes even more obvious when a trait that presupposes survival emerges or when goal direction enters the system.

 

[rossum]

It’s irrelevant. If a trait emerges, random or otherwise, which presupposes an environment, then the existence of such a trait requires foreknowledge.

No. Mutations are random. Random. Some are advantageous for an increase in temperature. Some are advantageous for a decrease in temperature. Some are advantageous for an increase in rainfall. Some are advantageous for an decrease in rainfall. All those mutations exist in the current population. The advantage or disadvantage only becomes clear after the environment changes. If the temperature rises then that set of mutations is selected, by natural selection, because they suit the change. Other mutations for a fall in temperature are actively deselected. The appearance of foresight only comes because of hindsight and ignoring the mutations for the wrong change.

 

[IWantGod]

No. Mutations are random.

You’re ignoring what i said.

I see no benefit continuing this conversation.

God bless.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

I’m certainly glad that The Church says the theory of evolution can be explored as just that, theory.
And I’m glad that faith and reason go hand in hand.
One of the saddest things has been that the fossil record refutes
Darwin’s initial claims. But few are given the empirical evidence.
Yes, adaption & natural selection happen, however, the theory of evolution remains unprovable, with all the human logic given.
Yes, I realize the following citation does not give sources, but an overview, it seems to me the theory of evolution so accepted as some kind of ‘fact’ requires blind faith in fallible human logic.
However The Creator made each to it’s own kind, including humanity,
the truth is that there had to be an uncaused cause, an unmovable mover, and a non-contingent Being for our existence to make sense to me by faith and reason. Peace.

"The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible."

• source: http://vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html

 

[IWantGod]

The mere existence of sensory organs is enough for me to reject Atheism. It doesn’t matter if natural evolution is true or not.

Natural evolution doesn’t equal atheism.

 

[gama232]

Can you explain “natural” in natural evolution? I believe God has a direct causal role in the development of life, as does the Church.

 

[IWantGod]

Natural as in natures acting according to their nature without the interference of an intelligence. God gave them their nature so what difference does it make. The church doesn’t reject natural processes or that different kinds are the result of natural processes. The church, even saint Thomas Aquinas accepts the existence of secondary causes. God works his plan through those causes. It’s not either or for me.

 

[Freddy]

Natural as in natures acting according to their nature without the interference of an intelligence. God gave them their nature so what difference does it make. The church doesn’t reject natural processes or that different kinds are the result of natural processes. The church, even saint Thomas Aquinas accepts the existence of secondary causes. God works his plan through those causes. It’s not either or for me.

If God wants it to rain, He’ll make it rain. Ed however want to believe that God needs to specifically control each raindrop. There’s nothing natural in his world.

 

[gama232]

Thomas Aquinas writes that God works infallibly.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

 

[Freddy]

Thomas Aquinas writes that God works infallibly.

Could you give us an example of something in nature that is entirely natural?

 

[gama232]

I take the word “natural” to mean a ‘no God involved’ process.

 

[Freddy]

I take the word “natural” to mean a ‘no God involved’ process.

So give us an example of a natural process.

 

[gama232]

A volcano.

 

[Freddy]

So God makes no decisions as to when a volcano may erupt? He knows it’s going to and it’s what He wants but He doesn’t actively cause it.

 

[BlueMaxx]

*A scientist says to God, “Lord, we don’t need you anymore. Science has figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”

*“Oh, is that so? Tell me more,” replies God.

*“Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it and breathe life into it.”

*“Well, that’s interesting. Show Me.”

*So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.

*“Oh, no, no,” interrupts God. “Get your own dirt.”

 

[Freddy]

A scientist says to God that she’s going to harness the power of an erupting volcano to produce energy. And says: ‘We don’t need you to do this for us. It’s all going to happen naturally’.

And God says: ‘Fair enough. You’re right. The eruption is entirely natural. I don’t need to do anything’.

Random person: ‘Hey, this is a natural process. God doesn’t exist!’

Scientist: ‘You idiot. He made the volcano…’