Why I do not believe evolution diminishes God

[one.opinion]

One of the arguments against a theistic version of evolution that I read somewhat frequently is that an acceptance of evolution diminishes God. Personally, I disagree strongly with this viewpoint. I firmly believe God is omnipotent and how He chose to create does not limit how He was able to create in any way. He could have created the entire universe in 144 hours, and He could have created the entire universe instantaneously. I believe the scientific evidence suggests that He created over millions of years, rather than a few scores of hours. When I look at the complexity of living organisms, or the complexity of living populations and communities of organisms, I cannot help but be amazed by a God that is so big, yet so intricate in His creation.

With the varying degrees of isolation we are experiencing during the pandemic, a lot of people have a LOT more time on their hands than they are used to. I saw a rather elaborate Rube-Goldberg machine that a couple of people set up to pass the salt while maintaining social distancing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nORRgU8sGdE). While all analogies fail at some point, I do believe this helps me explain why I disagree with the notion that evolution makes God somehow smaller. It is rather easy to pass someone a salt shaker, rather than construct an elaborate machine to do it, I believe that creation of life unfolding over billions of years is a more impressive feat than instantaneous creation. And while passing the salt was the goal in the video, God's goal throughout all His creation was to bring humanity into being. We are special! I believe we are so special that God built a process that would unfold over millennia just to bring us to the planet.

God is a creative Being. In Revelation 4:11, most references say that creation was according to God's will, but the KJV says "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." I believe God takes pleasure in creating and I believe that is something that He put into us - His most-prized creations. Although I've never really built a Rube-Goldberg machine, I loved setting up elaborate domino tumbles when I was a kid, just to watch everything occur from a single tap to one domino. I cannot help but wonder if God also takes pleasure in the same way when looking at His creation. I should also point out that scientists can analyze the patterns of life we see today and come up with very good guesses about what might have happened in the past, just as one can look at tumbled dominoes, or a table surface after a Rube-Goldberg machine has concluded and figure out what must have happened along the way.

Regardless of what you think about the rest of my argument for evolution as a tool in the hands of an almighty Creator, I hope the reader understands why I don't see evolution as any sort of limit on God's power.

 

[Justin Adams]

I do not think God made experimental one-legged goats and left a trail of death as He 'evolved' it all. You are talking billions of half formed things. God is LIFE and not death.

But people will think what they like I guess.

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

I do not think God made experimental one-legged goats

Show me anyone that claims that God made experimental one-legged goats, and we can discuss that further - hopefully in a separate thread. Otherwise, you are simply ignoring the OP with a silly straw man argument.

[Justin Adams]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

you are simply ignoring the OP with a silly straw man argument

Nothing simple about your 'silly' straw OP...

It may confuse and cause strife.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Justin Adams

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Nothing simple about your 'silly' straw OP...

It may confuse and cause strife.

I’ll be happy to clarify anything that is confusing. Discussion can certainly occur without strife, don’t you think?

[Eddy Crocker]

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

One of the arguments against a theistic version of evolution that I read somewhat frequently is that an acceptance of evolution diminishes God. Personally, I disagree strongly with this viewpoint. I firmly believe God is omnipotent and how He chose to create does not limit how He was able to create in any way. He could have created the entire universe in 144 hours, and He could have created the entire universe instantaneously. I believe the scientific evidence suggests that He created over millions of years, rather than a few scores of hours. When I look at the complexity of living organisms, or the complexity of living populations and communities of organisms, I cannot help but be amazed by a God that is so big, yet so intricate in His creation.

To understand the time element God's creation we must understand that Genesis was a result of a divine vision given to Moses. It took Moses 7- 24 hour days to understand what God did in a twinkling of his eye. Scripture says in....,

Psalms 33:9,

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

Man lives in time. God doesn’t or is not limited by time as we are. Time is eternity in slow motion as Gods way to condescend to our weak and frail minds.

We have to take all the parts and pieces and be able to unify them and assemble them all through our eyes of faith to even get a glimpse of eternity.  

It’s like putting a puzzle together. Once all the parts and pieces are put together we get a picture of the whole.Scripture says we see through a glass darkly.

[Tristen]

Hey One,

You said, “One of the arguments against a theistic version of evolution that I read somewhat frequently is that an acceptance of evolution diminishes God. Personally, I disagree strongly with this viewpoint. I firmly believe God is omnipotent and how He chose to create does not limit how He was able to create in any way. He could have created the entire universe in 144 hours, and He could have created the entire universe instantaneously”

I firstly agree with you that God would not be diminished if He had decided to create in a different way (even if “He created over millions of years”).

My issue is that the “millions of years” story is not derived from scripture - i.e. that is not what the Bible teaches. It is popular for some Christians to read the “millions of years” story into the text because of some perceived obligation to the secular position.

 

“I believe the scientific evidence suggests that He created over millions of years, rather than a few scores of hours”

Facts don't “suggest” anything independent of an assumed premise (i.e. without interpretation).

“Evidence” incorporates an interpretation of the facts. That is, facts are interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” of that position). So it's technically true that “evidence” points to a conclusion – but to say so incorporates circular reasoning. Calling it “scientific evidence” is rhetorical bluster – i.e. using the word “scientific” to artificially generate a sense that this “evidence” is somehow more weighty than just “evidence”. But it doesn't actually mean anything.

You have decided that the story generated on the basis of secular assumptions is sufficiently convincing to warrant some form of obligation to that story. But that is problematic, since the secular story is contrary to the clear reading of scripture. As such, you endeavour to find ways to conform scripture to the secular story. However, when subject to rational scrutiny, neither logic nor science obligates anyone to the secular story. We are therefore free to “believe” the obvious reading of the Genesis creation account without any intellectual compromise.

 

“I should also point out that scientists can analyze the patterns of life we see today and come up with very good guesses about what might have happened in the past”

And how does one independently quantify the standard of a “very good guess”? It's certainly not a scientific standard. I know I am being somewhat persnickety, but it warrants noting that you are again employing rhetorical language to artificially plump up the nature of your claim.

 

[teddyv]

In my view, I recognize that Scripture does not teach millions of years. It does not teach anything like that at all. It's simply not the point of Scripture. Genesis does not internally date itself and it's only through genealogies and known secular historical dates that the typical 6000 years it arrived at.

As a bit of an aside, a former pastor of mine mentioned how strictly looking at the Scriptural timeline from that derived by Bishop Ussher, Genesis 1-11 accounts for almost 1/3 of the Bible's span of history. That, to me, should also warrant attention. At a pure literal level, I see Genesis as the foundation of the historical identity of the fledgling nation of Israel. But it also transcends that, as it answers some of the basic worldview questions that every person has.

[Paul James]

Evolution implies that there was death, struggle and suffering for millions of years.  If so, we would expect to see the graves of countless millions of human beings, but we don't.   Also, Genesis says that God saw what He had created and He saw that it was "very good", so if His "very good" creation involved suffering, struggle and death, then we must doubt whether a God of love would do something like that - to have millions of years of suffering, and painful death.  Also, when Christ comes again and restores the universe and our world back to what it was before Adam's sin, then can we imagine that His restored heaven and earth are going to contain the same suffering and death as it was before Adam?  Just imagine us spending eternity living in a world where there is still suffering, disease, and death!  Actually Theistic Evolution destroys the hope of a new heaven and earth.  It also destroys the gospel because it implies that Adam was not alone, but there were other human beings who did not sin as he did, and so his descendants married these other human beings and would have corrupted them with his sinfulness.  

If Genesis 1-3 is not literal history, then the death of Christ on the cross becomes meaningless and the gospel of Christ is destroyed, and no one can really be saved through the death of Christ on the cross.  Actually, Theistic Evolutionists have problems believing that there actually was a historical Jesus, and therefore no crucifixion or resurrection.  Paul says that if Christ was not resurrected, then neither will we.  So what have we to hope for?  Under Theistic Evolution - nothing.

Actually, Theistic Evolution is a lie dreamed up by those who have an image of God they feel comfortable with and to whom believe they have no moral responsibility.   I don't see that anyone who believes in the fairy story of Theistic Evolution can have any assurance of salvation.  All they can have is hope in this life only, and therefore have to be of all people most miserable.

It is interesting to note that a science book illustrator was asked to do an artist impression of "Lucy", whose skull and bones were discovered in Africa and is believed that she is half ape half human.  When he drew "Lucy" as being too human, the editors rejected his illustration and demanded that he redraw her as being more ape-like.  What we have to realise is that there is a difference between artistic imagination and true science.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Paul James

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, Tristen said:

I firstly agree with you that God would not be diminished if He had decided to create in a different way (even if “He created over millions of years”).

Thank you, that's what I'd like to focus on.