Hypothetical:

How would you respond if someone told you that God spoke to them and told them that He worked through evolutionary processes? Remember that the sacred Books of the various religions began as real or purported Revelations. Those Revelations cannot be questioned scientifically, or you are testing the Lord your God.

So, if hypothetically someone claimed that God told them evolution was how He did it then the devout would be obligated to believe him if he indeed were a true Prophet. Even if, as Creation Scientists would allege (and Darwinians would probably agree in this instance), evidence for his claims were lacking he would still have to be believed if indeed he were a true Prophet. Failure to follow a true Prophet is blasphemy. The idea that all religion must be proven, believed alike by both Creation Scientists of the American pragmatist "common sense school" bent and by Darwinians, is actually a heresy according to real Fundamentalism. Traditional Jewish and Christian doctrine never stated that a Prophet *necessarily* had to prove himself scientifically. "You shall not test the Lord your God." Revelation transcends empiricism, and if you believe in Revelation then it *DOES* transcend empiricism.

Now, if he be a false Prophet, you would not be able to ascertain that through evidence or science if you are going to follow the traditional Judaic and Christian paths in this matter (Islam seals Prophecy to Mohammed as I understand, so any Prophet would be false if I am not mistaken). You would have to go to the Torah, to the Scriptures, and to point out where the claims contradict Scriptures, i.e. make a case for only a literal understanding of Scripture. Or, you would have to debunk a prediction he or she made, which is also a sign of a false Prophet. But, at no point would paleontological observations be used. Only a religious argument against this self-proclaimed Prophet would work since anything else would be testing according to the logic of scientific uniformitarianism which is questioned by strict Fundamentalism. (Creation Science is actually heretical according to strict Fundamentalism because it derives from "Common Sense" Presbyterianism and not the idea that faith is an active way of knowledge)

The evidence for evolution could be completely lacking, as Creation Scientists claim, but you would still have to believe him if he is a true Prophet. So, my question is, how do you get out of this conundrum? It is a philosophical question, an exercise of the mind. Darwinians would agree with the Prophet, but consider him deluded *even if his scientific facts line up*, such as a possible scientific prediction he makes that is then verified in the laboratory. They would contradict themselves given that they would be ignoring evidence even though they claim to be all about empirical evidence, their only reconciliation being a general lack of interest in religion or the humanities generally and a tendency to simplify all religious claims and debunk them through strawmen.

Literal Creationists would have a problem because the purported Prophet would have to be automatically declared a false Prophet, a priori, but if they are honest they could not do so scientifically. They would have to do so through the Biblical text. Their a priori dismissal would be unfair if only on the basis of a personal bias and the possibility of dismissing a true Prophet.

We Divinely Guided evolutionists would be the only one who could give this person an honest investigation. We would investigate on two levels. Does this person's scientific facts line up? We could ask that because Divinely Guided evolutionists are also disciples of Common Sense, but without the contradictions of Fundamentalists in that we admit non-literal possibilities that according with the assumptions of scientific uniformitarianism on the question of origins. But, also, we would ask if this person's claim line up spiritually? Tackling the claim on both fronts, they are the only ones who would give this purported Prophet a fair shake without dismissing his claims on purely biased grounds. They would search the Bible and the Book of Nature, just like the "Common Sense" philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment. The other two philosophies might rightly dismiss him with bias, but they would have to admit their dismissal to be informed opinion but not an absolute literal adherence either to the rules of science or to the logic of Scripture.

So, is it then true that atheist Darwinianism and literal Creationism both fail the test of philosophy when it comes to this puzzle? I am sure that there might be an actual answer to this, but I throw it out there as a logic puzzle. Enjoy.

Discuss.

Also consider another logic puzzle. What if evolutionary biologists discovered that apes believe in God? (or some religion) This would be proof of an evolutionary continuity between us and our cousins. But...it would also establish religion as an adaptation. Is not an adaptation and adaptation to something real? Would they be so quick to dismiss belief?

I am a Christian and a Darwinist. The two are not mutually exclusive (God created Darwin after all). Both Christianity and Darwinism are very misunderstood in general. In fact, neither one is exclusively or even primarily about how things are created but they're both very much about how they can change.

God wouldn't change his word, so it would mean the person is hearing something other than God.

Does that answer if clearly enough?

Originally posted by pacifier2012
God wouldn't change his word, so it would mean the person is hearing something other than God.

Does that answer if clearly enough?

god wouldn't change his word but some asshole who wants power and thinks manipulating a religion is the key to it would. its happen with Christianity its happening with islam

Darwinism is just as much a theory as Creationism. Scientists who claim that evolution is a proven fact are just used to perpetuating entrenched scientific dogma. Much the same way many fundamentalist Christians will go against all reason to tell us that the earth was created by God in six days.

Ever heard of irreducible complexity?

If evolution was a fact and not just a theory the "missing link" would have been found by now. And given the fact that evolution operates under the premise of very gradual cause and effect, survival of the fittest, there should be billions of missing links to be found. We shouldn't have such a hard time finding them. Scientists are grasping at straws, finding an ape leg bone and a human skull 40 feet apart and deeming it the missing link. What the real scientists (not the knuckleheads who are paid to find proof for theories that science supports) are finding is more and more evidence to suggest that man has existed longer than many species of apes and even potentially walked the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.

To find the true nature of our origins we must not look to the apes but to the stars.

I would tell him he was wrong and that it was probably his spirit guide talking to him as the creator does not speak to us directly as she is beyond what we could ever comprehend. Then I would tell him that he also misunderstood the content of the message as we use evolution to create beings with brains complex enough to hold what we really are.

Any person can be a prophet of God, the key is learning to listen to him. This type of job does not require a title or ranking, it requires a person with a conscious and faith, not only in their God, but also in themselves. There will always be opposition to the truth, but that does not mean it should not be told. More times then not the closer to the truth you are the harder it is to prove.

PLPL

Thank you OP.

I am so sick of the Evolution VS God debate. The first few verses leave a lot of room for interpretation. It doesnt say how God created life, it doesnt really quite say how long it took. I know it says it took a day, but a day to the lord is like a thousand years is it not?

The whole argument doesnt really solve anything. I believe God created the universe, and I believe he did it in a way that requires us to have faith. Do I know how he did it? No, and I dont think we ever really will.

So, OP, if I heard somebody say that... I would shake their hand and say congrats for having an open mind, and thank you for not getting bogged down by the pointless bickering we have all been distracted with.

He never said he didn't

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
I am a Christian and a Darwinist. The two are not mutually exclusive (God created Darwin after all). Both Christianity and Darwinism are very misunderstood in general. In fact, neither one is exclusively or even primarily about how things are created but they're both very much about how they can change.

edit on 18-4-2012 by TruthSeekerMike because: clarification

I believe in Divinely guided evolution, like you do. I am not a Christian, but that is my position.

Originally posted by Quantazero
I would tell him he was wrong and that it was probably his spirit guide talking to him as the creator does not speak to us directly as she is beyond what we could ever comprehend. Then I would tell him that he also misunderstood the content of the message as we use evolution to create beings with brains complex enough to hold what we really are.

How do you know the Creator does not speak to people personally and then say that the Creator is beyond our comprehension? If the Creator is beyond our comprehension then how would you know whether the Creator speaks to people or not?

I honestly think that's how it happened. I think God created everything, but allowed it to evolve into what it is today. So here's MY question, do we thank him, or pin the blame on him? lol

What I don't get is this - scripture clearly states that one is to test all prophets, and nowhere is it stated that some "book of nature", whatever that is, must or even should be used in order to test that prophet. God would therefore not require any of His servants to turn to man for any 'evidence from man' in order to test the prophecy. On this basis, even your hypothetical argument fails for me.

Man is subject to error, always. God is not. If you call that a 'fundamentalist' position, then so be it. As I see it, the Lord is glorified through His creation and His servants hold that dear. What therefore could be the grand delusion that He allows? Evolution, for it removes outright His acts of creation - the fundamental theme throughout scripture. This 'theory' has not only been the single biggest reason why the descendants of Christians not only reject God and creationism, but why the youngest generation firmly now believes in the media's powerful propaganda that we were 'created' by aliens. Evolution allowed God's creation acts to be removed from minds, and is now once again being changed to suggest creation by aliens through 'genetic manipulation' by aliens who were actually 'gods'. And it's entirely plausible to those who reject outright creation by God.

what language was it

and did he have an accent?

"Evolution, for it removes outright His acts of creation - the fundamental theme throughout scripture. This 'theory' has not only been the single biggest reason why the descendants of Christians not only reject God and creationism, but why the youngest generation firmly now believes in the media's powerful propaganda that we were 'created' by aliens."

Really? It has nothing to do with corruption within organized religion? All Darwin and monkey business?

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
what language was it

and did he have an accent?

Umm...it's like, uh, a hypothetical thought experiment.

Many believe that a god did use or set in motion evolution to create us. That's a theory that at least doesn't deny mountains of evidence.

It's still a violation of Occam's Razor, making assumptions that don't have evidence to support them. There is no reason to believe there was a God behind the process. However, making an assumption that cannot be shown for or against with evidence, is far more respectable than sticking to claims that require you to deny nearly every aspect of science.

I know people who hold those kind's of beliefs. While I still disagree with them, I find it a much more intelligent stance than the general young earth creationist ideology, though that's mostly because of how unintelligent I find that latter stance.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Many believe that a god did use or set in motion evolution to create us. That's a theory that at least doesn't deny mountains of evidence.

It also doesn't make any sense, e.g. some 200 million years of dinosaur evolution was wiped away largely by one rock that hit Earth ca. 65 million years ago. If that hadn't happened, we wouldn't not exist. Everything alive today is the result of a very long and random chain of events. If some magic being wanted to create us thru directed evolution, our species could have appeared on the planet 100s of millions of years ago, but it didn't.

To a certain extent we have evolved as a species, mentally. Think of all the science and medical based advancements that we have made just over the past 100 years. We have cures for diseases that would have been the demise of people years ago, thus increasing our life span. The technological advancement is remarkable, it was 1903 when the Wright brothers successfully flew an airplane and now 109 years later we are able to reach space. I do not agree with the physical evolution process, mainly because if we did indeed evolve from primates, then why did it stop?? There would be living examples of this process seeing as how primates as a species have been around for millions of years.

PLPL