Asks Wintery Knight: Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 23, 2018

Intelligent Design, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here is the PR / spin definition of theistic evolution:

Evolutionary creation is “the view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.” This view, also called theistic evolution, has been around since the late nineteenth century, and BioLogos promotes it today in a variety of religious and educational settings.

And here is the no-spin definition of theistic evolution:

As Dr. Stephen Meyer explains it, the central issue dividing Bio-Logos writers from intelligent design theorists is BioLogos’s commitment to methodological naturalism (MN), which is not a scientific theory or empirical finding, but an arbitrary rule excluding non-material causation from the outset. “Unfortunately,” Meyer writes, methodological naturalism is a demanding doctrine. The rule does not say “try finding a materialistic cause but keep intelligent design in the mix of live possibilities, in light of what the evidence might show.” Rather, MN tells you that you simply must posit a material or physical cause, whatever the evidence.

What this means, according to BioLogos’s own epistemology, is that God is objectively undiscoverable and unknowable—a tenet that sits squarely at odds with Christian orthodoxy, which has for centuries held that God is clearly discernible in the natural world (e.g., Romans 1:20).

…

And for the record, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the standard Big Bang cosmology, and a 4.5 billion year Earth. My problem with evolution is not Bible-based, it’s science-based. If the science shows the need for intelligent causes, and I think it does, then I think that the naturalists need to adjust their assumptions and pre-suppositions to match the evidence. We have blog posts and computer science code, that’s evidence for a programmer. We have DNA and proteins and sudden origin of body plans, that’s evidence for a programmer, too. More.

We hope no one deludes himself that, in a contest of this type, orthodoxy is going to prevail.

File under: Church closers.

See also: Tyler O’Neil: Three views on origins supported by the text of the Bible

and

Faith and Science — the Confused View of the United Methodist Church

Comments

Allan:
Since the question from BA77 wasn’t about ID, I fail to see the relevance of your comment.
Of course you don't. You also ignored the first part of my comment because it exposes you as a hypocrite.ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Allan:
If god set things in motion, including the mechanisms necessary for evolution, and didn’t intervene after that, then there is no conflict with the modern understanding of evolution.
Nonsense. If God set the mechanisms necessary for evolution in motion then they are telic processes. Evolutionism only deals with non-telic processes.ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

BA77: So Allan, why are you yourself an atheist?

Allan Keith: In short, I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest the existence of an all loving, all knowing god. And with regard to the bible, even if god exists, I refuse to worship any being who would do, instruct to be done, and allow to be done, some of the things that are written in the bible.
So Allan, for you it is the Christian God or no God at all? Put another way, for you to reject Christian claims about God's character implies that there is no God at all. I find that puzzling. Why is that?Origenes_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

SB,
Let’s break it down. If God is responsible for Creating life *as he intended it to be,* (through an evolutionary process), then if follows that the process us must unfold in a way that reflects those intentions.
That’s not quite what I said. If god set things in motion, including the mechanisms necessary for evolution, and didn’t intervene after that, then there is no conflict with the modern understanding of evolution. If he set it in motion with a single immutable direction, purpose, outcome, then there is a conflict.Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

BA77,
AK, you listed emotional reasons, not a logical reason. Please reread the question and try again.
Read again pal. My first sententence said that I am an atheist because I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest a god. My subsequent comment was directed towards the Christian god described in the bible and why I would refuse to worship that sadistic being if he actually existed. Resolve that first comment and we can talk about the rest. Until then, the rest of my comment is based on an astronomically improbable hypothetical (that god exists).Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

ET,
And ID doesn’t require the existence of an all loving, all knowing god.
Since the question from BA77 wasn’t about ID, I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Again.Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Jack- Read comment 87 and buy a vowel.ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith, When I ask for a logical reason for why you are an atheist, I was not looking for you to list your emotional and moral grievances against God. I was looking for you to list something more akin to one of these 'logical' arguments on this following site:
Different reasons for being an atheist http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/beliefs/reasons_1.shtml
Those arguments all fail for one reason or the other, but at least they are attempts to logically defend, not emotionally defend, what is logically indefensible, namely atheism. On the other side of the coin, here are some fairly solid arguments for God that are, unlike arguments for atheism, not so easily refuted:
20 Arguments For God’s Existence - Dr. Peter Kreeft 1. The Argument from Change 2. The Argument from Efficient Causality 3. The Argument from Time and Contingency 4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection 5. The Design Argument 6. The Kalam Argument 7. The Argument from Contingency 8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole 9. The Argument from Miracles 10. The Argument from Consciousness 11. The Argument from Truth 12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God 13. The Ontological Argument 14. The Moral Argument 15. The Argument from Conscience 16. The Argument from Desire 17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience 18. The Argument from Religious Experience 19. The Common Consent Argument 20. Pascal's Wager http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/
And here is Plantinga's list:
Table Of Contents for TWO DOZEN (OR SO) ARGUMENTS FOR GOD: THE PLANTINGA PROJECT (the book is due out Summer 2017) I. Half a Dozen (or so) ontological (or metaphysical) arguments (A) The Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness) • Lorraine Keller, Niagara University • "Propositions Supernaturalized" (B) The Argument from Collections • Chris Menzel, Texas A&M • "The Argument from Collections" (C) The Argument from (Natural) Numbers • Tyron Goldshmidt, Wake Forest • "The Argument from (Natural) Numbers" (D) The Argument From Counterfactuals • Alex Pruss, Baylor University • "Counterfactuals, Vagueness and God" (E) The Argument from Physical Constants • Robin Collins, Messiah College • "The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability" (F) The Naive Teleological Argument • C. Stephen Evans, Baylor University • "An Argument from Design for Ordinary People" (H) The Ontological Argument • Elizabeth Burns, Heythrop College • "Patching Planting’s Ontological Argument by Making the Murdoch Move" (I) Why is there anything at all? • Josh Rasmussen, Azusa Pacific; and Christopher Gregory Weaver, Rutgers University • "Why is There Anything?" II. Half a dozen Epistemological Arguments (J) The argument from positive epistemic status • Justin Barrett, Fuller Seminary • "Evolutionary Psychology and the Argument from Positive Epistemic Status" (K) The Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability • Alex Arnold, The John Templeton Foundation • "Is God the Designer of our Cognitive Faculties? Evaluating Plantinga’s Argument" (L) The Argument from Simplicity and (M) The Argument from Induction • Bradly Monton, Independent Scholar • "Atheistic Induction by Boltzmann Brains" (N) The Putnamian Argument (the Argument from the Rejection of Global Skepticism)[also, (O) The Argument from Reference and (K) The Argument from the Confluence of Proper Function and Reliability] • Even Fales, University of Iowa • "Putnam's Semantic Skepticism and the Epistemic Melt-Down of Naturalism: How Defeat of Putnam's Puzzle Provides a Defeater for Plantinga's Self-Defeat Argument Against Naturalism" (N) The Putnamian Argument, (O) The Argument from Reference, and (P) The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument from Plus and Quus • Dan Bonevac, University of Texas • "Arguments from Knowledge, Reference, and Content" (Q) The General Argument from Intuition. • Rob Koons, University of Texas at Austin • "The General Argument from Intuition" III. Moral arguments (R) Moral Arguments (actually R1 to Rn) • David Baggett, Liberty University • "An Abductive Moral Argument for God" (R*) The argument from evil. • Hud Hudson, Western Washington University • "Felix Culpa!" IV. Other Arguments (S) The Argument from Colors and Flavors • Richard Swinburne, Oxford University • "The Argument from Consciousness" (T) The Argument from Love and (Y) The Argument from the Meaning of Life • Jerry Walls, Houston Baptist University • "The God of Love and the Meaning of Life" (U) The Mozart Argument and (V) The Argument from Play and Enjoyment • Philip Tallon, Houston Baptist University • "The Theistic Argument from Beauty and Play" (W) Arguments from providence and from miracles • Tim McGrew, Western Michigan University • "Of Miracles: The State of the Art and the Uses of History" (X) C.S. Lewis's Argument from Nostalgia • Todd Buras, Baylor University and Mike Cantrell • "A New Argument from Desire" (Z) The Argument from (A) to (Y) • Ted Poston, University of South Alabama • "The Argument from So Many Arguments" V. "Or so": Three More Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument • William Lane Craig, Houston Baptist University • "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" The Argument from Possibility • Brian Leftow, Oxford University • "The Argument from Possibility" The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature • Bruce Gordon, Houston Baptist University • "The Necessity of Sufficiency: The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature"
Of related interest. Don't feel bad AK, even many elite scientists haven't really thought through the exact reasons for why they are an atheist and/or agnostic in the first place.
Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists - November 8, 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,, What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,, The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism. Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars. https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/elite-scientists-dont-have-elite-reasons-for-being-atheists/
bornagain77_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

To StephenB: I throw a die and it comes up 6. This is obviously a chance event from our human perspective. How is God involved in this event, if at all? 1. Did he cause it to come up 6? Was it according to his will that it be 6? Are these different questions? 2. In respect to 1, if he did cause it to come up 6, in what way do we understand how he did that? Is he actively choosing the outcome of every chance event, or is he usually, or sometimes, or his he present in all natural events? 2. If he wasn't involved, was it just a chance event that happened through natural processes in which God was not involved? That is, do truly chance events happen regularly outside of the scope of God's will or activity in the world? 3. If God had desired it to come up 5, could he have changed the course of events which led to it coming up 6? 4. In the case of 3, would it be correct that it looked like a chance event to us, but was not because God actively chose to have it be a 5? More broadly, how do you understand God's role in the world, everyday, in respect to chance events? Is his will manifested in all, some or none of them. And if some or none, does not that imply that God is present in the world only some of the time, and otherwise lets the world go, in a deistic fashion, the rest of the time? What do you think?jdk_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I know all that. It's just the way you worded the question. I mistook your intent behind the question. I thought you might be trying to defend the TE position, not take it apart as you subsequently, in fact, did.bornagain77_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

Bornagain
StephenB, since all of science is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend that intelligibility (i.e. presuppositional apologetics), then is necessarily follows that God does not need Darwin’s theory, but that Darwin’s theory, in order to be considered remotely scientific, is absolutely dependent of God.
Bornagain, I agree that the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise is based on principles of rational intelligibility and the human capacity to to comprehend it. However, when I say that God cannot be reconciled with Darwin, I am referring not to Darwin's attempt to do science but rather with the claims made by his theory and their possible relationship with God's creative intent. According to Darwin, naturalistic forces, acting alone, can produce life as we know it, but the outcome of that process is an *accident.* By virtue of its randomness, the NeoDarwinian mechanism cannot guarantee a desired outcome. Hence, it is inconsistent with any evolutionary process that God might use to guarantee the one and only outcome He wants. It is not logically possible for a purposeful mindful God to use a purposeless, mindless process to achieve his *specified* ends. The Darwinian mechanism cannot specify. To put it simply, you can't guarantee the specified (desired) outcome of an evolutionary process if that same process is open to producing many other outcomes. This is basic logic. For more details, please read my comment to Allan @90.StephenB_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith
SB, sure they can coexist. But that depends on your definition of god. If he is a being responsible for designing and creating all major species,or kinds, then they are not compatible. If god was responsible for creating life and the mechanisms necessary to allow for the evolution of life, then it is compatible.
Let's break it down. If God is responsible for Creating life *as he intended it to be,* (through an evolutionary process), then if follows that the process us must unfold in a way that reflects those intentions. In other words, the process, to produce the Creator's apriori intent, must close off all other outcomes, inasmuch as it is designed to produce on and only one outcome. Darwinian evolution cannot exclude outcomes because it random nature allows it to produce any outcome that chance will produce. Thus, any evolutionary process that guarantees God's specific intentions cannot be a Darwinian process, which cannot guarantee any outcome at all.StephenB_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Scuzzaman @ 87 Nice reply and nicely done.ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

AK, you listed emotional reasons, not a logical reason. Please reread the question and try again.bornagain77_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

"They believe that God’s creative power is present in every moment." jdk: God says he stopped creating after six days. Now who should a Christian believe? Hostile atheists who openly proclaim their intention to destroy Christianity, or God? This is not a trick question ... if you don't believe God, you're not a Christian. Psalm 118:9 It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes. Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.ScuzzaMan_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Allan:
In short, I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest the existence of an all loving, all knowing god.
There isn't any evidence for materialism, either. And ID doesn't require the existence of an all loving, all knowing god.ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Allan is even more confused:
So, you think that describing someone as either very, very, very stupid, or a liar is nuanced?
You either didn't read what Barry wrote or you didn't understand it. Either way you have proven that there is no sense continuing the discussion.ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

BA77,
So Allan, why are you yourself an atheist?
Thank you for asking. I will answer, although I suspect that you will resort to calling me insane because of some paper you quote mine that suggests that there is a higher incidence of mental illness amongst atheists. In short, I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest the existence of an all loving, all knowing god. And with regard to the bible, even if god exists, I refuse to worship any being who would do, instruct to be done, and allow to be done, some of the things that are written in the bible. Those things would make Hitler look like an altar boy (which he was).Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith is totally confused:
Nobody is talking about evolutionism.
Wrong again. That is the subject of the OP. Darwinian evolution is evolutionism. You have absolutely no clue, do you?ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

So Allan, why are you yourself an atheist? Can you pinpoint an exact logical reason for your atheism other than your emotional bias? Before you answer that question, please note that a logical choice demands that you have the free will necessary to make that logical choice, i.e. to 'logically' reject God you must presuppose the Theistic presupposition of free will.,,, An Atheist is, in reality, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
"Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter Photo – an atheist contemplating his 'mind' http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
bornagain77_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the support, Allan. And re 73, Stephen: FTR, I did address the OP, at 11. I know my response isn't accepted here (or even properly understood), but I think I presented a view that many TE's would find lots to agree with.jdk_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

ET,
Allan Keith is just confused. Evolutionism does NOT allow for “god was responsible for creating life and the mechanisms necessary to allow for the evolution of life”.
Nobody is talking about evolutionism. We were talking about evolution, which says nothing about origin of life.Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Then your objection collapses in on itself. That was exactly the point you were claiming lacked nuance.
So, you think that describing someone as either very, very, very stupid, or a liar is nuanced? If that is your stand, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Have a nice weekend.Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith states. "I am not trying to defend jdk’s point with respect to Newton" Then your objection collapses in on itself. That was exactly the point you were claiming lacked nuance. As ET pointed out, you read the first line then apparently did not read any further to the rationale behind Barry's reasoning for calling jdk a liar about Newton's position. It seems to me you just want to make some kind of moral argument about Barry and Newton. But even that is ludicrous since, as an atheist, you lack any objective basis for morality. Thus, you fail on two counts in your objection.bornagain77_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

StephenB, since all of science is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend that intelligibility (i.e. presuppositional apologetics), then is necessarily follows that God does not need Darwin's theory, but that Darwin's theory, in order to be considered remotely scientific, is absolutely dependent of God. This fact is born out by the fact that Darwin's book, Origin, and all major books on evolution since Darwin's book, are heavily infused with liberal Theistic presuppositions about what God would and would not do in this universe. The theory, since it has no empirical basis, nor law of nature, to appeal to, would literally implode without that false theological basis:
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
bornagain77_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Allan:
Barry claimed that the only options to explain jdk were that he was very, very, very stupid, or that he is a liar.
And then an explanation ensued. As I said Allan has reading comprehension issues.ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith is just confused. Evolutionism does NOT allow for "god was responsible for creating life and the mechanisms necessary to allow for the evolution of life". An evolutionism that is OK with telic processes isn't evolutionism, which is all about non-telic processes.ET_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

SB, sure they can coexist. But that depends on your definition of god. If he is a being responsible for designing and creating all major species,or kinds, then they are not compatible. If god was responsible for creating life and the mechanisms necessary to allow for the evolution of life, then it is compatible.Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Meanwhile, no one has addressed my points about why God and Darwin cannot logically co-exist, which is the subject of this thread.StephenB_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

BA77, maybe we should go right to the definition of nuance. Nuance: a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound. Barry claimed that the only options to explain jdk were that he was very, very, very stupid, or that he is a liar. There is nothing nuanced about Barry’s argument. I am not trying to defend jdk’s point with respect to Newton. Frankly, I don’t care. What Newton believed or how Dawkins behaves is completely irrelevant. Newton couldn’t have an informed opinion about the modern theory of evolution because he died centuries before it was presented. If you are trying to argue that evolution is cast into doubt because of the behaviour of one or two individuals, then you have to accept the same link with regards to how a hand full of christians behave. For example, by all accounts, Newton was a completely reprehensible and vindictive man. On top of that, he did not believe that Christ was god. Not exactly a good role model for Christianity.Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply