This blog posits that belief in evolution equates to atheism. The reasons boil down to the simple fact that while some theists may also choose to believe in evolution, nobody has come up with a theology that in any way makes sense. How can a personal God use evolution as a tool when it is apparently so random? How can a loving God use evolution when it promotes competition and bettering ourselves by experiencing and avoiding pain? How did sin enter the world if animals were around before the Garden of Eden, and what purpose does Jesus serve in an evolutionary context? What does it mean to have a spirit if animals were around, living and dying, before sin? These are the topics of some of the blogs I have links to.
Here is a theory that allows theists (well, Christians, anyway) to hold theism and evolution: Evolution is the Devil's tool, not God's.
Let us imagine a cosmic battle between Good and Evil (Isa. 14:13,14 and Revelation 12:4), and a wager, that Good could overcome Evil. To this end, Good said to Evil, construct a system of your own design, and I will show that it can be defeated. So Evil thought up evolution -- a means by which ordinary molecules would aggregate and build bigger and more complex bodies. They would eat each other. They would hurt each other. En route they would become sentient, even to the point of recognizing the existence of God, and shortly after such an acknowledgment, they would choose to ignore God -- the definition of sin. (Give somebody free will for long enough and sin's bound to happen eventually). Evolution was Evil's fool-proof plan to demonstrate that molecules could, through natural means, someday transcend their basic chemical interactions and imagine and then discredit God.
Along the way, however, these molecular assemblies of bodies also learned love and Goodness. However, humans continued to show an incapability of avoiding sin. To show that love and Goodness could overcome such inherent evil, God took the form of humanity, experienced a sinless life, and death, the complete human experience. This proved that Evil could be overcome, and now we humans can get that sinless life when we ask for forgiveness and Jesus to live through us.
Can Polkinghorne top this simple theory?
Only Physics Computes
1 year ago
13 comments:
Another though;
There is as much evidence for an evil god as a good one.
In other words all the arguments against the problem of evil work just a well if you invert them.
I don't find any of them persuasive which ever way they are used.
This is not my idea - I will pop back with a link when I am on a proper computer with cut and paste
Regards Psi
x thought x
Here you go - fill your boots;
God of Eth
Thanks for the God of Eth link, Psi. I'll have to keep Stephen Law on my blogroll!
I'm finding inverting the hypothesis a great thing to do in much of science.
There are a couple more from Law here on the meaning of life which are relevant to Cliff's current comments.
Regards,
Psi
Hi Tom,
Well, that is a good story. And maybe neither Polkinghorne nor the rest of us Christians stumbling towards eternity can come up with a “better” stand-alone story. But I think the point is that our “stories” are not stand alone – they are just part of a larger narrative. Our musings on science / theology are constrained by some pretty broad themes revealed by God in the scriptures. That is, creation is ultimately “from God” (not from Evil) and it is “good” (but not necessarily perfect).
Hi Steve.
Thanks for your input. As much as "love = God", a theist also has the equation "life = God". I was raised that evil (which somewhat becomes problems raised by evolution if you are a theistic evolutionist) manifests itself as "effects of sin". A theistic non-evolutionist can simply say that these alterations to life -- disease, predator-prey, pain, etc. -- are just evil, and examples of the way that the devil mucks with God's perfect creation. It's a way of easily keeping the theology intact. Theistic evolutionists open themselves up to these contradictions that I have not been able to reconcile, and that is why I am curious about your opinion and related blogs.
The problem with assuming supernatural intervention is that you cannot possibly know what the capacities/limitations are for each supernatural power. What support is there that the devil cannot create life? As an evolutionist, do you think there was a supernatural involvement from molecules becoming RNA to transcribe proteins to then becoming DNA that translate RNA to transcribe proteins to then cells that contain DNA that translate RNA to transcribe proteins for the cell to then multicellular bodies?
You see, "life" becomes a sort of squishy thing with evolution. If it is natural for elements to form molecules of uracil, adenine, cytosine, and guanine that then form RNA which can then form DNA to form itself, etc. then there is no need for a supernatural. If you want to say that the devil cannot create life, then why can the devil morph molecules to create viruses, or modify one element of DNA to create cancer, but can't modify a purine to become an adenine to roll into RNA and spawn life?
As an evolutionist, do you think there was a supernatural involvement from molecules becoming RNA to transcribe proteins to then becoming DNA that translate RNA to transcribe proteins to then cells that contain DNA that translate RNA to transcribe proteins for the cell to then multicellular bodies?
As a Christian who accepts evolution, no I do not imagine there is need for a miraculous unnatural leap to get to the earliest "replicating" thing which probably looked a great deal different then even the simplest base life form we have today. But then again, if I were standing over said puddle with my microscope and saw the first chemicals form in such a manner that they began to replicate, this might look like the "supernatural" creation of life, how would I know the difference? As far as a "need" for God, it isn't on the level of the creation of "life" (put in quotes because where you define life at the level of the simplest replicating molecular chains is problematic), but on the development of consciousness. Oh yes, I fully accept my own consciousness is fully encapsulated within my physical brain. Nor am I implying some supernatural inserted soul that allows for consciousness, I accept the animal kingdom has varying levels of consciousness with our closest relatives being the most advanced. But as far as my own personal credibility goes (which is certainly no apologetic), it just seems to mind boggling to assume I am sitting here thinking, typing, and communicating, and it is also just the accidental chemical interactions of molecules with basically no outside purpose. Ie, while I accept a "natural" explaination for the development of consciousness, it only feels right if directed by a higher power with this goal in mind.
Does this answer any of your theological questions? Certainly not. And even if I could convince someone that there must be a God that is still a far shot from identifying that God as the one described in the Bible. My acceptance of those facts are based in my own perceived relationship with Jesus and admittedly some simple unevidenced faith. Recognizing this last part, I won't judge you for leaving Christianity, though I hope in the future to make more certain the reality of the triune God, both for myself and those around me.
Thanks for your comment, Pete. Your view seems to be that of intelligent design (little "id", not capital ID) as other theistic evolutionists express.
What is your take on the "Evil Evolution Hypothesis" that I have proposed?
Speaking of inverting philosophical hypotheses:
Maybe an Evil God exists and provides just enough "hope" to keep us living (struggling in a totally futile fashion) to live lives of pain and sorrow till we die, all because it pleases that Evil God?
See also my amazon profile, book, and book reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2MO8MF1RLEUJI/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
in the spirit of American pluralism, it’s not good to make fun of another’s religion. But I ask, when is a religion is not a religion but a business, a business out to scam, bilk millions out of their money, and it so abundantly clear this is the fact of the matter?? Now the price of freedom of religion is putting up with lots of junk, that’s all fair play in a pluralistic society. It’s like a product in free enterprise, a manufactured good on the free market. If the customers do not want to buy it, it’s not marketable, and like any substandard merchandise, the consumers won’t buy, and it will fade away. The problem is to many of the sheeple, book learnin' is considered a sin, and that renders them easy prey to some bad products.
I believe there comes a time when such a ‘business’ is so bad, so corrupt that it screams out to be made fun of, satire a form of exposition, in my view a reliable form of ‘clarification’ Optimistically, I would hope some sheeple would wake up to their sacrilegious antics, enlightened to the televangelist protracted insanity, awakened to the fraudulence fomented by flickering images on a TV screen These videos offer nothing new, stuff we have all seen before; they are a mix of expository analysis, as well as being biting satire. Their fear of materialism is mostly what fuels their fear.
The document states that (Un) Intelligent Design “promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and
A simplification of the phraseology in relation to 'Creationism.'
The first 3 videos are clearly of fakes, fakes 'screaming out' to be made fun of, the other videos are more serious in nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ5Pv_gZ4N4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvO-3ezXqYI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMh2ctz-rFE&feature=related
From what I can see creationism is a business. Creationism is about selling books, DVD’s and making money from ‘seminars.’ My perception is from watching the unscientific silliness of the creationist I do not even think they believe what they are selling. Their product market is frightened fundamentalist who view the findings of science with great fear and trepidation. The ‘products’ marketed by the creationist, books, DVDS, offer a type of emotive ‘salve’ for these angst-ridden people, pacifying their anxieties. For the Televangelist, creationism is just another weapon in their arsenal; creationism is another weapon of many in a rhetorical arsenal they use to emotionally manipulate, and fleece the flock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szMpscvPZmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqc_6gl8epM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovV1rBWq3Dg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEgvJ6dqzyo
in the spirit of American pluralism, it’s not good to make fun of another’s religion. But I ask, when is a religion is not a religion but a business, a business out to scam, bilk millions out of their money, and it so abundantly clear this is the fact of the matter?? Now the price of freedom of religion is putting up with lots of junk, that’s all fair play in a pluralistic society. It’s like a product in free enterprise, a manufactured good on the free market. If the customers do not want to buy it, it’s not marketable, and like any substandard merchandise, the consumers won’t buy, and it will fade away. The problem is to many of the sheeple, book learnin' is considered a sin, and that renders them easy prey to some bad products.
I believe there comes a time when such a ‘business’ is so bad, so corrupt that it screams out to be made fun of, satire a form of exposition, in my view a reliable form of ‘clarification’ Optimistically, I would hope some sheeple would wake up to their sacrilegious antics, enlightened to the televangelist protracted insanity, awakened to the fraudulence fomented by flickering images on a TV screen These videos offer nothing new, stuff we have all seen before; they are a mix of expository analysis, as well as being biting satire. Their fear of materialism is mostly what fuels their fear.
The document states that (Un) Intelligent Design “promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and
A simplification of the phraseology in relation to 'Creationism.'
The first 3 videos are clearly of fakes, fakes 'screaming out' to be made fun of, the other videos are more serious in nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ5Pv_gZ4N4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvO-3ezXqYI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMh2ctz-rFE&feature=related
From what I can see creationism is a business. Creationism is about selling books, DVD’s and making money from ‘seminars.’ My perception is from watching the unscientific silliness of the creationist I do not even think they believe what they are selling. Their product market is frightened fundamentalist who view the findings of science with great fear and trepidation. The ‘products’ marketed by the creationist, books, DVDS, offer a type of emotive ‘salve’ for these angst-ridden people, pacifying their anxieties. For the Televangelist, creationism is just another weapon in their arsenal; creationism is another weapon of many in a rhetorical arsenal they use to emotionally manipulate, and fleece the flock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szMpscvPZmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqc_6gl8epM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovV1rBWq3Dg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEgvJ6dqzyo
In the spirit of basic freedom of speech it is fantastic to make fun of all religions, and non religious beliefs of all kinds.
Post a Comment