Evolution proves that god is real

I regret that we are out of time so I will not be able to offer and rejoinders to the next excellent set of ideas offered in rebuttal, but look forwards to reading them. Argument 1: Creation Con states: First of all, I disagree with my opponent when he says that God is (typically) defined as the one who creates the universe. Evangelical Christians do believe that God created the universe and stepped away, as Con suggests. [2] This is Deism. [1] However, many religions, including liberal protestant Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, all allow for an actively creating God [2]. In the context of this debate, it is correct to say it is only meaningful if you accept the terms of the debate by predicating it on one of the many belief systems that allow for an active God. Rejecting the argument because of the strawman of the existence of Deism is not a real invalidation. A religious philosopher agrees with the entire premise of this point with Life is essentially a creative process. Stripped of its imagery, is that not what belief in a creator God is really about? [3] This debate is not about intelligent design- this debate is about accepting that the definition of God as the creator and the reality of evolution means that God is a real thing. It is equivalent to defining a heater as something that heats, once you feel the warmth you know it is a real thing. Once you accept there is warmth, you accept there is a heater. Once you accept that things are actively created in this universe, you accept there is a God. Maybe not a God you like, or even previously outlined accurately in a religion, but by definition, they exist. It may be the all possible worlds are created, as posited by some thinkers [4]. This would mean there is no “intelligent design” but rather “all possibilities exist”. If Con must pick on a philosophical belief that Pro would stand behind for this particular debate- it would be behind the creation of all possible worlds. [5] At no time in this debate has the Pro position been there is necessarily an intelligent agent making a choice about how DNA modification takes place. That is a possibility that is not being ruled out, but neither is it being affirmed as necessary for it to be considered an “act of God”. The “act of God” is merely in the event of creation- whether this creation is random, or chosen externally, is irrelevant. Just as when a person makes a choice “of free will” it is irrelevant whether or not this is random, or chosen. “Free will” could be an illusion based on a random event, or due to some supernatural “agent of self” making a choice- it is irrelevant to the core concept that “free will” can be spoken of as a concept and a real thing. “Free will” is a real concept in the space of human choice in the same manner “God” is a real concept in the space of creation in the universe. If you wish to frame either of these into a box which contains only randomness, that is your choosing, and is a valid one in the context of this argument, but not one that all would adhere to. Nor does that choice invalidate the central claims. Con asks “I am asking myself whether Pro actually thinks of more or even all natural processes as creation. ” This is an excellent question and the limited response allowed must be brief. What natural processes constitute creation? This is similar to asking- what is different from a dead planet like Mars, versus Earth? Should we consider them different? The pro position is yes- there is a fundamental difference between living planets and dead ones. Would con consider there to be some difference between a dead planet like Mars and a living one like Earth? If so, how would you describe this difference? This is the heart of your question. Dead planets do not have ongoing substantive creativity, and living ones do. Not all natural processes are creating. A meteor striking Mars does not increase its creative quotient, even though it leaves a mark. It appears that creation, similar to free will, involves an aspect of freedom or choice in the underlying physics of the phenomena. Argument 2 love: Con states: My point was that the ability to feel an emotion is rather easily explained by evolutionary psychology without divine intervention. Here Con seems to be attributing the Evangelical Christian strawman of directed divine intervention as an argument to punch in place of the real argument. What needs to be demonstrated is that love is a new phenomena, that is something that came from “late creation”, and thus had to be created. In the world view presented here, God is the force behind quantum multi worlds- God is the power which creates all things. This means that in a deterministic universe, love would not arise. However, in a universe that allows for random mutation and possibility- note the word possibility- love could arise. And it did. The proof here is to observe if love exists in locations where life does not exist. Mars does not appear to have love. It is a biological, creation driven process. Love also operates outside the bounds of typical evolutionary pressure and stands as its own kind of selection. Con suggests "kinds of selection" is what my opponent is talking about) is a term I have never heard before, I could not find anything on and for which readers should demand a citation. The types of selection that exist are: Stabilizing selection [6][7][8] Directional selection [6][7][8] Disruptive selection [6][7][8] Sexual selection [9] Artificial selection [10] Sexual selection and artificial selection, cited above, are both types of selection that are segregated conceptually from natural selection because they involve forces outside of normal environmental survival. The important aspect of these selective forces is that they can land organisms in a “arms race” of changes due to selective pressure[9]. Matt Ridley’s book “The Red Queen” is an excellent discourse on this phenomena. [11]. Evolutionary theorists, as noted above, commonly separate the selective forces to help elucidate and separate selective pressure. Is this form of selective pressure substantively different than other selective pressure previously demarcated? Yes. Conclusion The fact that new things arise- the very nature of the fact of creation- is proof of God. More than half of all scientists believe in God [12]. Why? God is by definition the Creator. Note this argument allows for the possibility of divine intervention, but that is not the argument, that is the strawman Con is fixated What is being presented here is that love is a new phenomena that would not exist without the God creator who creates possibilities. Con’s continuous attack of intelligent design which is not being presented demonstrates that there really is no contention against the underlying truths that we live in a creative, and ongoing generative universe that allows new, wonderful things like love to exist. This creative force is called God. [1] . http://www.gotquestions.org... [2] . http://www.religioustolerance.org...[3] Thompson, Mel. Understand the philosophy of Religion [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://listverse.com...[6] . http://www.sparknotes.com... [7]. https://www.boundless.com... [8] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [11] Ridley, Matt "The Red Queen"[12] . http://www.pewforum.org...