Evolution guided by god? Or a natural process?

I guess there are lots of arguments that are not scientifically proven. And, indeed, dumber than a bag of hammers.They tend to take this form: Logically, such arguments are puerile; biologically, they tend to be flawed in detail.And theologically, they seem to be flawed as well. If evolution was God's idea, presumably he'd set it up so that it worked.By analogy, if I write a computer program to perform some calculation, I don't write it so that every now and then I have to stop the program and rewrite the code in order to get it to do what I want. I'd be a pretty lame programmer if I did. Instead I write it so that I press the start button and the program does the rest.

But it's a strange leap from belief in God to arguing that he guides evolution as a primary cause.It's as though someone were to say; "I believe that the planets travel in ellipses; but because I believe in God, I want to prove that God, not the law of gravity and the laws of motion, causes them do so."As I have pointed out, this is theologically dubious. If God created the Universe and its laws, surely it would be smarter of him to create it with laws that achieve his purpose, rather than laws that thwart his purpose and that he needs to overcome with a series of miracles. Your terminology is wrong. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how evolution works: mutation, recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, and so forth. What you believe in is the fact of evolution; you are trying to argue against the theory of evolution. "Too many"? Oh, but I forgot, you didn't require that the arguments should be scientific, or you'd need some sort of numbers in it. Imagine if you were sitting on a jury and the counsel for the defense addressed that argument to you. Wouldn't you start to think that he must have an incredibly weak case?---Here's an argument against God acting as the primary cause of evolution. (Yes, I know it's not what you asked for, but it's what I've got.)The history of evolution is littered with failures and dead-ends. We can point to species that didn't make it ... and genera ... and families ... and orders ... and classes ... and phyla. At the lowest level, we see lots of failed mutations that will never make it: mutations that lead to death or severe handicap or sterility. Does this look like the product of a perfect, all-knowing God, or of the hit-and-miss processes described by the theory of evolution?

But Darwin's arguing the exact opposite of what Inge wishes to argue: That is, he's suggesting that God would set up the laws of Nature such that evolution would work without the necessity for divine intervention.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But your specific argument is contrary to what Inge wants to say.

Well color me extraordinary. I thought that perfection and omniscience were part of the definition. In any case, I'm fairly sure that Inge is not a Gnostic arguing for the existence of a demiurge.