According to progressive creationism, God created the universe, life, and humanity, but he did it over a period of time billions of years long. As various species evolved from earlier species, God intervened periodically to give the process a helping hand. Without God's assistance, evolution would never have progressed as rapidly as it did on our planet.
Theistic evolutionism maintains that God only created the universe and simple life, not any complex form of life, including humanity. The idea is that after God created a very simple life form on our planet about three billion years ago, he departed the scene and allowed evolution by means of natural selection to take over.
Either way, it is GOD who is responsible for evolution and science does not tell this to us! Was Darwin wrong to neglect god's contribution to evolution?
There are several problems with this argument. Firstly, that there is no evidence (yet again) of 'assistance'. There are no examples of irreducible complexity and therefore we are back to the same old "They are just making it all up". Secondly, there are many failings and problems with evolution that, if it had been started by an omniscient being, one would think that it would be a better system of development than it is. Thirdly, Christians still have the problem of why Jesus needed to die on the cross for us if there wasn't the original sin with Adam and Eve. The only progressive creationist is the one that accepts evolution for what it is... without the need for a god.
Yeah, as George Carlin said (although he was applying it more to human social problems), these are not the kind of results we would expect from a supreme being. These are the kind of results we would expect from an office temp with a bad attitude.
Who's the incompetent moron who put our fucking corneas in backward?
More importantly, who put our fucking retinas in backwards?
Whatever. I haven't had my coffee yet. :-P
You make three valid points. All these "progressive creationists" are really saying is what most people who have incorporated both God and evolution into their system of beliefs are saying; that God is in control of evolution. At this point, I feel that these people can no longer be considered creationists since they accept large scale evolution. Creationists have long since accepted the theory that minute changes within a species lead to individuality, but they only accept this so they can appear to have some form of academic standing, and they refuse to believe that these changes can lead to the development of new subspecies or new species. What I am seeing here is an admittance from some creationists that these changes do lead to the development of new species. Again, at this point I can no longer consider any creationist who accepts this a creationist at all but rather a CINO-Creationist In Name Only.
All creationists know very well that science can not be denied, but they want a face saving device to accept evolution. When a right device will be found, Vatican will use it to say that evolution suits the Bible.
Was Darwin wrong to neglect god's contribution to evolution?
Perhaps you are asking the wrong question. Maybe it should be: Was god wrong to neglect showing Darwin any proof of his existence or his hand in either of those creation scenarios?
You are right, the real question should be as you have asked! What an enormous negligence on the part of god!
This one is easy for me to decide, there is no god, never has been, never will be. Any evidence that god exists can be explained by natural means, those things we cannot explain are not because god did them but because we have not the equipment to measure or explain the phenomena. As far as I am concerned, people who hold beliefs that god exists not only delude themselves but feel justified to intrude into my life without invitation. The wars between and within religious groups tell me all I need to know about the invalidity of god. The conquests of other peoples with immunity is further proof god, when used to justify greed, is a figment of human imagination. An image of a personal god is so distasteful to me and to imagine that within all this magnificent universe there is a thing that knows when a sparrow falls from the sky is laughable. Just listen to the stories and know without a doubt, faith in god is a device of little minds unable to see beyond their own little world. No, Madhukar, I cannot agree with your premise.
This discussion is just to show how the creationists are trying to appropriate the gains of science in the name of god. They know very well that they can never prove anything that is in the Bible, so they want to steal the credit by the backdoor.
This is just another example of religion backpedaling to science and modern social consensus in order to remain relevant. They did this with geocentric theory, gravity, slavery, sexuality, etc. And they will continue to do it so that they aren't dismissed completely.
Everything, including evolution has been driven exclusively by a complex series of cause and effect that goes back at least billions of years. What caused the big bang? I don't know, but to assume a deity is simply a cop-out. If something had to be there to start it, what started that something? God too would have needed a creator, as would that creator and so on.
The future, every conversation you will ever have and your eventual death have already been set in stone by these causes and effects. Your biology, your genetic make-up and environmental effects are all dictated. You are just playing a roll in it all, but isn't that wonderful enough? Sure, God could have started it all, so could the Flying Spagetti Monster, a Purple Unicorn, or the first incarnation of Elvis Presley. Any assumption of a creator without evidence is just as ludicrous as those examples.
The Vatican is already attempting to say that the Big Bang fits in the Bible story of creation. Now they are attepmting to see how they can adopt to evolution.