Evolution a Farce?

[anthony022071]

That being so, the human race can be a mistake (under one aspect), & be willed by God (under another). You’re supporting my point. Thank you ​

No,I’m not supporting you’re point. Firstly,there’s a difference between “unintended by man” and “mistake”. And if something is willed by God to exist,it is irrelevant if it was unintended by man,and impossible for it to be truly a mistake. The creation of man can’t be a mistake if it was intended by God. The fact that we did not intend to exist does not make our existence a mistake.

Except that this is poorly phrased: “mistake” implies intention, & the universe has no intention; besides which, it is an abstraction. But the sense is clear enough.

The universe doesn’t have intention of itself,but it is intended by the Creator.

It’s not, nor did I say it was: randomness is not the same as the or an idea of randomness.​

The fact of randomness can’t produce creatures either.

Neither do we see reality as God does - so where we see randomness, God sees purpose:He is the Author of it all, after all. Unless God is not purposive. So, evoliution can be “random” within our vision of reality, & “not-random” in God’s.

By that same phenomenalistic reasoning,what appears to scientists to be “evolution” can be God’s creative activity,rather than self-acting natural processes. So looking for evidence of natural selection and randomness producing creatures would be the wrong approach,since divine providence is causing creatures to come into being.

The very idea that randomness can produce creatures must be ruled out. If the idea doesn’t make sense,then it doesn’t make sense to propose in a scientific theory that it happens in nature.

 

[The_Barbarian]

No,I’m not supporting you’re point. Firstly,there’s a difference between “unintended by man” and “mistake”. And if something is willed by God to exist,it is irrelevant if it was unintended by man,and impossible for it to be truly a mistake. The creation of man can’t be a mistake if it was intended by God. The fact that we did not intend to exist does not make our existence a mistake.

If you want to learn why contingency is consistent with divine providence you might want to read what your Pope wrote about it.

The universe doesn’t have intention of itself,but it is intended by the Creator.

That’s a remarkably sensible statement. Well done.

The fact of randomness can’t produce creatures either.

Two good ones in a row. Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random.

Neither do we see reality as God does - so where we see randomness, God sees purpose:He is the Author of it all, after all. Unless God is not purposive. So, evoliution can be “random” within our vision of reality, & “not-random” in God’s.
By that same phenomenalistic reasoning,what appears to scientists to be “evolution” can be God’s creative activity,rather than self-acting natural processes.

“Self-acting natural processes” are God’s creative activity. Laws aren’t locked-in automatons; they are God acting consistently in the world.

So looking for evidence of natural selection and randomness producing creatures would be the wrong approach

It’s an extremely useful approach, precisely because God acts in a consistent manner in nature. It’s been able to explain a great deal about life on Earth.

The very idea that randomness can produce creatures must be ruled out. If the idea doesn’t make sense,then it doesn’t make sense to propose in a scientific theory that it happens in nature.

Random change and natural selection demonstrably does happen in nature. But you should find that acceptable, since God is indeed behind all of it.

 

[anthony022071]

If you want to learn why contingency is consistent with divine providence you might want to read what your Pope wrote about it.

I already read about it. He wasn’t talking about mistakes.
He’s against that idea.

“But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before.” (“In the Beginning…”)

Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random."

That’s not a great discovery.
Few people before Darwin would have said that species originated through randomness. Few people believed in evolution for that matter.

“Self-acting natural processes” are God’s creative activity.

Natural processes can’t be self-acting if God is acting through them.

Laws aren’t locked-in automatons; they are God acting consistently in the world.

God’s creative activity is not a matter of laws,but of will and calling into existence.

It’s an extremely useful approach, precisely because God acts in a consistent manner in nature. It’s been able to explain a great deal about life on Earth.

No one can demonstrate that God acts in a consistent manner in nature.

Random change and natural selection demonstrably does happen in nature. But you should find that acceptable, since God is indeed behind all of it.

If God is active in natural processes,randomness is not a factor and nature is not selecting.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
If you want to learn why contingency is consistent with divine providence you might want to read what your Pope wrote about it.

I already read about it. He wasn’t talking about mistakes.
He’s against that idea.

If I roll dice, the outcome isn’t a mistake, but it’s contingent. God is perfectly capable of producing contingent processes, even irreducibly random ones. Doesn’t make them mistakes.

Barbarian observes:
Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random."

That’s not a great discovery.

One of the greatest in science.

Few people before Darwin would have said that species originated through randomness.

Quite a few did.

Few people believed in evolution for that matter.

No, that’s wrong. By Darwin’s time, many scientists realized that some sort of evolution must have happened. Darwin’s discovery was the mechanism by which it worked. Even that was vaguely anticipated by some; Darwin rigorously applied the idea and demonstrated that it was true.

“Self-acting natural processes” are God’s creative activity.

Natural processes can’t be self-acting if God is acting through them.

Nothing in the universe is actually self-acting; all depend on God’s creation. But He doesn’t move the clouds around by hand, and He doesn’t zap a mutation when needed.

Barbarian observes:
It’s an extremely useful approach, precisely because God acts in a consistent manner in nature. It’s been able to explain a great deal about life on Earth.

No one can demonstrate that God acts in a consistent manner in nature.

If He did not, science (and plumbing) would be impossible.

Barbarian observes:
Random change and natural selection demonstrably does happen in nature. But you should find that acceptable, since God is indeed behind all of it.

If God is active in natural processes,randomness is not a factor and nature is not selecting.

The problem for you, is that you are unwilling to let God be as capable as He is.