Why do the evolutionists beleive that the world isn't random at all but they still can't believe in God?

Question

If the sequense of things isn't very random really (which it isn't) and evolutionists know it then who or what do you think has made everything so perfect? This is what I read--
--"Evolution is not a "random" process, and to characterize it so seriously misleads students. Natural selection, the most important force driving evolutionary change, is not random at all, but an observable, verifiable process that fine-tunes variation in populations of a species to the demands of the environment in which they live. It is true, of course, that variation in a species arises from sources such as mutation and sexual recombination, which are inherently unpredictable. Therefore evolution, like any historical process, can be influenced by random forces".

Evolution can definately be true but since it is not random it must be created by something. How can you not beleive that God created everything especialy evolution?

I mean athiest evolutionists sorry.

Answer 1

No offence but your logic is backwards. See if you can understand this. I can expand on this further if you would like me to.
You ask 'what has made everything so perfect?' - that's not how it works. No matter how everything is, it would be considered perfect. If the moon happened to be neon orange and purple, you wouldn't say, "If only the moon were white, then things would be perfect" - you have to say the moon is perfect whatever color it is. Everything is perfect because it is exactly the way they are supposed to be. If things weren't exactly and perfectly the way they are supposed to be, then they wouldn't be the way they are!!! It sounds like you are looking for a unified theory of everything - something that can tie everything into a nice bundle. But can there really be a unified theory of everything? There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.
However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.
However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Answer 2

Well it seems like you have your facts all mixed up like so many people do. The forces behind evolution can be random events, like gene mutations, climate changes, asteroid impacts, predation, chance encounters of species, so many different variables that are random in nature. What is not random is the is the observers bias that all of us suffer from and must be overcome in order to really understand the process of evolution. And there is no god needed.

Answer 3

When I am asked if I believe in God, I know they are not talking about an impersonal creative intelligence. They are talking about a being that knows everything (including the future), that has emotions like a human, that works magic contrary to the laws of nature, that selected the descendents of Abraham to be his "chosen people" (but did nothing when they were being killed by the millions), that created Adam from "dust", etc, etc.

I see no more reason to believe in this being that to believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster. I don't care what Bronze Age shepherds say they saw. That's not what I call proof.

Answer 4

learn Hebrew, examine the unique Hebrew texts, then confer with me approximately what the Bible incredibly ability. i'm a creationist, yet I hate whilst human beings use rates from the Bible to tutor that evolution isn't actual. you won't have the ability to. you basically won't have the ability to tutor it. Be content textile in what you have confidence in and screw something. And as for brushing off the finished Bible, you recommend brushing off the recent testomony. The previous testomony remains a factor of the Bible and close to to all Christians brush aside the full factor. As a Christian, you have not everywhere to tell others that they are "brushing off the finished Bible."

Answer 5

When water is frozen the molecules line up in an orderly fashion to make a strong bonded chain because of the polarity of the water molecule. This is hardly random and occurs every single time water is dropped to 0 degrees centigrade. But this still cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of a divine being.

Answer 6

evolution is a dichotomy, because of its simplistic complexity, and its approximate precision.
Its a combination of the random and the predetermined.

If you were a prehistoric primate in the wrong place, at the wrong time,...... then you got killed and eaten, whether you liked it or not.
But,........ with a skill and ability, to analyze and reason like no other,...... mans position as earths most dominant animal was inevitable.

Analysis and observation,..... and trial and error,..... were primary factors in mans evolution and development.

These were not some pre determined qualities which were simply created and handed to him.
Like everyone, everywhere,....... he had to learn them over many, many years,.... with some of his group even losing their lives due to error or miscalculation when hunting dangerous reptiles.

Pre historic times in the days of our early ancestors,...... were indeed a very dangerous time to live and evolve.
But incredibly he succedded,....... because man has now spread over every continent on the globe,..... with some of his descendants, at this very moment, peering sleepily into some computer monitor.

Man is here, through evolving over millenniums, (with many killed and eaten by reptiles along the way.)

To suggest he got created by some god in the sky,....... is both ludicrous and laughable........ ( and an insult to the determinedness and tenacity of all our primate ancestors.)

Answer 7

Is that all you are capable of imagining? A deity (your particular version of it, to be specific) or nothing? That's a very small box in which to view the world.

I'm a Taoist. I believe deities are symbols and archtypes but aren't actually real (therefore I can't believe in your god). But I do believe in a spiritual life force that can use evolution as a mechanism.

Answer 8

Being an evolutionist and believing in God have nothing to do with each other. Even Pope John Paul II was an evolutionist.

Answer 9

Um. You're misinformed. What makes evolution non-random is natural selection (as well as other forms of selection) however, selection requires variability, which begins as random chance.

You're just really wrong on your science here...perhaps if you cited some sources?

Answer 10

I believe it is very hard to change your mind and humble yourself once you have been indoctrinated into an atheistic mindset. It's odd that the very people that accuse believers of being "brain-washed" are themselves the most narrow minded and trapped people of all.
After all, to admit that God is responsible for all we see means that "we" are not god..that's a big step down for some people. Only prayer can remove the blindness that covers the eyes of many who cannot see truth.