I will proclaim without hesitation that Pandeism
has no conflict with the theory of evolution
by natural selection
. In fact, further than that, Pandeism requires exactly such a mechanism.
The last challenge: irreducible complexity.
Most early challenges to evolution centered on the absence of mechanisms which have since been demonstrated to exist. Two big challenges remain, these being supposed moral implications, and irreducable complexity. But the moral implications (for example, that if we share a common ancestor with cows, eating beef makes us cannibals) are rhetorical, not scientific. But since we're dealing with a theological model, the question is not simply one of science, but of science in a theological world.
Recently I was challenged in another forum
on my proposition that the most "intelligent" design which a Creator could set forth would itself be evolution. Specifically, I contended that a designer incapable
of bringing about our present Universe through processes such as evolution was weaker than one which was capable of such a thing. My proposition to begin with is that a deity ought to be capable of having created our Universe
-- our exact
Universe-- in such a way as to bring about all life as we know through evolution
by natural selection
beginning with one Universal Common Ancestor
The person who sought to oppose this line of thought replied:
I really don't see how you think the theistic god is weak creating the universe, Such a being could create the universe anyway he desires, What does it matter if he decides to use irreducible complexity. Why would he be required to make the universe a certain way?
Nifty question. Well to begin with, "irreducible complexity" is not itself a means of creating
, it is itself a proposed limitation. It proposes that some biological structures are so inherently complex that nobody -- NOT EVEN GOD!! -- is clever enough to figure out how to set up a system
which looks like ours, and which allows them to self-assemble. So, to ask why somebody wouldn't "use irreducible complexity" is like observing that one way to build a house is with a hammer and nails, but contending that another way is by "being unable to use a hammer and nails," and then asking why couldn't somebody use their "inability to use a hammer and nails" to build the house.
Was this the way in which our Universe came to exist?
Well, theists seem to acknowledge that our Creator has the power
to have created our exact Universe pandeistically (ie, by setting forth the fundamental forces of nature and then having the entire thing unfold purely in accordance with those forces from a single point of energy). So if our Creator has the power
to do this, and the result would be exactly the Universe which we now inhabit, then there's no reason to believe otherwise. If the proof-- our Universe as we experience it-- can be accounted for by either explanation, the only reason to deny the possibility of the pandeistic is to really not
believe our Creator has the power or intelligence to create as such.
Now, suppose Atheism
is correct. Wvolution, on the evidence available, is as defensible in an uncreated Universe as in a created one. Indeed, in an atheistic Universe, evolution would essentially be the only
mechanism available to account for the diversity of life. But of all the faiths of Man, only Deism
falls within) requires
that the evolutionary model of life be correct. And it is not simply because there can exist no conflict between Pandeism and Science
. And it is not simply because The E. coli long-term evolution experiment proves the Theory of Evolution
, or that the existence of nylonase
does the same, or that virtually all diversity on Earth is variant in the length and thickness of bones
. It is because Pandeism relentlessly applies the capacity for logical thought which we have been given
in order to drill down to a logical theological model, and such a model demands a logical Creator-- one not only able
to create evolutionarily, but having the intelligence and the elegance to do so in a logical and efficient manner.
Is evolution a more efficient means of Creation?
If evolution operated as claimed, then it is a great a force for wondrous diversity of life. But it must be asked, is such a diversity brought about by evolution is more logical and efficient than one brought about by wholesale Creation? We can all see that the fundamental forces of nature exist -- that the nuclear forces keep subatomic particles together in atoms, and that atoms are naturally made so as to combine into molecules.
My ideological opponent here immediately made the mistake of conflating ease
. Yes, if there is an 'all-powerful' God, such a being could do inefficient things as easily as efficient things. But efficiency is a mathematical concept, that of achieving an outcome with the least investment of energy
. Just supposing our Creator is only 'unimaginably powerful' but not quite 'all-powerful,' then it would make sense for it to do things with some efficiency, with some preservation of its energy. We can observe that all matter in our Universe, no matter how it was made, must obey the laws of physics. It will always be mathematically more efficient to create a single particle and laws of physics which are able to work upon it to bring about our Universe from it, then to go to the work of creating many particles and yet end up having to create those same laws of physics work upon them, to bring about the same end. And so it is logical to conclude that a physics imbued with the capacity to bring about all varieties of life through its natural operations-- as ours seems to be, when examined scientifically-- is the most efficient (and so most intelligent) means to bring about the diversity of life which we experience. And if evolution is the most intelligent way for an intelligent Creator to do things, then that's the way Pandeism will presume it was done.
If anybody was wondering, the vids which sparked this conversation are:
Pandeism vs Creationism: Irreducible Complexity
Pandeism vs Creationism: Evolution IS Intelligent Design