In his article "Darwin, Mind and Meaning" (a good read, I might add), Alvin Plantinga makes the following comment: "There is nothing in current evolutionary science to show or even suggest that God did not superintend evolution."
Now, it's part of a longer argument, so I won't take issue with it, but it got me to thinking: what of it if someone claims that 'evolution' was God's method of creating; what do we make of that; was it? (or more accurately, is it, as evolution, according to the standard theory, remains underway).
I do think there is ample material in the Bible to say that God did not use evolution.
A quick run down:
The obvious one: evolution requires that kinds of organisms derived from other kinds over great periods of time. God says he made them by speaking 'and it was so' on a day, which indicates the contrary.
Evolution requires that one kind of organism gave rise to another. In Genesis 1 we are told that to the contrary, God created each kind to reproduce after its kind: not after some other kind. (See also this article).
Evolution requires that what is was made out of what is seen. Hebrews 11:3 denies this: By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Evolution requires great globs of time between the start and man's appearance. Jesus tells us that God made us male and female from the beginning. Evolution also has it that the first few million years creatures were asexual.
Evolution tells us that the spectrum of animals came into existance over great periods of time, and not all together. Genesis 1 tells us they came all together: on day 6 (even if not in a 'day', it certainly portrays them as coming all together, as Adam named them all together).
Evolution tells us that first there was nothing, then everything: that's how Dawkins can be an 'intellectually fulfilled atheist'; God tells us he was, then he spoke, and light (energy) came to being.
Evolution tells us there is no purpose; God tells us his acts were purposeful.
Evolution starts and ends with the material; God starts and ends with love.
So, what was God's method of creation? Speaking!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I do think there is ample material in the Bible to say that God did not use evolution.
I agree. There's nothing in the Bible about evolution.
Since evolution is the only scientific explanation for the history of life, and since evidence from molecular biology and genetics has proven the basic facts of evolution beyond any doubt, it's fair to say the Genesis story in the Bible is pure fiction.
It's very obvious to biologists that God had nothing to do with the history of life. There's still no consensus on how the first living cells developed, but every scientist working on this problem agrees it was a natural process.
If God was not needed to create life (He wasn't needed at all), then it's fair to say God was probably not necessary for anything else. Thanks to Darwin's beautiful and simple natural selection idea, and thanks to the hard work of tens of thousands of scientists who came after Darwin, it's fair to say God is an obsolete invention. Darwin was the man who killed God. I say good riddance. The world as described by science is thousands of times more interesting than God's magic.
Bob you are dreaming.
As usual for an evolutionist you make sweeping statements, yours about biologists which I know you cannot support. Consider:
Dr Ian Macreadie a highly regarded Australian researcher in the fields of molecular biology and microbiology. Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
He believes in Biblical creation, therefore your seeping statement is wrong. Look him up!
Dr George L Gabor Miklos, evolutionist, wrote 'We can go on examining natural variation at all levels... as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion but, we still only end up with bed bugs brachioprod and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels.' 'Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution; perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism Mem. Assoc. Australis. Palaeontols 15, p. 25, 1993.'
Dr Michael Denton molecular biologist and evolutionist wrote a book called 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis' in which he described evolution of microbe to man as: 'A highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence...' p.358
They sorta shoot you down Bob, and there's many more.
You write;
'It's very obvious to biologists that God had nothing to do with the history of life. There's still no consensus on how the first living cells developed, but every scientist working on this problem agrees it was a natural process.'
So you are saying that every scientist who agrees its a natural process believes the appearance of life was a natural process! Wow!
Hey Bob,
If no one knows how the first cells developed, can you scientifically prove to me now that it was a natural process?
Hey John, Bob 'knows' that life arose by natural causes because he 'knows' there is no supernatural God. Too easy.
It is very revealing as to the 'logic' of the evolutionist mind.
Remember when I posted a quote from a scientist friend for Healy- he simply rejected it out of hand, not upon any scientific basis, but because the quotee was a creationist.
We say Creationists are scientists too but that does not compute because of their programming. The thinking is-science is about evolution, evolution is the foundation of science so by this 'logic' a creationist who claims to be a scientist is by definition not a scientist because he/she rejects evolution.
It's like this-someone decides dogs are black therefore even if it has four legs, and a tail, barks, smells like a dog, looks like a dog it isn't a dog because it isn't black.
Are you too dumb to understand this John?
Bob seems to have been another hit and run merchant. Maybe I am being unkind; he may be away for a while.
He did make one relevant point though, that being: if evolution is true then Biblical creation is a dud. This point seems lost on our T/E friends who feel you can adapt parts of a Godless system, and make it 'Christian' by squeezing a little (precious little) of God in here and there.
They don't seem to get the point that evolution at its core is anti-Biblical. Bob, I believe, would see theistic evolution as an unnecessary and unworkable compromise, just as we do.
I do hope we hear from Bob again.
BTW Healy reacted angrily at my suggestion that he had scarpered however considerable time has elapsed and he hasn't accepted my challenge.
Maybe he's away with Bob! Maybe Bob is Roberta, his girlfriend, with whom he has been very busy?
Post a Comment