Evolution and God, goes together like the horse and carriage

Readability

Evolution and God, goes together like the horse and carriage

I noticed Jazz Shaw’s post on Evo­lu­tion link­ing to Steve Benen “look how dumb those Chris­tians are” post, and Stacy McCain’s answer..

For­get­ting the fact that Mr. Benen appar­ently wants to put a reli­gious test on who can serve in con­gress and for­get­ting his seem­ing igno­rance con­cern­ing Christianity’s his­tory and sci­ence. I sug­gest he buy a copy of How the Catholic Church Built West­ern Civ­i­liza­tion (my review here no won­der the left hates West­ern Civ­i­liza­tion so much but I digress).

I’ve already made my point in this post about the Bible and sci­ence:

In our sci­ence we basi­cally have edu­cated guesses in pur­suit of truth. As time and our knowl­edge expands our guesses become bet­ter and more informed but in the end a lot of it is still a guess, yet these guesses are a mil­lion times bet­ter than Moses would ever be able to make. If our sci­ence would be beyond Moses, how much more beyond him would be the actual meth­ods of how God works explained on a sci­en­tific level?

It is my opin­ion that God gave Moses the answers that were truth­ful, but also in a way that he and his peo­ple, bronze age humans could under­stand and grasp. Like at the waters of Mas­sah and Meribah he didn’t give him a the­sis on Hydro­gen and Oxy­gen atoms com­bined to cre­ate water, he didn’t give a geo­log­i­cal expla­na­tion of how steams wear down soil and cause ero­sion, he pro­vided the water.

It doesn’t mat­ter for exam­ple if the entire world was flooded in Noah’s time, or if it was an indi­vid­ual con­ti­nent, or just a coun­try the size of Iraq or what­ever. In the under­stand­ing of Noah it was the world, and in the under­stand­ing of Moses it was the world. It makes it no less the action of God nor do the lessons drawn from it change. It is no dif­fer­ent than try­ing to explain to a 3 year old how some­thing works, you tell him the truth but in a way that he can grasp it.

Now as I said Sci­ence is a ques­tion of our best edu­cated guess, but many peo­ple try to use it as a club to attack Chris­tian­ity in gen­eral and the Bible in par­tic­u­lar as Stacy puts it:

Hav­ing spent quite some time study­ing the argu­ments over evo­lu­tion, it has for many years struck me that while the sci­en­tific priest­hood of neo-​Darwinian ortho­doxy in astro­physics, pale­on­tol­ogy and anthro­pol­ogy often dis­agree vehe­mently over their own the­o­ries and inter­pre­ta­tions, they are united by one major agree­ment: The Bible is wrong.

On that point, they are quite fanat­i­cal, and one need not debate fanat­ics. Merely demon­strate that they are fanat­ics — occa­sion­ally point out their more obvi­ous errors, pro­vok­ing their pre­dictably intem­per­ate responses — and you will dis­credit them in the eyes of rea­son­able people.

I think peo­ple often con­fuse “nat­ural selec­tion” and sur­vival and the fittest, which is cer­tainly sci­en­tif­i­cally sound and full blown evo­lu­tion the cre­ation of one species from another.

The sec­ond has sev­eral prob­lems the biggest of which for me is the math.

Here is what you need for evo­lu­tion of that nature to work:

  1. You need some kind of mutation.
  2. Said muta­tion needs to be a ben­e­fi­cial muta­tion so it doesn’t increase the likely hood of the crea­ture caught by a predator.
  3. You need a muta­tion that doesn’t pre­vent breed­ing with a sim­i­lar creature
  4. The result of that breed must carry said muta­tion so it has to be dom­i­nant trait
  5. Con­tin­ual breed­ing has to take place so that dom­i­nant trait spreads until all mem­bers of the species with­out that dom­i­nant trait disappear.
  6. Repeat until an amoeba becomes Snooki from Jer­sey Shore.

Now think about the math­e­mat­i­cal odds of each of those steps and imag­ine the devel­op­ment of a claw from a fin. Think of NOTH­ING else, just that sin­gle devel­op­ment. What would the math­e­mat­i­cal odds of each step tak­ing place? How many times would the dice have to fall a par­tic­u­lar way for that to hap­pen just for that step to take place? What are the odds of such a thing hap­pen­ing by chance and not just by chance, but over and over again for every species that is out there?

Is that pos­si­ble, sure. I believe in God, with such a God some­thing like this is very pos­si­ble, what I find amaz­ing is that those who are so vehe­ment in deny­ing the exis­tence of God are will­ing to bet their rep­u­ta­tions on a process that math­e­mat­i­cally is so unlikely that they’d never bet real money on it.

I sub­mit that if you believe in Evo­lu­tion you almost HAVE to believe in God because the odds of such a process tak­ing place with­out him are so slight as to be nil.

Or to put it another way. You can have God with­out evo­lu­tion, but con­sid­er­ing the odds involved I sub­mit you can’t have evo­lu­tion with­out God.

Now is it really impor­tant? Not really, It’s an inter­est­ing sci­en­tific dis­cus­sion and like any­thing such sci­en­tific dis­cus­sion you go where the evi­dence takes you. We keep research­ing, we find clues and make assump­tions based on them, test them, and repeat. That’s fine. Reli­gion of course doesn’t need to explain the nuts and bolts of how a uni­verse is cre­ated, it’s pri­mary job is to save souls. These goals aren’t mutu­ally exclu­sive and we need to remem­ber what sci­ence and religion’s pur­poses are:

Man didn’t need God to pro­vide him a sci­ence text, man can write those texts him­self. Man did need instruc­tion on the sal­va­tion of his soul. God pro­vided that and still pro­vides it through Scrip­ture, prayer, the Church and Tra­di­tion. We can take advan­tage of those things pro­vided or not. It’s totally up to us.

I await to see Steve Benen’s piece attack­ing the sci­en­tific igno­rance of Islam.

I noticed Jazz Shaw’s post on Evolution linking to Steve Benen “look how dumb those Christians are” post, and Stacy McCain’s answer..

Forgetting the fact that Mr. Benen apparently wants to put a religious test on who can serve in congress and forgetting his seeming ignorance concerning Christianity’s history and science. I suggest he buy a copy of How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (my review here no wonder the left hates Western Civilization so much but I digress).

I’ve already made my point in this post about the Bible and science:

In our science we basically have educated guesses in pursuit of truth. As time and our knowledge expands our guesses become better and more informed but in the end a lot of it is still a guess, yet these guesses are a million times better than Moses would ever be able to make. If our science would be beyond Moses, how much more beyond him would be the actual methods of how God works explained on a scientific level?

It is my opinion that God gave Moses the answers that were truthful, but also in a way that he and his people, bronze age humans could understand and grasp. Like at the waters of Massah and Meribah he didn’t give him a thesis on Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms combined to create water, he didn’t give a geological explanation of how steams wear down soil and cause erosion, he provided the water.

It doesn’t matter for example if the entire world was flooded in Noah’s time, or if it was an individual continent, or just a country the size of Iraq or whatever. In the understanding of Noah it was the world, and in the understanding of Moses it was the world. It makes it no less the action of God nor do the lessons drawn from it change. It is no different than trying to explain to a 3 year old how something works, you tell him the truth but in a way that he can grasp it.

Now as I said Science is a question of our best educated guess, but many people try to use it as a club to attack Christianity in general and the Bible in particular as Stacy puts it:

Having spent quite some time studying the arguments over evolution, it has for many years struck me that while the scientific priesthood of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy in astrophysics, paleontology and anthropology often disagree vehemently over their own theories and interpretations, they are united by one major agreement: The Bible is wrong.

On that point, they are quite fanatical, and one need not debate fanatics. Merely demonstrate that they are fanatics — occasionally point out their more obvious errors, provoking their predictably intemperate responses — and you will discredit them in the eyes of reasonable people.

I think people often confuse “natural selection” and survival and the fittest, which is certainly scientifically sound and full blown evolution the creation of one species from another.

The second has several problems the biggest of which for me is the math.

Here is what you need for evolution of that nature to work:

  1. You need some kind of mutation.
  2. Said mutation needs to be a beneficial mutation so it doesn’t increase the likely hood of the creature caught by a predator.
  3. You need a mutation that doesn’t prevent breeding with a similar creature
  4. The result of that breed must carry said mutation so it has to be dominant trait
  5. Continual breeding has to take place so that dominant trait spreads until all members of the species without that dominant trait disappear.
  6. Repeat until an amoeba becomes Snooki from Jersey Shore.

Now think about the mathematical odds of each of those steps and imagine the development of a claw from a fin.  Think of NOTHING else, just that single development.  What would the mathematical odds of each step taking place? How many times would the dice have to fall a particular way for that to happen just for that step to take place? What are the odds of such a thing happening by chance and not just by chance, but over and over again for every species that is out there?

Is that possible, sure. I believe in God, with such a God something like this is very possible, what I find amazing is that those who are so vehement in denying the existence of God are willing to bet their reputations on a process that mathematically is so unlikely that they’d never bet real money on it.

I submit that if you believe in Evolution you almost HAVE to believe in God because the odds of such a process taking place without him are so slight as to be nil.

Or to put it another way. You can have God without evolution, but considering the odds involved I submit you can’t have evolution without God.

Now is it really important? Not really, It’s an interesting scientific discussion and like anything such scientific discussion you go where the evidence takes you. We keep researching, we find clues and make assumptions based on them, test them, and repeat. That’s fine. Religion of course doesn’t need to explain the nuts and bolts of how a universe is created, it’s primary job is to save souls. These goals aren’t mutually exclusive and we need to remember what science and religion’s purposes are:

Man didn’t need God to provide him a science text, man can write those texts himself. Man did need instruction on the salvation of his soul. God provided that and still provides it through Scripture, prayer, the Church and Tradition. We can take advantage of those things provided or not. It’s totally up to us.

I await to see Steve Benen’s piece attacking the scientific ignorance of Islam.