Creationism vs Evolution : Assuming a weak god.

[Menelik_I]

This ain't a standard ''creationist vs evolution'' thread, in fact I do have an original question:

Short Question : Why does proponents of evolution assume a weak god ? Why can't a god been able to create evolution-capable beings ?

Long question : We all dream of self aware robots, which not only learn, but adapt and might even one day overtake us in Terminator style, ie we dream of creating something at least as complex as us.

So why do we assume a god able to create the universe wouldn't to create to create a form of life being able create some that might evolve and adapt ? Why assume that a god wouldn't be able to pull this level of complexity ?

Please don't pull me a ''lol intelligent design'' stupid stunt, but tell me why do you assume that an intelligent all powerful wouldn't be able to create a complex life-form ? It seems that evolutionists have an intelligence standards for deities inferior to what they would expect to themselves.

Is it is just that some people assume the idea of religiosity to be so stupid that the deity being worshipped is assumed to be stupid/devoid of talent ?

[Gordon Freynman]

Short Question : Why does proponents of evolution assume a weak god ? Why can't a god been able to create evolution-capable beings ?

Ummm...what? The debate has nothing to do with the power of God, or even the existence of God at all. It's about the flat out denial and intentional misrepresentation of evidence.

[Menelik_I]

Ummm...what? The debate has nothing to do with the power of God, or even the existence of God at all. It's about the flat out denial and intentional misrepresentation of evidence.

The evidence of evolution doesn't rule out a creator, except if you exclude evolution has beyond the power of said deity.

We expect ourself to be able to create complex machines, why do we expect a deity to not be able to create something as much complex has himself ?

[generalveers]

The evidence of evolution doesn't rule out a creator, except if you exclude evolution has beyond the power of said deity.

We expect ourself to be able to create complex machines, why do we expect a deity to not be able to create something as much complex as himself ?

Evolution doesn't go beyond the power of a god though. The argument you're using is more about the origin of life, not evolution.

Or you are referring to the Watchmaker creationist claim.

[Menelik_I]

Evolution doesn't go beyond the power of a god though. The argument you're using is more about the origin of life, not evolution.

Actually the two things are intertwined, has in recent years the evolution argument has been used to ''prove'' the non-existence of a deity, see Hitchen, Hawkins and Co.

Or you are referring to the Watchmaker creationist claim.

It is not much of a claim than the logical realization that Evolution by itself isn't beyond the powers of a deity.

[generalveers]

Actually the two things are intertwined, has in recent years the evolution argument has been used to ''prove'' the non-existence of a deity, see Hitchen, Hawkins and Co.

It is not much of a claim than the logical realization that Evolution by itself isn't beyond the powers of a deity.

I disagree. They may use evolution against the idea of God, but I don't recall them using evolution - and only evolution - as their case against God.

And no, evolution is not beyond the powers of a deity. Where did you get the idea that it is from?

[Tankbuster]

It is not much of a claim than the logical realization that Evolution by itself isn't beyond the powers of a deity.

Nobody has ever said that it is beyond the powers of a deity. That is a complete misinterpretation of the argument.
The argument is, rather, that the process of evolution isn't consistent with the character of a deity.

Put simply, those who advance this argument argue that evolution is a necessarily cruel, necessarily wasteful, necessarily inefficient process, which yields very imperfect and unsatisfactory products -and which, incidentally, is precisely the type of process that can run with or without supervision.
So it's not a question of whether a God is able to use such a process -he obviously could. But the question is why on Earth an all-powerful God who can simply wish things into existence, would go through such a pain-stakingly long, capricious and inefficient way of creating things. It doesn't seem consistent with his character at all: he's using about the dumbest process he could use.

Not everyone who believes in the theory of evolution thinks this is a good argument though (indeed, since most of the people that believe in the theory of evolution are religious, it seems most people don't find this argument persuasive).
I think it's actually quite strong.

[Jack04]

The evidence of evolution doesn't rule out a creator, except if you exclude evolution has beyond the power of said deity.

Typically, creationism refers to a god that actively intervenes in humanity reaching its current state, beyond the setting in motion of the universe. Evolution directly contradicts creationism, but says nothing about a deity capable of setting the universe in motion with the goal of humanity in mind.

[Menelik_I]

Typically, creationism refers to a god that actively intervenes in humanity reaching its current state, beyond the setting in motion of the universe.

These aren't exclusive unless evolutionist are herald of the god of randomness.

Why can't a creator not only set the universe in motion, but also micro tinker with it at whim ? How is it mutually exclusive ?

Evolution directly contradicts creationism, but says nothing about a deity capable of setting the universe in motion with the goal of humanity in mind.

Not exactly, I almost always see evolution being used to deny a creator.

[Jack04]

These aren't exclusive unless evolutionist are herald of the god of randomness.

Why can't a creator not only set the universe in motion, but also micro tinker with it at whim ? How is it mutually exclusive ?

He can. But if he does, that his actions cause a contradiction with evolution. It also fails spectacularly as a scientific concept.

Not exactly, I almost always see evolution being used to deny a creator.

Wrongly.

[Adar]

Regarding the OP.

The people assuming what you call "a weak god" are in my opinion always the young earth creationists.

Lets for example see what Talk Origins says about evolution and believing in the christian god

Source
Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.

There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

The Catholic position also allows for evolution as long as the creation of the universe is attributed to god. They also state that god specifically created the human soul.

source
The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

And the only people assuming your weak god are fundamentalist evangelicals and atheists who tries to claim they are better theologicans than the catholic church.

Souce
1. The Time Element in Bible Miracles Must Always Be Taken Literally.

A miracle by nature is always an event impossible by natural law that occurs by the supernatural intervention of God. Each supernatural aspect of Bible descriptions of miracles must be taken literally, otherwise we undermine or destroy the force of the event as a miracle.

One of the supernatural aspects of Bible miracles is the time element: the length of time the miracle required to occur. For example, Bible healings are often said to occur immediately. To take this symbolically and argue that the healings took many months or years to occur would be to make it appear the event could have happened naturally. Likewise, to argue for long ages in creation is to weaken its supernatural character, making the miracle less wonderful, and thereby making it easier to believe that life could develop naturally.

Personally I am agnostic and work with biotechnology so most of my work is based on theories that wouldn't work without evolution (or god creating a universe looking exactly like evolution have occurred). But I've never been convinced by anyone that evolution would disprove the christian faith.

[Primo]

Ummm...what? The debate has nothing to do with the power of God, or even the existence of God at all. It's about the flat out denial and intentional misrepresentation of evidence.

Which can be said about your post aswell

[MathiasOfAthens]

Sure a god could have made everything stacked up in favor of evolution but that doesnt prove there is a god.

Perhaps a god deposited some amino acids on pre-historic earth a very long time ago, but then he got in trouble with the other gods for interfering in a planets nature origin of life.

[Himster]

This ain't a standard ''creationist vs evolution'' thread, in fact I do have an original question:

Short Question : Why does proponents of evolution assume a weak god ? Why can't a god been able to create evolution-capable beings ?

Long question : We all dream of self aware robots, which not only learn, but adapt and might even one day overtake us in Terminator style, ie we dream of creating something at least as complex as us.

So why do we assume a god able to create the universe wouldn't to create to create a form of life being able create some that might evolve and adapt ? Why assume that a god wouldn't be able to pull this level of complexity ?

Please don't pull me a ''lol intelligent design'' stupid stunt, but tell me why do you assume that an intelligent all powerful wouldn't be able to create a complex life-form ? It seems that evolutionists have an intelligence standards for deities inferior to what they would expect to themselves.

Is it is just that some people assume the idea of religiosity to be so stupid that the deity being worshipped is assumed to be stupid/devoid of talent ?

If an omnipotent god does exist then yes he vicariously created evolving organims which became us.

[basics]

" If an omnipotent god does exist then yes he vicariously created evolving organims which became us. "

Himster,

Now why would He need to do that when all that He had to do was give the command and it happened as is written and written so that there is no ambiguity about how we did come to be. Does evolution only apply to us on earth because the only evidence for it out of this great big bang is that everything around us dies and the question is why?

I mean look at the tilt of the earth and see how majestically it has been placed that life can be made to exist? How many planets can that be said of? We have seasons that are way beyond that of other planets in terms of distribution just as God planned it to be. We have the sun and moon to give us an advantage over all else yet confuse it with a process that only seems to work here, talking evolutionary.

Six days was all it took, the sad part being what it brought about in terms of all those that will never know God until judgement day.

[Visna]

This ain't a standard ''creationist vs evolution'' thread, in fact I do have an original question:

Short Question : Why does proponents of evolution assume a weak god ? Why can't a god been able to create evolution-capable beings ?

Short answer: where the hell did you get that idea?

Long question : We all dream of self aware robots, which not only learn, but adapt and might even one day overtake us in Terminator style, ie we dream of creating something at least as complex as us.

So why do we assume a god able to create the universe wouldn't to create to create a form of life being able create some that might evolve and adapt ? Why assume that a god wouldn't be able to pull this level of complexity ?

Please don't pull me a ''lol intelligent design'' stupid stunt, but tell me why do you assume that an intelligent all powerful wouldn't be able to create a complex life-form ? It seems that evolutionists have an intelligence standards for deities inferior to what they would expect to themselves.

Is it is just that some people assume the idea of religiosity to be so stupid that the deity being worshipped is assumed to be stupid/devoid of talent ?

Slightly longer answer: evolution and some sort of deity are not mutually exclusive per se. The problem with "lol intelligent design" is that it's simply not science. It's sort of a let-God-fill-the-gaps idea. It's a form of creationism, but instead of citing Bible verses, it tries to dress up in pseudo scientific clothing.

- There is a gap in scientific knowledge
- This gap then becomes filled with God or some other "intelligent designer".
Such a wonderful chain of thought not only "explains" gaps in scientific knowledge, it also "proves" God exists.

[Mortality]

Basics and Total relism will have a field day with this topic.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Ah of course basics. God just gave the command and we poofed into existence as fully fledged human beings.

[Gaidin]

This ain't a standard ''creationist vs evolution'' thread, in fact I do have an original question:

Short Question : Why does proponents of evolution assume a weak god ? Why can't a god been able to create evolution-capable beings ?

Long question : We all dream of self aware robots, which not only learn, but adapt and might even one day overtake us in Terminator style, ie we dream of creating something at least as complex as us.

So why do we assume a god able to create the universe wouldn't to create to create a form of life being able create some that might evolve and adapt ? Why assume that a god wouldn't be able to pull this level of complexity ?

Please don't pull me a ''lol intelligent design'' stupid stunt, but tell me why do you assume that an intelligent all powerful wouldn't be able to create a complex life-form ? It seems that evolutionists have an intelligence standards for deities inferior to what they would expect to themselves.

Is it is just that some people assume the idea of religiosity to be so stupid that the deity being worshipped is assumed to be stupid/devoid of talent ?

Short answer: Occam's Razor.

Long answer: Evolution makes no assumptions about any god. At all. Period. Full stop. Why? Because the law of parsimony is used as a heuristic in science so as to guide the development of models. The simplest possible explanation is preferred. We have no evidence to suggest god is required or was involved in evolution, thus by parsimony, he is not involved in any of the models.

There is a reason we ask creationists to present scientifically testable evidence that there is a god.

[Vizsla]

There is a conflict between religion as ‘an explanation for the workings of the Universe’ and science as the exact same thing.
When Darwin first expounded evolution it was seen as a challenge to the religious world view because it contradicted religion as ‘an explanation for the working of the universe’. The people who are still in opposition to evolution are rehashing the same arguments 150 years later.
These days religious people often accept that ideas like evolution are not saying anything about the existence of God. They do not expect the Bible, or other religious texts, to hold physical truths about the universe. Evolution, via natural selection, contradicts the biblical account of creation but it says nothing about the philosophical abstract notion of a God.

But nor does evolution require the existence of a god to work. The concept of evolution was derived from observations of the natural world. So adding additional terms to the explanation (in this case God) makes no sense. It would be illogical.
You can believe that both God and evolution are true but you shouldn’t attempt to tie both beliefs together because one is based on evidence and the other is not.