Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

[wynn]

@Wynn - Why do you say that? If Genesis is partly explained by evolution and evolution is "Mother Nature" God's claim to have made the animals implies The Creator God and Mother Nature are indistinguishable. But that was only from my own logic.
What does "Mother Nature" mean to you?

You are the one who proposed the dichotomy God - Mother Nature.

In Mormon doctrine, for example, God was once a man; in Mormon doctrine, "Mother Nature" indeed precedes God. But in most other theistic doctrines, "Mother Nature" is something God is the source of.

 

[Robittybob1]

You are the one who proposed the dichotomy God - Mother Nature.

In Mormon doctrine, for example, God was once a man; in Mormon doctrine, "Mother Nature" indeed precedes God. But in most other theistic doctrines, "Mother Nature" is something God is the source of.

I told you I'm not a Mormon, and have never studied with them, But I must admit I did read their Book of Mormon and thought it a load of rubbish.
If Mother Nature is sourced from God that is fine too. God's hands might be hands of Mother Nature. Mother Nature = Natural processes, not some Fairy God Mother.
But if you know me I find it so ridiculous to classify me as an atheist. Yet it could be that my concept of God begins to blend into Nature and the Universe to the point it is rather invisible. I have no conceptual picture of God. Do you have an imaginary picture of what God is like?

 

[wellwisher]

Darwin's theory was based on his observations at the Galapagos Island. There he saw an isolated ecosystem which had to evolve by a processed that took millions of years, with little changing. This led to his theory of evolution and natural selection. Had Darwin gone to the Yellowstone National Park, instead, and visited there before and after a major forest fire, he would have seen the fall and rise of ecosystems in only a few years. His theory would have been different since this the opposite of Galapagos. Galapagos was national selection while Yellowstone has the animals decide; migration.

Darwin was from England and the old world and his theory reflected these biases; royal families that don't change. Yellowstone was America where anyone could be anything and was not so limited.

 

[Robittybob1]

You are the one who proposed the dichotomy God - Mother Nature.

In Mormon doctrine, for example, God was once a man; in Mormon doctrine, "Mother Nature" indeed precedes God. But in most other theistic doctrines, "Mother Nature" is something God is the source of.

With dichotomy not being part of my everyday vocabulary I had to stop and look it up. Even then I struggled to see how you could say that it was me who proposed they were a dichotomy when in fact I was saying they were tending to be the one and the same thing.

If they have parts in common as I suggested that is the very thing excluded by a dichotomy.
So either your definition and use of dichotomy is wrong (which I doubt) or you didn't understand what I was saying (probably the case).

I can see where you are put wrong by the words I use for if I look up "Mother Nature" there were images discussed that don't come anywhere like saying "Mother Nature" is all natural biological, physical, chemical, and mental processes. It includes life, the weather and radioactivity all in one idea, so in effect must ultimately be every purpose and thing in the Universe.

Now that to you might seem atheistic but it isn't; for every "God like" event can still occur. I believe in God given dreams and visions, in miracles and the resurrection of the dead, in Heaven and the after life. All of those are "God given" attributes aren't they?
Show me an atheist who believes in them?

 

[spidergoat]

Darwin's theory was based on his observations at the Galapagos Island. There he saw an isolated ecosystem which had to evolve by a processed that took millions of years, with little changing. This led to his theory of evolution and natural selection. Had Darwin gone to the Yellowstone National Park, instead, and visited there before and after a major forest fire, he would have seen the fall and rise of ecosystems in only a few years. His theory would have been different since this the opposite of Galapagos. Galapagos was national selection while Yellowstone has the animals decide; migration.

Darwin was from England and the old world and his theory reflected these biases; royal families that don't change. Yellowstone was America where anyone could be anything and was not so limited.

Once again showing your ignorance. The Yellowstone ecosystem has evolved with fire, it doesn't disappear after a fire, fire is an integral aspect of it. Migration and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[billvon]

Darwin was from England and the old world and his theory reflected these biases; royal families that don't change.

Which is why he came up with the theory of . . . . evolutionary change?

Yellowstone was America where anyone could be anything and was not so limited.

Even more true of Antarctica. Too bad he didn't go there!