In the context of the discussion you are right. I don't think empirically what you are saying holds up, but you are right from a philosophical perspective.

quote:

---

the evidence we use to show evolution has occurred also shows that we come from a common ancestor.

---

ok, apparently that was a hard question, lets try it another way:

is your position, that for the natural process of evolution allowing a species to change over time, even to the point of becoming a new species, to be true, a single common ancestor as the origin of life MUST also be true? that it is impossible to have a functioning evolutionary process without also having a single common ancestor?

a simple yes or no will suffice. i know that may be difficult, but please try hard

thank you. all i was trying to say is that regardless of the likelihood that either or both are true, they are not one in the same to the extent that if one is proven false the other fails as well. hence the necessity to clarify when one is asking if someone "doubts evolution" because someone could doubt one or both or neither and to keep a discussion productive we should avoid ambiguity in what we are talking about, because the process by which a species changes and the theory that describes how all life shares a common ancestor is not in fact one and the same.

quote:

---

In the context of the discussion you are right. I don't think empirically what you are saying holds up, but you are right from a philosophical perspective.

---

I think it may be somewhat inconsequential with respect to the theological implications of evolution. Whether life arose once or several times at around the same time, we are talking about evolution of the complex life we see today from relatively rudimentary forms of life which raises questions about human beings as being intentional or designed animals.

I agree. And I would actually think multiple lines of cellular evolution would suggest abiogenesis and multicellular life was easy and not unique. As it is, common descent still gives theists an opportunity for an argument from design.

quote:

---

quote:

---

the evidence we use to show evolution has occurred also shows that we come from a common ancestor.

---

ok, apparently that was a hard question, lets try it another way:

is your position, that for the natural process of evolution allowing a species to change over time, even to the point of becoming a new species, to be true, a single common ancestor as the origin of life MUST also be true? that it is impossible to have a functioning evolutionary process without also having a single common ancestor?

a simple yes or no will suffice. i know that may be difficult, but please try hard

---

it's possible, but that's not at all what we see. I don't get the point of talking about a hypothetical that isn't supported at all by the evidence. what are you trying to establish with this imaginary possibility?

quote:

---

it's possible, but that's not at all what we see. I don't get the point of talking about a hypothetical that isn't supported at all by the evidence. what are you trying to establish with this imaginary possibility?

---

I think it's important to point out. I think evolution is a legitimate process and also that the creation story in Genesis 1-2 should be taken "literally." One must not be a naturalist to believe in evolution as a process.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

the evidence we use to show evolution has occurred also shows that we come from a common ancestor.

---

ok, apparently that was a hard question, lets try it another way:

is your position, that for the natural process of evolution allowing a species to change over time, even to the point of becoming a new species, to be true, a single common ancestor as the origin of life MUST also be true? that it is impossible to have a functioning evolutionary process without also having a single common ancestor?

a simple yes or no will suffice. i know that may be difficult, but please try hard

---

it's possible, but that's not at all what we see. I don't get the point of talking about a hypothetical that isn't supported at all by the evidence. what are you trying to establish with this imaginary possibility?

---

what i'm trying to establish is that the two theories are distinct and not dependent on one another. therefore they one could logically and scientifically dissent from one and not the other. therefore, when asking if someone disagrees with evolution, and they ask you to clarify if you mean the natural process currently occurring, or the theory stating that all life comes from a single common ancestor, that it is not in fact a correct statement to say that "they are one and the same".

the point of talking about a hypothetical is to show the distinction between the two theories. if they were not distinct and independent, if one fails they both fail. all i'm attempting to do is show that this does not happen here. for the record, i have not at any point in this thread, said i doubt evolution.

quote:

---

One must not be a naturalist to believe in evolution as a process.

---

To be clear, is the definition of evolution in the above statement a natural process or a guided process? Again, I think there are enormously different implications in believing in a 'blind' evolution process guided by random mutation and natural selection vs an evolutionary process guided by God.

In my mind, the term evolution implies a natural process not explicitly guided by an agent with intention. Maybe I'm being too picky with the language, but I suspect that some of us might use the term evolution and mean very different things.

quote:

---

quote:

---

One must not be a naturalist to believe in evolution as a process.

---

To be clear, is the definition of evolution in the above statement a natural process or a guided process? Again, I think there are enormously different implications in believing in a 'blind' evolution process guided by random mutation and natural selection vs an evolutionary process guided by God.

In my mind, the term evolution implies a natural process not explicitly guided by an agent with intention. Maybe I'm being too picky with the language, but I suspect that some of us might use the term evolution and mean very different things.

---

All things are upheld and governed by God. There's no such thing as an unguided natural process. Perhaps you are thinking of natural vs. supernatural.

Put another way perhaps, are genetic mutations random or does God explicitly and intentionally modify genes from generation to generation?

How would one ever know if he did or didn't?

One wouldn't know. The best one can do is decide what they think is most likely.

quote:

---

Put another way perhaps, are genetic mutations random or does God explicitly and intentionally modify genes from generation to generation?

---

Admittedly, this was a leading question. What I care about are the implications of what you think evolution is. Did God drag biology through a 3.5 billion year evolutionary Rube Goldberg in order to create a species he could have blinked into existence? For what purpose? Why create creatures to kill them off? To suppose all of nature has intention in its design by God raises an endless supply of questions of God's intent to explain what we observe and I'm not satisfied not asking those questions.

Life seems to me to have taken a terribly inefficient and erratic path to get to human beings and to presume design here is something that I don't believe stands up to an application of Occam's Razor.

It's easier for me to believe that some things are random and unguided than it is for me to believe that an intelligent God guided life through a process which I cannot reconcile with intelligence or reason. It's easier for me to believe that the guinea worm evolved as an 'opportunistic' parasite than it is for me to believe that a God would create such a thing. It's easier for me to believe that children born with birth defects are unlucky rather than the recipients of a faulty genetic code explicitly and intentionally made faulty by God.

Admittedly I'm predisposed to skepticism of God and divine intervention. . . So maybe this is all my bias talking. Admitting bias is a good thing though, right?

To K2's point, I don't think I have any way to prove or disprove intelligent design in any form. I think we all try to reach the conclusions that we think are right and reasonable people can reach very different conclusions as this board proves. I think any conclusion that can be reached in these questions carries serious philosophical baggage, which is ultimately what I wanted to say here. I know that my conclusion does.

I thought this was going to be amusing, and here I find you guys having an intelligent, reasonable discussion without name calling or crockoducks.

quote:

---

Put another way perhaps, are genetic mutations random or does God explicitly and intentionally modify genes from generation to generation?

---

Of course God's purposes are intentional. From our perspective, things take a random path such as the spec of dust I see flying in front of me. But it does not take away the fact that it is upheld and governed by God. Creation is in the realm of "supernatural" - i.e. it did not occur according to natural laws.

quote:

---

Of course God's purposes are intentional. From our perspective, things take a random path such as the spec of dust I see flying in front of me. But it does not take away the fact that it is upheld and governed by God. Creation is in the realm of "supernatural" - i.e. it did not occur according to natural laws.

---

I apologize if it seems I'm being dense, but I still don't understand how far you take God's purposes. Your post above sounds very deterministic to me and I'm not sure I'm hearing you right.

Let me ask this: Jack has blue eyes, Jill has brown eyes, their child has blue eyes - did God guide the process of combination of genetic material to the level of determining the child's eye color? Or is it left to chance . . . Even if that means the outcome is based on probability in accordance with God's natural laws.

And one more: A bolt of lightning strikes a house and ignites a fire that burns the house to the ground. Did God direct that bolt of lightning at the house with the explicit intent of burning the house down? Or did God just create the natural and physical framework under which lightning is governed and then permit for chance and randomness to decide where and when lightning would strike?

There is no such thing as chance from God's perspective. In both cases, God ordained the color of the eyes and the lightning strike.

He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries. Ps. 135:7

Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain,
and a way for the lightning of the thunder:
27 then did he see it, and declare it;
he prepared it, yea, and searched it out.

So are you saying there is fundamentally no such thing as natural laws?

quote:

---

So are you saying there is fundamentally no such thing as natural laws?

---

Of course there is. If there weren't, we wouldn't be able to identify a supernatural occurrence.

But if everything is done by God, what's the difference?

quote:

---

There is no such thing as chance from God's perspective. In both cases, God ordained the color of the eyes and the lightning strike.

He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries. Ps. 135:7

Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain,
and a way for the lightning of the thunder:
27 then did he see it, and declare it;
he prepared it, yea, and searched it out.

---

I guess I have to respect your consistency here. Do you think this philosophy carries any baggage? I.e. Kids born with illnesses and birth defects were given said illnesses and defects directly and intentionally.

quote:

---

But if everything is done by God, what's the difference?

---

What's the difference between natural and supernatural? One can be expected according to natural laws and probabilities. The other transcends nature.

quote:

---

I guess I have to respect your consistency here. Do you think this philosophy carries any baggage? I.e. Kids born with illnesses and birth defects were given said illnesses and defects directly and intentionally.

---

To say otherwise would carry worse baggage: something is governing the world that is not beholden to God.

John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But if everything is done by God, what's the difference?

---

What's the difference between natural and supernatural? One can be expected according to natural laws and probabilities. The other transcends nature.

---

But natural laws aren't laws or natural if only maintained by supernatural desire.

That makes no sense. "Supernatural" only has meaning if "natural" is established.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I guess I have to respect your consistency here. Do you think this philosophy carries any baggage? I.e. Kids born with illnesses and birth defects were given said illnesses and defects directly and intentionally.

---

To say otherwise would carry worse baggage: something is governing the world that is not beholden to God.

---

You dodged the question. Is there baggage associated with your faith and, if so, what is it. By baggage I mean is there anything unsettling to you to believe that God creates suffering? You may look at this as being less nefarious than I do for your own reasons, but you can still find it unsettling.

Can we be punished by God for our predispositions if they are given to us by God?

I would agree, but you seemed to be arguing that there are no natural processes. Just degrees of supernatural intervention.

quote:

---

That makes no sense. "Supernatural" only has meaning if "natural" is established.

---

Then define the two terms. If natural process are entirely micromanaged by the supernatural, then they are not distinguishable from the supernatural.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I guess I have to respect your consistency here. Do you think this philosophy carries any baggage? I.e. Kids born with illnesses and birth defects were given said illnesses and defects directly and intentionally.

---

To say otherwise would carry worse baggage: something is governing the world that is not beholden to God.

---

You dodged the question. Is there baggage associated with your faith and, if so, what is it. By baggage I mean is there anything unsettling to you to believe that God creates suffering? You may look at this as being less nefarious than I do for your own reasons, but you can still find it unsettling.

Can we be punished by God for our predispositions if they are given to us by God?

---

No, it is not unsettling. Who am I, a man (much less one man with limited knowledge), to question God and his providence?

As to punishment, God is not the creator of evil nor does he make man sin. He is fully justified to punish man for their sins.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That makes no sense. "Supernatural" only has meaning if "natural" is established.

---

Then define the two terms. If natural process are entirely micromanaged by the supernatural, then they are not distinguishable from the supernatural.

---

natural: Of an emotion, reaction, event, etc.: naturally arising or resulting from, fully consonant with, or appropriate to the circumstances; predictable, understandable.

supernatural: Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature; attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

quote:

---

No, it is not unsettling. Who am I, a man (much less one man with limited knowledge), to question God and his providence?

As to punishment, God is not the creator of evil nor does he make man sin. He is fully justified to punish man for their sins.

---

A man that refuses to question authority is a slave.

Who created evil then? If not directly by God, was God unaware of how his actions as the creator of everything would unfold? Is there any doubt whatsoever that God expected man to sin? Or did he know his creation so poorly?

And explain how a natural process which is micromanaged by the supernatural can be called natural. I would say lightning is a natural thing. If your position is that God decides where the lightning bolts go, it is not a natural process by your definitions.