From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:16:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: skyblu.29AUG199219163558
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug28.002646.4080@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes...
>In <27AUG199210150013@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
>>Leaving aside the problem with this that abiogenesis is distinct from
>>evolution, why do you exclude the possibility that God created life
>>*by using* evolution?
> 
>Read your own sentence back, "God CREATED life *by using* evolution"
>The involvement of God defines it as CREATION!
>Any involvement, no matter how small, makes it CREATION.

Here you are defining "creation" as ANY involvement of God, whatsoever.
Using that definition, theistic evolution is a form of creation.  Fine.
Where's the contradiction?

>To say that god did it by letting the natural process take course,
>is the same as saying God did it, by doing nothing.

Not necessarily.  God could have designed the natural processes in
the first place.

>>>If you answer god for any stage, then it could be god for
>>>all of the stages, and you believe in creation, not evolution.
> 
>>>If you answered evolution for any stages, then you are implying
>>>that a single stage can be modified without gods assistance, 
>>>Any stage could be likewise modified without assistance.
>>>Therefore, you believe in evolution, not creation.
> 
>>This contradicts your previous paragraph.  (Anybody who answers
>>"God created the first cell, then evolution did the rest by
>>itself" is, by your previous paragraph, a creationist and not an
>>evolutionist, but by this paragraph, an evolutionist and not a
>>creationist.)
> 
>Surprise! That's what they are meant to do!  
>My entire point was that Evolution is in contradiction to God.

This makes no sense.  If God created the first cell, then all further
development proceeded by evolution, without any divine intervention,
what do you call this position?  From what you said several paragraphs
above (which I already replied to), I presume you would call it "creation."
But where's the contradiction?  This is a perfectly coherent position that
I have just described.
   From what you say immediately above, this position would have to be
described as both creationist but not evolutionist AND evolutionist but
not creationist.  It is YOUR position which is inconsistent and therefore
untenable.

>>>You cannot answer god for some stages, and evolution for others.
>>>I have 2 cats, a siamese and a persian. You cannot say god
>>>created the siamese, and the persian evolved from a lower species.
> 
>>Why can't anyone say that?  Even the most hardcore creationist
>>accepts microevolution, and therefore claims that God is responsible
>>for some changes (the formation of new "kinds") while evolution is
>>responsible for other changes (change within "kinds").
> 
>But, I can take the changes that you say God HAD to make,
>and split them up into thousands of small microevolutions.
>Enough evolutions within "kinds" will form a new "kind"
> 
>You said ONLY God could do that, but when the problem is reduced to 
>a series of small steps, evolution can do it too.

My point was not that the position I described is the only one possible.
(Indeed, as an atheist I reject it.)  My point was simply that the
position is a consistent one, which refutes your claim that evolution
and God are inconsistent.  It is no rebuttal to a claim that X is
possible to claim that not X is also possible, which is what you have
just done here.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15245 talk.origins:10262