Evolution deniers - why can't I invoke God to fill in every gap you see in evolutionary theory?

Question

Specifics, please.

Answer 1

Good lord, I don't believe how little Christians understand English.

The idea that invoking means you were planning a bit of "bubble, bubble, toil, and trouble" invocation is as off key as some of the early American Idol contestants.

A reasonable answer would be, you can, and some Christians do. This, essentially, makes god the agent of genetic change rather than attributing it to nature. Intelligent Design proponents, IDiots for short, can't accept this because it points to deep time and they need to have a young Earth for the bible to be true.

You see the same problem with other attempts to rationalize the bible with reality. The flooding of the Black Sea may very well be the basis of the flood story in the bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh but it didn't happen around 4500 BCE and it certainly didn't cover the whole earth. The IDiots require total adherence and will accept nothing less.

After all, how are they ever going to understand the answer when they can't even understand the question.

42

Answer 2

> " I certainly accept the general principal, but I strongly suspect there are many strains of ongoing change in an evolving lifeform that, contrary to theory, cannot be demonstrated to provide any obvious benefit at the time they are adopted. " Fair enough. But the burden is on you to find an example. Many have tried. You have correctly stated the basic theory (although you made a misstep when you used the word "higher" ... that is a human-centered error). You also may be missing the role that random, non-advantageous changes can have. Sometimes a mutation may produce some change that is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous (the different eye colors for example) ... such a mutation may just linger in the gene pool in small percentages for generations ... until one day a second mutation, or a change in the environment, or even a change in sexual preferences, causes that mutation to have some small advantage. However, your general description of the theory is correct ... that evolution is driven by small advantages (no matter how small). And you have also conceded that the general principle is sound. This is precisely why we call things in science "theories" ... they are an explanatory system ... a set of general principles that seem to explain all the examples we have found. It is always a *practical* impossibility to prove that it holds for ALL examples ... so we keep examining possible counter-examples, and the more the theory holds, the stronger it becomes. As an illustration, the theory of gravity says that all matter with mass is attracted to each other in ways that follow certain laws of behavior. It holds for an apple and the moon. It also seems to hold for pears, peaches, and cantelopes. And it explains the specific motions of the solar system bodies. There is no practical way to prove that the theory of gravity holds for all kinds of fruit, or all star-planet systems... we just *assume* it does. If you believe it doesn't, then the burden of proof falls on you to find an example ... some piece of fruit, or astronomical body that is *not* explained by the theory of gravity. For the theory of evolution, many people have tried to find counter-examples. This is preciesly the claim of "irreducible complexity." However, what ID advocates do is to find a so-called counter-example, and then strut around triumphantly as if they have achieved their objective. In *every single case* presented so far, the theory of evolution can be shown to explain the structure in question. In other words, the "irreducible complexity" is shown to be quite reducible after all. The eye, the flagellum, the venus flytrap, insect-flower systems, blood clotting, the ear, the heart, the egg, the cell, etc. These are all great questions. But creationists and ID advocates ask the question as if the asking alone is sufficient to disprove evolution. It is not. It is also necessary to *listen to the answer*. If the evolution advocates can come up with a plausible answer for how evolution can explain the structure or system in question, then the intellectually honest thing to do would be to abandon that example and look for another. Instead the creationists and ID advocates continue to bring up the same failed examples over and over. So these questions accumulate in the creationists arsenal as if they believed these arrows were really doing some damage to the evolutionists. But the evolutionists really are just thanking them for their trouble because each one actually *strengthens* the theory of evolution, because (as I said above) if a candidate counter-example is proposed, but found to be explainable by the theory, then it *strengthens* the theory. So the creationists have yet to find the equivalent of the piece of fruit that defies the theory of gravity.

Answer 3

Because God works in mysterious ways. He gave us mysteries to solve. When we find an ancestor to humans, we ask who was in between, and when we find someone in between then someone writes a pseudo scientific book on how there is still a missing link. All because God didn't get mentioned.

Now really, God is just a deity in many religious forms of many religions, involving him in evolution seems ridiculous. However, certain respectable biologists go so far as stating that the universe itself might have a consciousness, and that large groups of animals function in a similar way, using various hermetic principles (hermetic as in Hermes Trismegistus).

In fact, when one looks at birds that learn behaviors in different parts of the world at the same time, such as the case of England when many a bird started drinking milk from cartons in door openings. This behavioral trait became apparent in many of the birds at the same time, even though they were isolated from each other through distance. The biologist's theory is that these birds communicate at an unconscious level due to some form of super-high frequency that binds them all at what he calls a "spiritual" level of frequency.

This argument, which is definitely considered pseudoscience, is one such form in which "God" fills in the blanks. But the truth of the matter is, that biologists that state such things go against the principle of Okham's razor, and basically complicate matters even more than how complicated they are. To state that the birds and animals in general "communicate" in extrasensory means is close to absurd in my opinion. Science bases itself on observation, the only thing this BIOLOGIST observed was the phenomenon of birds changing their behavior at a near time interval. On the other hand, his inference is that a form of consciousness is made through a PHYSICAL phenomenon that is otherwise unobservable, for he bases himself on an ancient philosophy and not science anymore. The ancient philosophy ENSURES you that the universe is mental and that since everything vibrates (which is in fact true) some vibrations are of such high frequencies that we cannot experience or realize their existence.

Either way, in my opinion religion has no place in a scientific study and or theory and putting them in opposition is just as unscientific. In philosophic terms, the truth is always the goal, so I cannot with certainty neglect the assumption that a divine being exists, nor can I certainly say that the cause of evolution is natural selection, yet as a human being I, as most of us, should stick to what we do best: think. Use my brains to try to see what is real and not necessarily believe anything that comes up.

The most scientific answer to a question that we don't know the answer of is: I DON'T KNOW.

But apparently religious people, especially the now famous "creationists" forgot that the bible itself says that people should be humble, yet their egos do not allow them to accept what they don't know

Answer 4

Why should God give man all the missing information to fill in the gaps in his theory? God is not that enamored of men I don't think. Should God hand men the missing link by which men would obliterate God from the planet? Why should God do anything for man, what has man ever done for God to date, except pervert Thy Gods Name?
Over who has not his evil passed over, continuously?

Answer 5

You end up with a "God of the corners" -- everything that we don't know about is assumed to be the action of God.
This was, for a long time, what actually happened. But science started explaining things, without requirement for a god's involvement. God was, so to speak, pushed into the corners of our understanding.

When we don't know what's going on, it's better to say that we don't know what's going on. Maybe at some time in the future, science will explain it.

Answer 6

Specifically because you are not authorized to invoke God. You seem to think monotheists all deny evolution. Are you authorized to say God didn't set up the process of evolution? Specifics please.

Answer 7

It's all about Faith, not science. How many times do we have to change scientific theory? How many times has the Word of God been changed?

Answer 8

HE has done HIS part. Could it be that you are so bent on trying to prove evolution that you are over looking the obvious?

Answer 9

I have to give you kudos on this question. It's a novel twist of a theist technique. Of course, it's irrational, but if they can use irrational techniques, then surely you should be able to use them.

Answer 10

I think it is funny when people resort to name calling it shows weakness. (evolution deniers hahaha)