--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <nelsonriddle2001@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> <nelsonriddle2001@> 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson" 
> > > > > <Irmeli.Mattsson@> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Although I think that also God makes mistakes and learns
> > > > > > through and from them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Question on this one point: By what standard can it
> > > > > be said that God makes mistakes?
> > > > >
> > > > ++++ I recall reading somewhere that he said that he was 
> > > > evolving which would mean not so much making mistakes as doing 
> > > > things differently. N.
> > > 
> > > Evolving toward what?

I think there is a big confusion of what evolution actually means.
Here some biological definitions:

Evolution: The long-term process through which a population of
organisms accumulates genetic changes that enable its members to
successfully adapt to environmental conditions and to better exploit
food resources.

The change in life over time by adaptation, variation,
over-reproduction, and differential survival/reproduction, a process
referred to by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace as natural selection.

In this sense evolution is not the development to a certain
pre-existent goal, but rather the successful adaptaion to a given
environment by a certain organism. Thhis is what trial and error and
natural selection is all about. This makes the idea of an evolving
Creator-God fairly upsurd: How could a Creator adapt to an
environment, he has created himself? It is even more absurd if you
assume an all-knowing God going through trial and error. Pretty much
trial and error can be done by machines, and doesn't require a creator
at all. That is why evolution, the theory of natural selection is so
much opposed by the creationists.

Now one can of course try to transfer the idea of evolution to a sort
of teleological argument, and that is what many New Agers do. There is
a goal, a pre-existent ideal to which nature develops. But if God
himself develops, who established the ideal, was it already there or
did he create it? And if he created the ideal, why didn't s/he create
the ideal creation right away?

I think one gets into a big muddle if one tries to combine
evolutionary theories which really don't need any God (like trial and
error) with creationist ideas. Why should a God evolve, unless he has
fallen, and is now involved in his own creation? Of course one could
argue, we are all God, and we are all evolving to finally realize this
potential of ours.

Otherwise its a really absurd idea, with the sort of populistic
appeal, the same as that we are all co-creators. It just makes some
people feel more important.

> > >
> > ++++ He didn't say but I would guess that being at level, he would
> > be pretty well qualified to decide.
> If he recognizes that ultimate toward which he is evolving,
> such that he can see that something he did was a mistake,
> or that he needed to do things differently, what is the
> nature of that ultimate?
> If what we're calling God is not the ultimate, what is?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to