How Evolution is Strengthening My Faith

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Right now, I'm taking an environmental science class to satisfy one of my college credits.  It's sort of a cross between biology and ecology, and we've discussed evolution and natural selection quite a bit.  Please don't make fun of me for this, but I really don't see why there's such a controversy between creationists and evolutionists.  Evolution, at its simplest level, does not disprove creation or the existence of God in ANY way.  If anything, I believe that it is evidence in favor of those things.  I believe that anybody who suggests that God created every species the way it is today is almost insulting God by suggesting that He wouldn't have the foresight to give His creation the ability to adapt in order to increase their chances of survival.  We don't know how many species existed at creation, nor do we know what those species looked like.  We don't know what Adam and Eve looked like either. 

And for those who claim that evolution is the origin of all life: you can't get something out of nothing.  You can't have species evolution if you don't already have species in existence.  And as for the "primordial ooze" theory, how does something nonliving (like primordial ooze) become living?  It defies logic and the basic laws of science.  Plus, the odds of species forming like that by chance are so astronomical that they're pretty much impossible.  Simply put, evolution may result in the formation of new species, but it doesn't explain how their ancestors were created.

[© tweed]

And for those who claim that evolution is the origin of all life: you can't get something out of nothing.  You can't have species evolution if you don't already have species in existence. 

you're arguing against a brick wall here.  evolution and abiogenesis are two entirely separate things.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Evolution, at its simplest level, does not disprove creation or the existence of God in ANY way. 

It's not God, but certain religious cosmologies that evolution is a challenge to. Simply put, anyone who believes the geophysical record of fossils and their interrelation via evolution simply cannot accept a cosmology that puts the physical age of the Earth at under not only one myriad years (10000 y), but even one myriad squared years (100,000,000 y).

A literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be reconciled with science.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I dread what will happen to you in this thread.

[Kitteh]

The sad thing is, this is probably the most intelligent oldiesfreak post yet.

[John Dibble]

Yes, evolutionary theory doesn't disprove the notion of a deity in a broad sense, though it does go against some religious beliefs. I will note though that evolution is not a nice or pretty process - it involves a lot of death, and much of it isn't quick or painless. It doesn't seem like the kind of process a loving deity would want to use, IMO.

And as for the "primordial ooze" theory, how does something nonliving (like primordial ooze) become living?  It defies logic and the basic laws of science.  Plus, the odds of species forming like that by chance are so astronomical that they're pretty much impossible.  Simply put, evolution may result in the formation of new species, but it doesn't explain how their ancestors were created.

In regards to life on Earth, the theory is that there was a single ancestor from which we all descended. Studies on abiogenesis have been gradually filling in the gaps into how life could have formed - we know that organic molecules, which in today's Earth only can form via organic means, can be formed from non-organic materials in what is thought to be the conditions of early Earth.

In regards to chance, that's not really a problem. To use an analogy, the chances are low that any given lottery ticket will have the winning numbers, but if you have enough people buying tickets and enough drawings then probability becomes inevitability and someone will win. If the laws of the universe allow for abiogenesis to occur, then the universe simply needs to be big enough that the probability becomes inevitability. If a given planet has the conditions for life to arise, even with low probability of it happening in an individual area of the planet if enough of the planet's surface has the right conditions then the probability of it happening increases. Given the sheer number of galaxies, stars, and planets in the universe there's bound to be a large number of planets with the potential, so by sheer brute force of numbers some planets are going to win the abiogenesis lottery if abiogenesis is allowed by the laws of the universe.

It should also be noted that abiogenesis also doesn't dispute the notion of all possible deities - it still allows for the possibility of a creator deity that made the universe with laws that allowed abiogenesis to occur.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, evolutionary theory doesn't disprove the notion of a deity in a broad sense, though it does go against some religious beliefs. I will note though that evolution is not a nice or pretty process - it involves a lot of death, and much of it isn't quick or painless. It doesn't seem like the kind of process a loving deity would want to use, IMO.

A universe in which free will operates is one in which pain will occur. There is no avoiding it.  Now if God was interested in smiling automatons then he could certainly keep us from ever experiencing pain.  But we're not automatons (or at the very least we're automatons programmed to think we have free will, which from our perspective is a distinction with no difference.)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Evolution, at its simplest level, does not disprove creation or the existence of God in ANY way. 

It's not God, but certain religious cosmologies that evolution is a challenge to. Simply put, anyone who believes the geophysical record of fossils and their interrelation via evolution simply cannot accept a cosmology that puts the physical age of the Earth at under not only one myriad years (10000 y), but even one myriad squared years (100,000,000 y).

A literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be reconciled with science.

Interesting that you mention that, because most people in my church believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that theistic evolution isn't possible.  I beg to differ, and honestly, I think the whole controversy over the age of the Earth is irrelevant, because if God wanted to create the world in six literal 24-hour days, He could have, and if he wanted to create it over millions of years, he could have done that, too.

[John Dibble]

Yes, evolutionary theory doesn't disprove the notion of a deity in a broad sense, though it does go against some religious beliefs. I will note though that evolution is not a nice or pretty process - it involves a lot of death, and much of it isn't quick or painless. It doesn't seem like the kind of process a loving deity would want to use, IMO.

A universe in which free will operates is one in which pain will occur. There is no avoiding it.  Now if God was interested in smiling automatons then he could certainly keep us from ever experiencing pain.  But we're not automatons (or at the very least we're automatons programmed to think we have free will, which from our perspective is a distinction with no difference.)

If free will was something necessary to a deity and pain was a necessary evil to allow it, then I would think a loving deity would choose a system in which pain is kept to a minimum. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. I would expect any deity who chose it as a system to manage life to be more indifferent than loving and merciful.

[DemPGH]

If anything, I believe that it is evidence in favor of those things.  I believe that anybody who suggests that God created every species the way it is today is almost insulting God by suggesting that He wouldn't have the foresight to give His creation the ability to adapt in order to increase their chances of survival.  We don't know how many species existed at creation, nor do we know what those species looked like.  We don't know what Adam and Eve looked like either. 

Well, we run the risk here of making the world fit our myths rather than our myths fit the world. This relates to the god of the gaps which Neil Tyson gave a wonderful presentation on; unfortunately, there are so many humorous tangents and so many digressions unique to his performance style that a 10-minute presentation became a 40-minute one. It's on Youtube somewhere. The idea is that as we learn more about the world the responsibilities that the "sages" have assigned to God over the centuries shrinks and shrinks.

Does that disprove God? Nope. But it makes us question assumptions about what God did or did not do.

And for those who claim that evolution is the origin of all life: you can't get something out of nothing.  You can't have species evolution if you don't already have species in existence.  And as for the "primordial ooze" theory, how does something nonliving (like primordial ooze) become living?  It defies logic and the basic laws of science.  Plus, the odds of species forming like that by chance are so astronomical that they're pretty much impossible.  Simply put, evolution may result in the formation of new species, but it doesn't explain how their ancestors were created.

Well, they started running experiments on this about 50 years ago. Comets and asteroids (chondrites) brought water and organic compounds; they form great bonds with carbon. Add about 450,000 to 600,000 years in the primordial, charged atmosphere of Earth and the idea is that life emerged.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If free will was something necessary to a deity and pain was a necessary evil to allow it, then I would think a loving deity would choose a system in which pain is kept to a minimum. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. I would expect any deity who chose it as a system to manage life to be more indifferent than loving and merciful.

What reason do you think that there could be an alternative that would cause less pain and still allow for the operation of free will?  What alternative do you propose that a loving God should have employed?

[John Dibble]

If free will was something necessary to a deity and pain was a necessary evil to allow it, then I would think a loving deity would choose a system in which pain is kept to a minimum. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. I would expect any deity who chose it as a system to manage life to be more indifferent than loving and merciful.

What reason do you think that there could be an alternative that would cause less pain and still allow for the operation of free will?  What alternative do you propose that a loving God should have employed?

I have a lot of ideas that would take too long to go into, but most simply you could reduce pain by changing numerous rules about how the universe works in regards to life. For instance, perhaps the rules of  how life operates could be changed so that various germs couldn't cause horrific diseases.

Also, question for you - why is the existence of pain necessary for free will to exist? Sure, you might remove choices that result in pain, but that doesn't preclude other choices from existing.

[minionofmidas]

What Ernest said.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If free will was something necessary to a deity and pain was a necessary evil to allow it, then I would think a loving deity would choose a system in which pain is kept to a minimum. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. I would expect any deity who chose it as a system to manage life to be more indifferent than loving and merciful.

What reason do you think that there could be an alternative that would cause less pain and still allow for the operation of free will?  What alternative do you propose that a loving God should have employed?

I have a lot of ideas that would take too long to go into, but most simply you could reduce pain by changing numerous rules about how the universe works in regards to life. For instance, perhaps the rules of  how life operates could be changed so that various germs couldn't cause horrific diseases.

How do you change those rules to accomplish your goal of no disease?  I asked you how to accomplish the goal of less pain, but you provided no specifics as to how to accomplish that, but merely moved to a different goal without providing any method of achieving it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if the choices are between joy and great joy, is not in that situation doing something that causes another to merely have joy instead of great joy the infliction of pain?  Conversely, if we can choose between causing another to suffer agony instead of great agony, is not that an easing of pain? Pain is a relative value, not an absolute one.  Hence any choice we make that has consequences will have the potential to inflict or to ease pain.  If there is no possibility of pain, there are no consequences and hence no choice.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

To add on what Ernest is saying, I don't think the existence of pain implies an unloving God at all.  After all, Christians believe that God allowed Himself to experience great agony, in human form, through the Crucifixion.  Indeed, the Christian worldview gives pain meaning - particularly, the opportunities it provides for us to appreciate more, love more, and help more.

[John Dibble]

If free will was something necessary to a deity and pain was a necessary evil to allow it, then I would think a loving deity would choose a system in which pain is kept to a minimum. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. I would expect any deity who chose it as a system to manage life to be more indifferent than loving and merciful.

What reason do you think that there could be an alternative that would cause less pain and still allow for the operation of free will?  What alternative do you propose that a loving God should have employed?

I have a lot of ideas that would take too long to go into, but most simply you could reduce pain by changing numerous rules about how the universe works in regards to life. For instance, perhaps the rules of  how life operates could be changed so that various germs couldn't cause horrific diseases.

How do you change those rules to accomplish your goal of no disease?  I asked you how to accomplish the goal of less pain, but you provided no specifics as to how to accomplish that, but merely moved to a different goal without providing any method of achieving it.

First, do you deny that there being no disease would mean less pain? How is that a different goal, exactly?

Second, I don't know how to fundamentally change the laws of the universe and life as we know it. I'm presuming that a deity capable of creating universes to its liking does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Joy is not pain, so less joy is simply less joy. Even so, choices would not simply be limited to more or less joy, as choices could have equal value - like choosing between to dishes you like off of a menu. Also, feeling something like 'regret' or some other emotion that might be considered painful due to making the lesser choice is a matter of the human condition, and is not necessarily intrinsic to the question of free will as a sapient species could conceivably not have those emotions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's only easing pain if they are experiencing less pain than before as a result of your decision. If they are were experiencing less or none at that point, then you're increasing pain to a lesser degree than the other option.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how that logically follows. If I have a choice between cake or pie, choosing one has the consequence of not having the other, but I wouldn't necessarily feel pain of any sort at not having the other.

[© tweed]

even if we accept that pain is the necessary flip-side of free will it does not follow that we live in the best of all possible worlds, which an ommibenevolent deity would have an 'obligation' to create.

[compson III]

It's obvious that pain is not inherently bad.  This is the is-ought problem.  We observe nature avoiding pain (pain is a signal) and haplessly try to derive our notion of bad from it.  Why should we assume that the best world has a minimal amount of pain?  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, do you deny that there being no disease would mean less pain? How is that a different goal, exactly?

No, I don't deny it would mean less pain, assuming it were possible without causing other problems.  Eliminating disease is different from your original goal in that it is one specific method of providing for less pain. Yet even by switching to this more limited goal, you have not gotten any closer to providing a solution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why presume that?  You've asked me why I consider pain a necessary adjunct to free will and I've explained why.  On what basis do you presume that there is a possible universe in which it is not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's only easing pain if they are experiencing less pain than before as a result of your decision. If they are were experiencing less or none at that point, then you're increasing pain to a lesser degree than the other option.[/quote]

Would not your example imply that there is a third option to do nothing that would be an even more beneficent choice a being with free will could make?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how that logically follows. If I have a choice between cake or pie, choosing one has the consequence of not having the other, but I wouldn't necessarily feel pain of any sort at not having the other.
[/quote]

Even if you personally feel no pain, there is the possible pain of someone else being denied the option because you took the last piece of cake or pie.  Plus, since pie and cake do not share all the same ingredients, your choice affects the demand for those goods.  Consistently picking cake might mean that an apple farmer makes less money.  Consistently picking pie might mean an extra pig has to be slaughtered to provide the necessary lard for use as shortening. While the choice of cake or pie on one particular occasion has fairly minimal consequences, it cannot be said to be totally without them.

Also I think you are misjudging what it means to be omnipotent.  To quote from C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain: "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."