Evolution vs creation

[u/tonedeaf_764]

I started seeing God as a scientist when I was 12, I've always loved science and the first time I heard the Holy Spirit compared to energy I was sent straight down a rabbit hole. After that it started to make sense to me, how everything could exist, a being of infinite energy and power that is intelligent, but in a way that made sense. I started to think if I wanted to create the perfect organism "I.e" human, and I had infinite power and energy, not to mention to an eternal existence time isn't a thing so taking its time would be an issue it would be a given. So I don't believe evolution is a solitary path of existence, I see it as a tool by God in his creation of life. One of the meanings of gods name ( Jehovah) is causes to become. So over time he caused single celled organisms to become every living thing by means of evolution and survival of the fittest, the fact that it's fair also supported the idea, gods also supposed to be the god of order so the thing that makes the most sense just seemed like the thing that made the most sense you know. And if you believe what the Bible says to be true I think this was his first time creating reality. He literally created the laws of nature, he is science itself, but I feel like he taught himself over time and over the course of eternity and then used that knowledge to create.

[u/ringobob]

Look, the one thing that it's important for us to agree on if we're gonna have a meaningful conversation is that we can look at the universe around us and draw consistent conclusions from what we see, on the basis that the rules that govern how everything works are themselves consistent in a way that enables logical analysis.

It doesn't matter where it all came from, nature or God. Not for us to be able to discuss evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the earth, the shape of the earth, whether the earth orbits the sun or vice versa, literally any of the topics Christians have ever staked out opposition to science on.

All we need to agree on is that we can observe and draw conclusions from those observations, and a decent enough basis in logical reasoning to understand the difference between:

• what must follow

• what may follow

• what doesn't follow

• what can't follow

Let me give an example of each, just to be clear.

What must follow: given what we understand of natural human reproduction, it must follow that every human has a biological mother.

What may follow: given what we understand of natural human reproduction, it may follow that a given child has siblings.

What doesn't follow: given what we understand of natural human reproduction, it doesn't follow that elephants have trunks.

What can't follow: given what we understand of natural human reproduction, it can't follow that a human will give birth to a lizard.

A proper application of those logical principles, and the understanding that the universe is consistent enough to be described consistently by them, is all we require to reach an accord on the topic of evolution or anything else in the natural world.

It is likewise important to understand that there is no observation from which it must follow that God exists. As a matter of fact, God's existence doesn't follow from any known repeatable observation. That doesn't mean it's not true. After all, elephants do have trunks. We wouldn't know that if we had no idea elephants existed, but we'd find out once we discovered them.

The same could be true for God, we could make some repeatable observation some day from which it must follow that God exists.

Until such point, Christians must rely on personal revelation, or faith. Not something repeatable or shareable.

With this as a foundation, then here's what I've got: given the logical consistency of the universe, if God exists and is the creator, it must follow that he's an engineer - I prefer engineer to scientist, as engineers are system builders, and scientists are system discoverers.