What kind of God makes an evolutionary universe?

Stuart Norey posted this insightful comment on my blog:

I am not going to argue for or against any sort of God. But I will say this.

In the world NOW there are countless examples of evolution happening right now, backed up by sound science. There are no examples of God at work backed up by sound science.

Science can show, through DNA and fossil records etc, the previous evolutionary paths species have taken. No sensible person would argue against examples of current species evolving from others, even man.

Perry does not argue that God created man. His God is not like the God of the more traditional biblical God the ‘Christians’ etc who defend his views argue for.

Perry does not seem to deny science or evolution happening.

The biblical story is clearly wrong.

He has therefore had no choice but to retreat from biblical creation and his God appears to

have made his ‘intervention’ at the point where he can currently comfortably say ‘science can’t prove I’m talking nonsense’.

This results in a God who appears to have intervened at the point chemistry transitioned to biology, that’s roughly where science is at. His God then appears to have retreated from the scene.

Science has a pretty good theory, with some experimental evidence but obviously no observational evidence from billions of years back, how this transition happened.

Perry might one day accept this.

His God and science will then meet at the furthest point back in space and time – the Big Bang.

Science will say ‘we don’t know.’

Perry will say ‘God did it’

That’s where he will end up as science continues to push and discover. He will have no choice as he obviously understands science is ‘real.’

We will probably never know.

Perry’s God is not the Christian, Muslim etc god. The God he advocates takes no interest in his creation. He/she appears to be more of a pagan Mother Nature type god.

I replied:


I somewhat agree. But one of the reasons I am completely comfortable moving God all the way to the big bang (or even before that!) is I also have witnessed miracles, like these (please read very carefully, I offer much documentation and supporting links):


I also have had many personal spiritual encounters, like this one:


So I know that I know that I know that God is real. God is active in the world.

Perry’s God is the Jewish and Christian God. And the Christian God is not in any way in conflict with science. In fact without Jewish and Christian theology, we would not have science in the first place.

This is the same thing Isaac Newton or James Clerk Maxwell or Copernicus or Galileo would say to you if they were alive today.

I also observe that with a handful of very elegant assumptions (two to be exact) the Genesis story matches the science story just fine:


And finally… any person who actually believes in cause and effect knows no universe can create itself.

15 Responses

  1. Stuart Norey says:

    Thanks for correcting the typo Perry.
    I enjoy the debates and respect your intellect and beliefs, despite my thinking being the opposite.
    Whatever caused it, the universe is a beautiful place, to be appreciated and enjoyed.

    • Mike Bay says:

      The COBE research was revolutionary. It demonstrated beyond doubt that the Universe had a beginning. Until COBE we really did not know. Now we know. And just for the record… the Biblical narrative reveals that the Universe had a beginning… Coincidence??? No. COBI got it right. The Biblical record has it right. Both say the same thing. In my book that tells us that the Biblical record is correct on this…

    • Mike Bay says:

      And who is to say that the Creator God has not played a role in the development of life over the last billion years. When we look back in time we are not doing science. We are doing history. An historical account carries the same weight as a scientific account. The events of the past may not be repeatable but they can be demonstrated to have happened. We may not see the Creator God creating life forms today but that doesn’t mean there was no creative processes in the past. We need to look at the historical records. Surely, the fossil record has told us much. However, the genetic record has an incredible amount of data. Our own human DNA carries the story of our arrival going back millions of years. For example we can trace the origins of human groups as those groups traveled across the globe over thousands of years.

  2. I was of creationist views, but deeper study of Bible lead me to the understanding that Bible does support evolution.



    I believe Bible more than science, but I think Bible itself confirms evolution theory.

    • Carl Rosel says:

      What are the very first words of the Bible in Genesis 1. ( IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH ) Genesis 1 isn’t very long. Carry on to the end.

  3. Tom Godfrey says:


    We do agree on at least your opening claim, “In the world NOW there are countless examples of evolution happening right now, backed up by sound science.” If this is what is meant by evolution—changes that can actually be observed—then there is really nothing controversial about it, as far as I am concerned. Molecules-to-man evolution is another story. Besides this, the idea that God takes no interest in his creation is quite controversial, whether Perry or anyone else somewhat agrees with you or not.

    I believe you suggested that science is real, and we agree on this point, too, but you also personify science and imagine that it “continues to push and discover,” perhaps eventually meeting God. It may help us think through these issues better if we cut out the figurative language and get real. Science actually has no theories at all. People have them. Theories may need to be revised or rejected as more is learned, but this is all done by people, not science. Sometimes those people deliberately or conveniently ignore evidence considered problematic for their theory.

    One of the theories of interest here is the idea that “chemistry transitioned to biology.” We lack observational evidence related not just to *how* it might have happened. We have no proof that it even *did* happen, though people may have faith and strongly believe that it did. Science says nothing, but people (scientists) who are interested in origins can already say, if they are honest, “We don’t know.” People (like me) who believe Genesis can honestly say, “We believe that God did what Genesis says he did.”

    Really, no one moves God “all the way to the big bang (or even before that!)” except perhaps in his imagination. Perry and I agree that God is real and is active in the world. It is not so clear that we agree on the question of how active he was in the distant past, and we evidently still disagree dramatically on the timing of creation. We also disagree about his proposed reconciliation of Genesis with the story of origins developed by scientists who presuppose that no miracle ever really took place, even during the earliest stages of the alleged evolution of the tree of life. If you read his article about this, you may have noticed one huge discrepancy, which Victor Porton also ignored or overlooked. Genesis describes a finished creation completed by God in just six days of work, followed some time later by a fall, leaving the whole creation in “bondage to decay” (Rom. 8:21). In contrast, the secular story is that creation has never been finished, and no fall is in sight. Evolution is supposed to be ongoing and perhaps never-ending, considering the universe as a whole, and of course, the process is not supposed to have ever been disturbed by any act of divine intervention.

    There are other discrepancies, but what I just mentioned ought to be abundantly clear and recognized as quite insurmountable, even with clever exegesis of Genesis. From my point of view, one either goes with Genesis or with the tentative secular alternative. I don’t see how one can honestly have it both ways. It takes faith either way you go. As you pointed out, no modern scientist was there to witness what happened in the beginning. Angels evidently were there (Job 38:4-7). The true story might be learned by believing credible testimony from someone who was there or by trusting in the correctness of tentative theories based on a study of physical evidence. I go with the testimony. What about you?

    • Stuart says:


      This article I read the other day has some thinking on the chemical-biolology transition.


      Suppose it is ALL theory (Science and Religion).

      Science cannot travel back in time to the big bang or an evolutionary milestone (although they sometimes can be seen in the fossil record) so often cannot prove its theories.

      Equally, the writers of the Bible were not there at the time of creation and in fact we know written records did not appear for millions of years after human like creatures appeared (even if you take modern man and modern mind, you are talking about 70,000 years) and billions of years after the earth formed. So these are either theories or God appeared and told the story – what always bothers me about the story being told to man is that God included lots of detail about stuff that did not matter but neglected to mention his creation of one of the most successful, diverse and longest serving creations in the Dinosaurs! Why miss most of history?

      My point was that you can place religion and science in an evidence ‘stalemate’ (book vs experiments and theories up to now) but that this will keep changing – Science will continue to push boundaries, release theories and make discoveries while religion is really static (if you accept the bible as the word of god).

      I am not saying religion is wrong and there is no God, Science gets it wrong every day! After Brexit and Trump, nothing would surprise me!

  4. My opinion was labeled as a discrepancy saying that I overlooked that in Bible there is a distinct fall but in the mainstream science there was no biblical fall.

    No, my view on this is not a discrepancy. You just didn’t know what I believe in. My view is the following:

    God took a homo sapiens and using DNA engineering transformed his brain into a powerful computer. God produced special trees of knowledge. (Eat a fruit and know say quantum mechanics.) One tree (I don’t know why God allowed it in His garden.) was knowledge of brain functioning (how it differentiates good and bad) itself. After eating it Adam transformed to a regular home sapiens (no more a computer) himself, because he received the “power” to break himself. See https://withoutvowels.org/wiki/Theology:Fall_of_the_man

    There was a fall of the man, not of the entire biosphere at this point. If the man would obey God, he would become deadless unlike other species.

    You cited my opinion as a discrepancy because you thought that I believe in fall of the entire biosphere, which I don’t believe to.

    • Well, “bondage to decay” (Rom. 8:21) may tall about very long time (such as hundreds millions years) of “bondage” and “decay”, long before people existed. People will be used to redesign the entire biosphere in the future.

      I see no discrepancy in my opinion.

      • Tom Godfrey says:


        Thanks for responding to my comment on the remarks by Stuart and Perry. I mentioned you, but you may have misunderstood me. I certainly did not intend to label *your opinion* as a discrepancy. I was talking instead about what appears to me to be a futile attempt to reconcile Genesis with the secular story of evolution, that is, to reinterpret Genesis so that nothing in its story of creation conflicts with what atheistic scientists tell us must be the true story of our origin, assuming that no miracles were involved.

        I looked at the article you linked earlier and did not see any explanation about how the broad sweep of secular history has any room for a finished creation, let alone one that was finished after only six days of God’s work. Genesis speaks of a fall into sin as the cause of death in our world. Evolutionists regard death as a necessary part of the long process that eventually led to the appearance of mankind. I am talking about huge differences in the way we understand the history of life on earth. This should explain why I disagree with your idea that the Bible itself confirms evolution theory. They appear to me to be entirely incompatible. I think you have to pick one or the other. Which one do you pick?

        Thanks for sharing your article on the fall of man. Genesis actually provides very little detailed information about the effects of the fall. In Genesis, it is mostly limited to the three curses reported in Gen. 3:14-19 and the report of the exile of Adam and Eve from their original home in Eden at the end of the chapter. This leaves us free to speculate about other details not given, as you have done, but I would encourage you to take a broader view of the effects of the fall. I already mentioned Rom. 8:21, but the curse is also mentioned near the end of the Bible. We learn by reading Rev. 22:3 that we can look forward to a future life without the curse that has troubled mankind since Adam, on through the time of Noah (Gen. 5:29), and even today.

        On the secular side, scientists have great respect for the second law of thermodynamics and believe in a general tendency toward more and more disorder. This ought to be recognized as a challenge for evolutionists, who believe strongly in a gradual change from the early chaos of the Big Bang to the universe that we observe today, including life on earth. Now it is my turn to speculate, and I suggest that increasing entropy might be yet another effect of the curse on “the ground.”

  5. Billy K says:

    Sorry but he’s wrong about evolution being undeniable. First off you people need to let go of DARWINS theory of evolution. He has become Jesus for atheists and they refuse to stop using his dead theory. Darwin believed in acquired hereditary traits. Meaning the parent organism under went a change, like the thickening of a woodpeckers beak and skull from the abuse of pecking at tree trunks, then passed that thickened beak/skull down to their offspring. With the discovery of DNA we know that is not true. You can’t pass post birth adaptations down to your offspring, lifting weights won’t make your baby be born more muscular. The DNA you are going to pass down to your children won’t change through normal daily activities. Hence the theory of random genetic mutation. Scientists are clinging to this the random genetic mutation theory because with the progress of science that’s all they have left to lean on. Can organisms evolve over time by the reduction of DNA? Yes. Bottlenecking and natural selection can delete DNA but there is no logical sound mechanism for creating functional DNA. It would take millions of random genetic mutations to create something as simple as an opposable thumb. What is the downfall of experiencing millions of random genetic mutations? That most mutations, in fact nearly every observed mutation in modern times is harmful to the species, not helpful. Dwarfism, down syndrome, CANCER, to name a few of the more well known forms of mutation.

    • Billy,

      Always use your full first and last name.

      “You can’t pass post birth adaptations down to your offspring”

      You’re wrong about that, and that’s just the first thing. Look epigenetics and spend some time with it.

      Enough said for now.

    • Stuart says:


      I dont think Darwins theory (and that is what it was, and agree times have changed) relied purely on post birth mutations being passed on (which does happen).

      Take 10 birds that like to nest in holes in trees, which happen to be at a premium. One is born with a slightly thicker skull or beak. This bird has a slight advantage over the others in that it can make existing nest sites more suitable or indeed create new ones. It breeds more successfully as it is maybe presenting a more attractive nest site to a mate and keeping its offspring out of predators reach etc. Its offspring inherit the thicker skull/beak, maybe in a few generations some offspring have even thicker ones. And so on. One would eventually see this group dominate or indeed gradually become a recognisably different group of bird?

      Such mutations can happen and give huge benefits right away, transforming things in a single generation – we see it with Moths for example, where a small proportion with darker colouration suddenly became dominant as it allowed them to take advantage of environmental changes.

      Much of Darwins theory is still relevant?

      Proof of evolutionary changes, beneficial and not so good, is everywhere.

      Cancer is a mutation but not a pre-programmed one (it only manifests in the presence of the right triggers in many cases, which increase risk, you are not guaranteed to get it even with a gene that means you can) and not evolutionary in itself I would think? The genes predisposing one to cancer would be inherited. Environmental changes might make genes that previously did not matter in terms of predisposition matter a lot? In many cases these genetic predispositions dont make themselves known and cause a disadvantage until after reproduction, so the gene would be passed on offering neither an advantage or disadvantage at the time? Breast cancer is a good example?

  6. Ed Gosnell says:

    I note that you say no universe can create itself; but a universe could certainly be a step in a chain of events that stretch back in some form of hyper time that has no beginning. Part of the problem that we poor humans have understanding our place in existence is that we are finite beings embedded in an existence that is infinite (without limit) in an infinite number of ways. The concept of a first cause is an illusion of a finite being. That is not to say that there is no God. But if there is a God, does He have a God? And does His God have a God? Is it Gods all the way up? That is the wonderful thing about infinity, there is no limit; and if you think about it, how could there be?

    • All philosophers reject infinite regress for obvious reasons.

      There has to be an uncaused cause.

      And because of entropy, that uncaused cause is obviously not the universe itself. If you walk into a room and a candle is burning, you know the candle was not there forever. The cause is necessarily something outside the universe.

      That is all pure simple logic.

      The buck stops at one infinite God who exists outside of space and time. This is why monotheism has been the cornerstone of western civilization for over 1000 years. It is because it is logical.

      See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness and step through the logic piece by piece.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

221, Mount Olimpus, Rheasilvia, Mars,
Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
+1 (999) 999-99-99
Thank You. We will contact you as soon as possible.
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".

Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Darwin Bad
Evolution Good 
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Rub 2 rocks together and create a cell with DNA... that's evolution, right?
Learn the truth.
Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Lava. Gas. Water.
Discover the truth.

Click anywhere outside the form to close.
Discover the 70-Year-Old Nobel Prize-winning discovery that rendered old-school Darwinism obsolete.

Get 3 Free Chapters of "Evolution 2.0 via Email".

Click anywhere outside the form to close.