Is Evolution Dependent On God'S Creative Activity?

[ShawFanX]

Kerry Shirts, in a now closed thread, made the following assertions:

Evolution needs no God to explain how it works, there is no plan or progression up to a pinnacle of creation such as us. We are all related genetically right down to monkeys and mosquitos, and there is no morals or point in life. There is absolutely NO previous life of spirit (whatever that is) there is no Adam and Eve, no fall from paradise and no special land or animal that is God's favorite....er, other than say beetles which are the largest population of species all over the world.There is no overall plan by anything, it just is. It just happens naturally.

Much could be said about these claims as a body, but what I want to focus on in this thread is the implication that, leaving aside the question of God's existence at all or the existence of the plan of salvation, which is implied at least indirectly above, is what evolution is, as an active principle or feature of the natural world (like gravity, the strong and weal nuclear forces, etc.) in relation to the gospel's understanding of God's central role as "creator."

John 1:3 says:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16-17 says:

For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

D&C 88:41-42 mentions:

He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;

The crux of the matter, given the above scriptures, would appear to be inescapable: evolution, to the degree that it accurately reflects the mechanistic, lawful principles by which all organic life developed from a common ancestor, is itself an integral aspect of the creation; it exists because God organized this earth from chaotic, primal elements and created, calibrated, tuned, and structured this earth such that evolutionary processes could both be possible and effective in producing the organic vehicles for the infinite variety of spirit intelligence and spirit bodies already existing in coherent, organized form.

From a gospel standpoint, in other words, while evolutionary development is not necessarily incompatible with gospel teachings, at the same time, it must also be understood as itself utterly contingent; it would not, could not, and never would have existed as a feature of the biological world had it not been created and ordained of God for that purpose and understood beforehand to be an efficacious and appropriate means of propagating organic life. Like volcanoes and plate tectonics, all phenomena we see and interact with in the mortal sphere, while they were not a part of the initial creation of the earth, were, because of the specific nature, structure, and teleology inherent in the earths controlled and engineered creation, emergent properties of the primordial earth. They are not present on the original state, and cannot be deduced or predicted from that original state, but they emerge as ever higher order complexity and dynamic processes emerge and reemerge over time. The question is whether all of this was was purely accidental, or whether there was vast and complex design, engineering, and control of the complex processes involved.

Evolution was an emergent property of the original molten sphere that was our primeval earth, in the sense that these were the planned, controlled and foreseen initial conditions for its eventual planned, foreseen and emergence.

The real problem, however, is the philosophical and, I would maintain, ultimately metaphysical claims inferred from the data of the natural world that the entire creative process, including that seen in evolutionary change, is random and that and has no purpose, direction, or coherent aims. As Kerry says, "There is no overall plan by anything."

So the question now becomes, can the claim that there is no overall plan to organic life, and no template, direction, or teleology to life on earth, including human life, actually be derived in any logically or empirically substantive way from the actual structure and dynamics of the natural world?

1. Does evolutionary change imply an irreducible, or transcendent randomness?

2. What do we mean be "random."

3. If God had been continually, throughout geologic history, guiding, calibrating, re-calibrating, patterning, channeling, and filtering evolutionary change to produce certain effects and limit or curtail others, what would count, scientifically, as evidence that he had or had not involved himself in such activity?

4. It is claimed that evolutionary theory does not need God to explain life on earth, and is self sufficient. But is this really the case? If evolution itself, as a dynamic process, is itself contingent and dependent upon God's creative activity, then evolution itself requires explanation as an aspect of telestial physical processes and hence, points through its own processes and principles back to God as a witness of his power, organization,and control of the cosmos, all its facets, their teleology, and ultimate destiny, both those things that act, and those that are acted upon.

How would we know, what would count as evidence, from a scientific standpoint, that evolutionary processes were, in fact, both a process allowed to run on its own, like a computer program structured to proceed unattended once initiated (like Checkdisk) through a series of tasks and procedures, but which, at the same time, was a program that had been created by intelligence for those specific tasks (and not others) and which, periodically, could be altered, redirected, modified, and the code rewritten, for various foreseen and planned purposes?

How would science know that, if and when it saw it?

Loran

Edited July 25, 2012 by ShawFanX

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution, and science in general does not address the issue of God. It is by definition a process. It is accepted fact by atheists and theists alike.

The whole Creationist story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the earth was made 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[BCSpace]

There are actually laws governing what we call "randomness".

But as I noted before, to preclude God from the process of evolution, one must be able to account for all motions of all particles and the flux of all energy in the universe or even universes and that throughout all time. God can easily and undetected have manipluted an atom or two here or there in a single specimen of an entire species to produce a large future effect. He could just as easily caused a tiny gravitic flucuation billions of years ago that eventually resulted in a climate changing disaster on a distant world which also would have directed evolution (the detractors of evolution often forget environmental effects). Whether His creation is just processes set in motion and initial conditions or occaisional tinkering or both, it can easily be undectectable by us.

Now if one can believe God literally took clay in His hands and molded a living man, then the above is certainly not implausible.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

God created all things...no matter how it happened.

[Bob Crockett]

Evolutionary theorists have argued that evolution follows established or observed patterns of game theory, from plants to animals.

I say that God is the Game. I think Orson Pratt would have agreed.

[altersteve]

From a scientific perspective, evolution is not dependent on God at all.

[Hamilton Porter]

There is no overall plan by anything, it just is. It just happens naturally.

Why are the laws of natural selection so friggin' amazing?

"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." - Richard Dawkins

So staggering something fishy is going on.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[bu11fr0g]

Evolution is readily affected. God by moving frogs, crickets, causing death of people or animals, seagulls, etc. all of these affect evolution more acutely than small rare genetic changes.

[Hamilton Porter]

There are actually laws governing what we call "randomness".

But as I noted before, to preclude God from the process of evolution, one must be able to account for all motions of all particles and the flux of all energy in the universe or even universes and that throughout all time. God can easily and undetected have manipluted an atom or two here or there in a single specimen of an entire species to produce a large future effect. He could just as easily caused a tiny gravitic flucuation billions of years ago that eventually resulted in a climate changing disaster on a distant world which also would have directed evolution (the detractors of evolution often forget environmental effects). Whether His creation is just processes set in motion and initial conditions or occaisional tinkering or both, it can easily be undectectable by us.

Now if one can believe God literally took clay in His hands and molded a living man, then the above is certainly not implausible.

Was it you who linked the article on evolutionary algorithms used by NASA to create the optimal antenna?

[thesometimesaint]

Hamilton Porter.

The universe didn't evolve literally out of nothing. However that something was very very small, infinitely hot, and infinitely dense.

[BCSpace]

Was it you who linked the article on evolutionary algorithms used by NASA to create the optimal antenna?

Sounds like something I would do, but in this case I'm pretty sure it wasn't me.

From a scientific perspective, evolution is not dependent on God at all.

From that same perspective, neither is God precluded from having been involved with it.

Edited July 25, 2012 by BCSpace

[Hamilton Porter]

Hamilton Porter.

The universe didn't evolve literally out of nothing. However that something was very very small, infinitely hot, and infinitely dense.

You're right.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think what God created was an economy (not a monetary system or a business model, but rather an oikonomia, an ordered "House Managing" and its planned intergenerational continuity), by setting up a Template (a Temple?) which overlays the conceptual chaos of existence and creates Order and Purpose and Meaning (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity) within His fellow Intelligences through an endowment of Wisdom and the Plan of Salvation which they are Anointed into in order to take part in themselves.

I think all Intelligences are completely and utterly Free, and therefore I don't think God can see "the" future; I think it is His constant Plan of action (that others are completely free to accept or reject) that allows Him and His Divine Council to see "all things for their glory [made] manifest, past, present, and future, and [...] continually before [them]." I think "all things", then, usually refers to all things which God has counseled us in; not necessarily a statement about the workings of the physical universe.

("Thus shalt thou do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all things which I have commanded thee: seven days shalt thou consecrate them." "So Aaron and his sons did all things which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses." "The Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for." "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." etc.)

This Plan, which is revealed and reiterated to us (and the other worlds filled with Children of God) from time to time, is signified by the great Urim and Thummim, the Lights and Perfections; it is the mirror of the will of the Gods, like crystal, like a sea of glass and fire. When the people of the earth have chosen the path which allows them to be sanctified and changed in a twinkling to live in a pattern that can continue into eternity, the entire world will be filled with Purpose and Meaning because we are filled with perfect love and charity and are the servants of all.

The scriptures do not contain the "omnis" people too-often tend to ascribe to God; He is never said to be omniscient or omnipresent, and even the one time in the New Testament He is described as "omnipotent" (thereby influencing the five occurrences of the word in the English translation of the Book of Mormon), I think it's saying He has all power it is possible to have, while not implying that He is the Unconstrained Absolute of classical philosophy; I think the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

I think He is "in all things" and "through all things" and "in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made" and upholds this world and all worlds in their orbits by understanding them through the light of truth. He comprehends these things. Just like He is not physically present in someone's heart, He's not physically present in "all things", but He understands their workings, their laws, their times and seasons, just as a farmer is able to speak and say when all things should be planted and when all things shall bloom, as if his very words have caused the fruit to blossom.

The truth shineth; light cleaveth unto light. God is wiser than us -- He is further along in His eternal progression than us -- and therefore we elected Him by common consent in the premortal council to lead us. He organized all us Intelligences (not, in my opinion, by arranging our atomic structure, but rather by organizing us socially into thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers). As a Speaker, a Messenger, He gives to us His word, the scriptures testifying of the existence of our Heavenly Parents and the Divine Council they take part in. Blessings are contingent on that law upon which they are predicated, not by God stepping in and altering the laws of space and time.

I also think that God the Father dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; the heavens are many, and on those earths I think the Gods are men and women like ourselves, and that same sociality which exists among us here exists there as well. The difference being that they have an eternal glory ("fame, renown, honor") that we don't, because we do not yet have perfect charity and love in this sphere.

But if the Gods themselves, who sit enthroned in yonder heaven, are humans like one of us, if that is the great secret, and if the veil were rent today and we were to see them in the image and very form of humanity; if we were created in the very fashion and image of the Gods and are capable of receiving instruction from them and walking, talking, and conversed with them as one person talks and communes with another; then that implies to me that they have a biology including flesh and bones as tangible as mankind's, even if senescence has been halted in their bodies.

And if God Himself, dwelling on an earth, could not create Himself, but instead worked out His kingdom in fear and trembling, climbing the ladder by beginning at the bottom, learning as all Gods have done by going from one small degree to another, line upon line and precept upon precept, then it seems perfectly logical that He, like any organism on any world, evolved as part of a species. Endosymbiosis, etc. At the same time, the mind of man, like that of God, exists on a self-existing principle; it's as eternal as God is. It had no beginning; it is not contingent on God in any way. He cannot create us from nothing; He cannot destroy us, just as we cannot create Him, nor destroy Him. No other Gods existed before or after another; we are all in this together.

The word "create" has not always meant "create from nothing"; that's a product of a more abstract philosophy, in which the only God worth worshipping is the Unchanging Absolute, the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover, the Ultimate Other, the Sovereign Ground of All Being, the One Upon Which All Are Contingent, etc. But the etymology of the word comes from "to make, bring forth, produce, beget." (Note that Father El, the God Most High, was called the qōnēh šāmayîm wā’âreṣ, the Begetter of the Gods.) It's related to crescere, which is to "arise, come forth, spring up, grow, thrive, swell, increase in numbers or strength," from the Proto-Indo-European base ker-, meaning "to grow", as in the name of Ceres, the Goddess of agriculture, or creare, "to bring forth, create, produce;" or the Greek kouros, "boy," or kore, "girl".

The anthropic principle is a truism. Of course if the constants of the universe were not perfectly "designed" and calibrated for us down to the squintillionth decimal point, it would be impossible for life as we know it to exist. But who designed the designer? No, I think the universe was uncreated, just like Intelligences; complexity is an emergent principle. We "create" our own children by following natural laws, initiating a process in which we cooperate in a complex symbiosis with other material to form new tabernacles for spirits.

Note that it doesn't give us the right to decide whether they live or die; we are not to reign over them as exalted sovereigns (heck, the word "sovereign" doesn't even appear in our scriptures as a title of deity) but rather with gentleness and meekness and love unfeigned. And the same goes for our Heavenly Parents, our Father and Mother and sisters and brothers in the Divine Council.

Honestly, we don't need God to be in charge of every particle in the universe in order to give worth to Him and the Spirit of Wisdom and the Son and the rest of the Council, just like we don't need our own earthly parents to have invented quantum mechanics and bacteria before giving them honor. Due to the eternal self-existing and uncreated nature of Intelligences, there doesn't need to be some intrinsic teleology bestowed upon us by a single First Cause; we are the causes which act, and we can simply make our own meaning for our lives. Existence is random if we name it so; on the other hand, we are just as free to create Meaning. The best meaning I think humans (Intelligences, Gods) have made thus far is to "love thy neighbor as thyself", so that's why I try to follow the Anointed One who taught it to me without compulsory means.

(Steve Peck wrote a fun poem on the topic as "Gilda Trillim" called My Turn On Earth.)

(Also, while I've defended a form of evolution here, I have some criticism of a strict Darwinian interpretation of it, and recommend Panspermia/Cosmic Ancestry as an alternative.)

[ShawFanX]

From a scientific perspective, evolution is not dependent on God at all.

Well, this is a part of my fundamental point, though I didn't state it directly in my OP. If, as the gospel teaches, the gospel encompasses and circumscribes all knowledge, of whatever kind, and if to God, all things are spiritual, then science cannot, ultimately be compartmentalized from God at all, even from a scientific perspective depending upon the philosophy of science that governs what "science" is understood to be.

Evolution appears independent of God only because we do not perceive God directing, modifying, controlling, and governing its dynamics and trajectory. Doubtless, like the defragmentation program on my computer, to some degree, God can set all the initial conditions for evolution and then "run the program." However, the fantastic complexity of those interconnected dynamics means that, if God has a plan, schema, or template in mind for the overall look and feel of terrestrial life, then any number of continual and consistent interventions, alterations, and directional modifications of the program would be called for. This means that, from a gospel (and hence, and evolutionary perspective, if evolution is understood to be a part of the gospel) perspective, teleology is inherent and central to evolutionary process, whether or not the scientific method, severely limited and restricted as it is by the perceptual boundary conditions of mortality, can tease out and separate such divine conditioning from the pure running of the program between modifications.

[ShawFanX]

From that same perspective, neither is God precluded from having been involved with it.

Exactly. To me its much like having a multiband band radio; AM, FM, a couple of shortwave bands, PB, MB, air traffic, and so on, and concentrating exclusively on the AM band, and then telling everyone that nothing but the AM frequency exists. Those who have experienced revelation from God would say, "No, wait a minute. I've been tuned to the FM, shortwave, and marine band before, and their are things happening there too. I hear broadcasts from far away, in other lands, that AM and FM cannot manifest to conscious awareness unless one "tunes in" to that frequency and knows how to do so."

Evolution, or any other "natural" physical process, appears separate from God only because, like atomic, nuclear, and sub-atomic particles once were, we don't perceive them directly and don't have the tools to access them perceptually. In our case, the manner in which we access knowledge about God and his overarching control and supervision of these processes, is through prayer and revelation, not through empirical observation or experiment (but, as the BofM says, our initial movement of faith is "experimenting" upon the word of God and following the evidence it provides).

Edited July 25, 2012 by ShawFanX

[ShawFanX]

I think what God created was an economy (not a monetary system or a business model, but rather an oikonomia, an ordered "House Managing" and its planned intergenerational continuity), by setting up a Template (a Temple?) which overlays the conceptual chaos of existence and creates Order and Purpose and Meaning (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity) within His fellow Intelligences through an endowment of Wisdom and the Plan of Salvation which they are Anointed into in order to take part in themselves.

I think that's an insightful movement toward just what I'm trying to say here.

I think all Intelligences are completely and utterly Free, and therefore I don't think God can see "the" future; I think it is His constant Plan of action (that others are completely free to accept or reject) that allows Him and His Divine Council to see "all things for their glory [made] manifest, past, present, and future, and [...] continually before [them]." I think "all things", then, usually refers to all things which God has counseled us in; not necessarily a statement about the workings of the physical universe.

Disagree. A perfect mind, knowing all initial conditions and every possible variable and permutation of those conditions and their developmental trajectory, could, indeed, predict and "know" the end from the beginning. With free willed intelligence, this becomes a more difficult concept, but with mechanistic, repeatable physical phenomena, only the degree and perfection of intelligence stands between matter and energy and its control, manipulation, and artistic expression.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I see what you're getting at, but I think there has to be some element of (for lack of a better term) "uncertainty" in order for those Intelligences to be truly free. (This might be a semantic limitation on our part, however.) There has to be that opposition in all things, that element of underlying chaos. When the scriptures say that God knows the end from the beginning (or similar formulations), I think that's again pointing to the Plan of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. He knows the End, the Purpose of the Plan He has created, so in that sense there is a sort teleology, but He doesn't know every choice other Intelligences will make, since they too are as Free as He is. It's possible to reject the Plan, and if God knows what we will choose, then we get all the usual philosophical arguments against free will. I think that's why the "without compulsory means" bit in 121 is so important; a House Order built between equals, between friends, is the only one that has a chance of lasting forever.

I think that the fundamental problem here is where God came from. If He as an Intelligence could not create Himself and instead came to inhabit a body, then He could not have formed that body. If so, where did it come from? It seems logical enough to think it evolved. With panspermia, genetically-related organisms evolved on worlds without number, in which case we on this earth are made from the same "seeds of life" as on other worlds. While the Gods might have seeded this earth, that just pushes the issue one step back; the problem is that traditional Christianity there must always be that First Cause type of God, whereas I don't think Mormonism needs that in order to give worth to our Father and Spirit of Wisdom and Anointed One. Life simply exists on a self-existing principle, though Intelligences can (somehow, someway) be "sent" to inhabit bodies on different worlds, being born into bodies given to them from the Intelligences who inhabited bodies on that sphere before them. Fantastically bizarre, but I think it works.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Kerry Shirts, in a now closed thread, made the following assertions:

Loran

I will only state that the thread is not closed, just that you were banned.

Anyway Kerry seemed open for more dialogue.

[ERayR]

Evolution, and science in general does not address the issue of God. It is by definition a process. It is accepted fact by atheists and theists alike.

The whole Creationist story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the earth was made 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Lets separate the age of the earth from the different creation/evolution accounts. It is obvious that the earth itself is older than 7000 years. That still does not validate man being a creature that crawled out of the primeval slime and evolved his way up. Do all the mind tricks you want that scenario destroys 1-the precept that man is the offspring of God and 2-it nullifies the atonement which reconciles God and man. Some thing that has never been in the celestial realms with God can not be restored to something that never was.

A long period of preparation of the earth with plants and animals I accept and believe and after it was ready then man was placed here to assume dominion. I can even see a longer period than 7000 years for mans advent but man came from the presence of God and in the words of the poet Wordsworth "...trailing streams of glory".

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Lets separate the age of the earth from the different creation/evolution accounts. It is obvious that the earth itself is older than 7000 years. That still does not validate man being a creature that crawled out of the primeval slime and evolved his way up. Do all the mind tricks you want that scenario destroys 1-the precept that man is the offspring of God and 2-it nullifies the atonement which reconciles God and man. Some thing that has never been in the celestial realms with God can not be restored to something that never was.

A long period of preparation of the earth with plants and animals I accept and believe and after it was ready then man was placed here to assume dominion. I can even see a longer period than 7000 years for mans advent but man came from the presence of God and in the words of the poet Wordsworth "...trailing streams of glory".

It wasn't man that crawled out of the primeval slime and evolved his way up. It was a fish with the ability to survive outside of water that started the animal conquest of dry land.

Man was still about a billion years off. Man was still with God.

Evolution does not concern itself with the Atonement. However if you want to put our religion in it. Do non human animals need to repent?

According to the Scriptures mans physical body was created here on earth while mans spirit is from the presence of God.

Edited July 26, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Tacenda]

ERayR:

It wasn't man that crawled out of the primeval slime and evolved his way up. It was a fish with the ability to survive outside of water that started the animal conquest of dry land.

Man was still about a billion years off. Man was still with God.

Evolution does not concern itself with the Atonement. However if you want to put our religion in it. Do non human animals need to repent?

According to the Scriptures mans physical body was created here on earth while mans spirit is from the presence of God.

This is very thought provoking, and gives an incredible "out" to those that claim Athiesm, to have a belief in God again. Love it!

Edited July 26, 2012 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

Thank you. I've always believed that Agnosticism not Atheism is the best argument against Mormonism. However I have no problem with God or science. But reserve the right to disagree with someones/anyone's interpretation of both.

[supersnail]

ShawFanX:

The mechanisms of evolution include stochastic processes, so evolution isn't analogous to typical computer programs.

The reason why that is important is that there is a level of indeterminacy (or at least apparent indeterminacy) in evolution. This is important when we are talking about influences that may be beyond human measurement. Influence can appear as something random.

Beetles, mentioned in the quote in your OP, are interesting in that the example of beetles shows that evolution doesn't lead to intelligent complex organisms dominating the planet numerically.

Even if earth is unique in all the universe, if God created the universe with initial conditions that would eventually give rise to humans at some point, somewhere, that wouldn't be "no purpose".

Direction doesn't have to mean uniform progress. Even if only 1% of earth-like planets have any life, that may be enough.

I tend to agree with the idea that God works with matter and that he may have to work with evolution and forces counteracting abiogenesis. So maybe 100% is ideal, but 1% is better than nothing and good enough to create a universe. A plan with less than ideal results may still be perfectly carried out and its results anticipated.

[supersnail]

Evolution, and science in general does not address the issue of God. It is by definition a process. It is accepted fact by atheists and theists alike.

The whole Creationist story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the earth was made 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Firstly, I do not accept Young Earth creationism, and I'm not quite sure how the discussion evolved from the bold (to put it politely) claim made in the other thread--that Mormonism is incompatible with science because evolutionary theory doesn't specify God as a factor--to a discussion of intelligent design ideas and Young Earth creationism. To make progress on this topic, we should clarify when we have abandoned our positions.

Nonetheless, if there were incontrovertible evidence of God's existence and influence, people would still defy him. This is something that people, claiming science, on both sides may not appreciate.

Richard Dawkins has said something to the effect that if overwhelming evidence of God were staring him in the face, he might still be skeptical.

For some people, no proof would be enough, and even if a person came to believe in the fact of God's existence, he or she may still disobey him. In fact, the question arises would God want to put people in such a situation, in which people have the opportunity to obstinately deny or defy God when there is strong empirical evidence of his influence.

[mfbukowski]

Is Evolution Dependent on God's Creative Activity?

What it "is" and knowing what it is are two quite different things.

The "problem" is unsolvable. The answer to the question is unanswerable so I really don't see why we need to argue about it. We can each answer it our own way and we are all right since there is no criterion to prove any of us wrong.

Edited July 28, 2012 by mfbukowski