Francis Collins and Theistic Evolution (Re: the book "The Language of God")

i have a proposition: selection.evolution is two parts: variation and natural selection. clearly, we can manipulate evolution ourselves with artificial selection. why could god not do the same on a much more massive scale? i say, "supernatural selection." ie: mass extinctions.

---

I can't assume that theistic evolution is a fact, but I think we all agree that microevolution occurs naturally. But isn't it the idea that species evolve AS adaptation to the environment? That is, new forms occur and if they enhance survival or fit the creature to a particular niche they get established and all it takes is a lot of that to make a new species. Do you think intervention is necessary for some reason; That is, you don't believe that species evolve naturally by chance plus selection?

I'm not saying that it is necessary. Cavediver says that for God to intervene somehow cheapens his creation. Personally I'm impressed either way.

The only way God intervenes in history is through the free will actions of humans. Without humans there is no intervention. Read Matthew 25. Natural selection is not intervention, it is natural selection according to the rules/laws of nature.

The idea of whether we evolved from single celled creatures without any intervention by God is subjective. God may have designed it that way or He may have designed it in such a way that he intervened to cause macro evolution in the process. We can only observe what happened, not why it happened.I just go back to my question, which is how does it devalue the creative process by God's intervening in the process as it evolved.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

It is not a question of which has more "value". It is a question of which there is more evidence for and which is the most "parsimonius" explanation. There is little, if any, evidence for an interventionist God in terms of the natural order of things. All of the physical and biological attributes of the universe can be explained following the laws of the physical and natural sciences. There is plenty of evidence for an interventionist God through humans in human history, however. Think of what happens if there is no Abraham Lincoln, or FDR, for example.

I was just responding to cavediver's post when I talk about creation being devalued. I realize that an interventionist God makes life difficult for scientists but it doesn't mean that it ain't the truth. I'm certainly not going to argue about whether the idea has merit or not from a scientific standpoint. I'm just suggesting that when genetic mutations occur there may have been divine influence or there might not have been, and I figure that either way the evolutionary process is a pretty incredible invention.It seems to me that God intervened in the process at least once 2000 years ago. As far as God intervening through the hearts of the people of his creation, I couldn't agree more.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

But why invoke an intervention into the process of evolution when it is totally unnecessary? We know mutations occur spontaneously. There is no need to invoke God. It is not just Science that values parsimony. Common sense, logic and the judicial process does as well. Where does the evidence lead? If you are going to invoke an extraordinary explanation (and who could argue that God did it isn't extraordinary?) then you need some extraordinary evidence. The fact that a mutation occured is not extraordinary. Hence no need for God.IMO there is no need for a virgin birth or a bodily resurrection either if that is what you mean by God intervening 2000 years ago. Why have a virgin give birth when there is a much more tried and true method of doing that and why bring the actual body of Jesus back to life when his spirit is what is needed to change the lives of people? We don't need the body of Jesus to be alive anymore than we need the body of Thomas Jefforson to be alive to understand the spirit of his words, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."Another way of looking at this - if one accepts the fact that Jesus was fully human he couldn't have been born of a virgin or had a bodily resurrection after he died because that isn't the way it works when one is human. However we can follow Jesus and do as he did because he WAS fully human. That is the real good news. If he had not been fully human we would have no hope of being like him.

I agree with your overall point by the way, but just had to answer this: The reason Jesus was virgin-born was that He was God as well as man, so he got his genes straight from God rather than from a human father; and there is another reason as well, in that the Savior could not BE the Savior if he had ordinary inheritance from a human father, because we all inherit the sin of Adam that way, and Jesus had to be free of that inherited sin from the fathers in order to be the unblemished Lamb of God, without any sin at all, who took on the sins of believers. EDIT: Since this is off topic and there may not be enough for a new PNT, and jar's answer doesn't seem very conducive to serious discussion, I'll add here that I may have always had a wrong idea about the virgin birth in that I assumed that Mary's genes were given to Jesus, simply because the Holy Spirit "conceived" Jesus within her. To be absolutely clear about this, I had nothing remotely in mind like human sex -- so jar's silly carrying-on is just playing on a misreading of "got his genes straight from God" -- but pictured God's simply CREATING Jesus according to His prescription. I merely assumed that this included Mary's egg.But I found at least one website that says that Jesus is considered to have been created altogether new by God, with no inherited genes at all -- the way Adam was originally formed. This makes sense. Because of my wrong picture of his inheriting Mary's genes, I had been under some misimpression that sin may only be inherited from the father, even though if I think about it I know that can't be true.So the point I'm trying to make here has to be made somewhat differently but it's still the same point. Jesus HAD to be virgin-born for a practical reason in the plan of redemption -- AND born without genetic inheritance from his parents -- because sin is inherited and He had to be the perfect man, completely sinless, just as Adam was originally sinless. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I saw "Totally off topic" somewhere.There is a rejected "Proposed New Topic", Isaiah 7:14: Virgin or young woman?.It was rejected because it was deemed redundant to the following topics: Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?, closed at 305 messages, and Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7, still open.Perhaps the still open topic is a good place to discuss things "virgin". Or perhaps it's time to reconsider that rejected PNT. If anyone wishes to go the existing PNT route, please reply at the "Considerations..." topic, link below. Please supply a link back to this message.Adminnemooseus

---

Too funny. GOD genes, even bettern Calvin Kleins. Talk about blasphemy.And now we know, Eve got a pass, can't catch sin from her, no way.Too, too funny.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe we should have a "genetics of the virgin birth proposition" discussion.

No more postings on the virgin birth issue. Stick to the topic as defined in the OP.

[OOPS, sorry for the off topic post, I hadn't read past Faith's post. But somewhere this should be answered as it is a really incredible claim. lfen] Are you claiming that God has a y chromosome? God has human DNA and he gave Mary a set of his chromosomes? Are you claiming that the y chromosome is the carrier in some way, a genetic way? of original sin?Thus women who don't have y chromosomes are not subject to original sin?I don't believe this is an orthodox theological statement but then I'm not up on Christian dogma. Still I am rather overwelmed by your claims here.lfenEdited by lfen, : I read to the end of the thread and came on the off topic warning after posting this.

Collins believes that God's design was complete when He set in motion the evolutionary process. (Whether God intervened during the process or not is interesting but not really relevant.) I would also say that it is safe to say that he also believes in God being the creator of the universe.If one accepts those two ideas then one has to believe in miracles. Why then do those who can accept that miracles happened in those two cases, have such a hard time believing that other miracles have happened throughout history?If we accept God in the role of father, (or parent if you wish), why would we expect him just to set things in motion then disappear. Hopefully as parents we don't do that. I can't see why it is so hard to believe that God intervenes supernaturally in the universe He supernaturally created.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.