Theistic Evolution

O

Origen

Registered Member
" Fresh Knowledge Leads to the Recognition of the Theory of Evolution as more then just a hypothesis." Pope John Paul II

The pope went on to say that creation and evolution can work together without any conflict as long as it is maintained that only God can create the human soul.

Theistic Evolution has been ridiculed, both by evolutionists and special creationists. While both of those theories fail to explain life as we see in nature. Theistic Evolution goes a long way in explaining some of the problems. Far from being a "Weak Compromise", it is an intellegent response to the available evidence. Science dogma is no different from religious dogma. Special Creationists are afraid of Theistic Evolution. They are probably thinking that atheism is sneaking up on them and trying to take them captive. Evolutionists are likewise leery of Theistic Evolution. They are probably afraid that there may be a God up there after all. Theistic Evolution is a rational attempt to explain the world as we find it. We should never be afraid of examing our beliefs. If we are right we will only be vindicated. If we are wrong we should want to know and change our thinking. Just post your thoughts.

"Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." Caesar
 
Origen,

Welcome to sciforums!

The pope went on to say that creation and evolution can work together without any conflict as long as it is maintained that only God can create the human soul.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. But not all theist will. For the simple fact that if evolution had happend then it would prove that the church has been wrong for a very long time. And all those school that dont teach evolution would feel very very dumb.

The idea that Adam & Eve had evolved from monkeys and then god gave them human souls is interesting. I look forward to reading some of the responses in this thread.

-CounslerCoffee
 
Theistic Evolution has been ridiculed, both by evolutionists...
Click to expand...

Non-theistic evolutionists, by and large, actually welcome this since it escapes the absurdity of 900 year old people, global floods and the anscestors of all animals being on a single boat together. Scientifically, these ideas stank worse than the rancid diahorrea of 1000 prune eating goats. Saying God guided evolution is not a scientific theory and so is scientifically untestable so they can't really comment on it.

You should probably link to the source or reference it.
 
HOLD IT. Humans did NOT descend from monkeys. Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. Big difference there!
 
i've been raised in a Christian family, I went to a strict creationist Baptist school for a few early years, and started to wonder about Creation/Evolution. I am now a theistic evolutionist. It seems to be a reasonable position.
 
platzaps,

Good for you and welcome to sciforums.
 
To tell the truth I think it's a pretty valid idea. Although I tend to like the gaia idea. God under my feet more than God "up there". It makes more sense to me that "God" would be the Earth which actually sprouted life as we know it.
 
Honestly, before the pope said that (or before I heard him)..I already know evolution took place, and at the same time I also know God exist, there was no explanation for me at the time, but few months later, I read what the Pope said in time magazine, about the theistic evolution, and it all makes sense..I completely agree with him...........Some creationists are so stupid, denying the fossil evidence and earths age, and likewise to atheistic evolutionist, who thinks it all took place by "super luck, and chance" how ridiculous.......
 
whatsup,

Some creationists are so stupid, denying the fossil evidence and earths age, and likewise to atheistic evolutionist, who thinks it all took place by "super luck, and chance" how ridiculous.......
Click to expand...
Evolution is evolution whether it is believed by atheists or Christians. The “chance” aspect is a fundamental part of evolution but is only a minor part of the whole of evolutionary theory and related facts. The Pope is including the whole of that theory in his acceptance of evolution.

Now your real objection should not be about evolution but to another theory that is known as abiogenesis. This is the part that suggests that the first life began from basic elements, or by chance if you like, although I believe given the right conditions that life had no choice but to come into existence.

Evolutionary theory is separate from abiogenesis although they are obviously closely linked.

Now we don’t know for sure how the first life began, perhaps abiogenesis or perhaps by a supernatural force. Others favor an alien introduction and others talk of basic proteins arriving by meteorite. I favor abiogenesis of course.

I’m holding out an olive branch to you here and I hope you understand what I am saying. My request to you is that you should accept evolutionary theory in its entirety, as has the Pope, and understand that evolutionary theory does not include any suggestions on how life first began.

A link to a discussion on abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.htm
 
methodological naturalism

i'm new here.
by way of intro i offer my homepage at
evolution creation studies
or my blog at
my blog

i am currently looking at methodological naturalism and trying to understand its limitations in a Christian world and life view.

i'm TE and as such i have dealt with lots of cries of compromiser and it has me wondering just how to discrimate between a TE and an atheistic evolutionary position from the outside.

the big piece must, imho, be that for TE the principles of methodological naturalism and materialism can never become philosophic principles. so somewhere between me and Dawkins, for instance, i must believe that the methodological principles break on a supernatural requirement for explanations....


but where?
spirit soul breath of God in man.
consciousness? image of God?

does anyone have a ready made answer?

thanks.
richard williams
 
Re: methodological naturalism

Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr
i'm new here.
by way of intro i offer my homepage at
evolution creation studies
Click to expand...

i went through your webpage a bit and looked at the 'does homology prove a common descent' page. There was a question at the bottom, presumably yours:

'what other ways are there of interpreting homology without thinking about common descent?'

there are probably many explanations, but there are none that will withstand close scrutiny. Especially gene homology will be difficult to explain differently than with common descent. A obvious reasoning clould be that similar animals need similar genes, hence they have almost similar genes. But that would just show how little that person knows abut how genes make an animal.
I think it is safe to assume that common descent and therefore evolution is a 'fact'. One could argue about the mechanisms that drive evolution. The main mechanism that science proposes is Natural selection. Theists are not to happy about this of course, because it makes humans merely animals and not the crown on top of evolution.
Somehow we feel the need to be special and many people cannot simply accept that we might be special animals, but not THAT special. We have not been the goal of evolution, but merely one of its products.

I would like to propose that the problem is therefore entirely psychological and not theological. There are no scientific problems with the theory of evolution by means of natural selection and the scientific community is quite at ease with it. There is, however, a great unwillingness to accept this theory in society. Humans are so egocentric that they will not accept that they are just part of life, instead of the crown of life. Hence, the pope states that humans might be the product of evolution, but god added souls. Hardline creationists cannot even accept this and are even more threatened by the fear of being just a simple branch in the bush of life.

Lets face it. There is no other reason not to accept evolution other than the need to feel special. I have news for the people who want to feel special. There are other ways to make yourself feel special. Accept the obviousness of our position in the grand scheme of things and get on with your life. It might be the only one you will ever have.
 
I would like to propose that the problem is therefore entirely psychological and not theological. There are no scientific problems with the theory of evolution by means of natural selection and the scientific community is quite at ease with it. There is, however, a great unwillingness to accept this theory in society. Humans are so egocentric that they will not accept that they are just part of life, instead of the crown of life. Hence, the pope states that humans might be the product of evolution, but god added souls. Hardline creationists cannot even accept this and are even more threatened by the fear of being just a simple branch in the bush of life.
Click to expand...

i've actually thought about this issue, in reference to the YEC creationist however. I think of it as the slippery slope to unbelief argument. they hold strongly to, what to us is unreasonable, unthinking positions, simply because to do otherwise is to fall down the slippery slope to unbelief.

i'm actually trying to do the studies in a bottom up manner. at this point i am really hesitant about getting too deeply thinking about the conclusions or logic of holding to a particular viewpoint, without having investigated the groundwork items carefully.

so i'd like to go back to genes and homology.

assume for a moment that God is directing evolution in a significant manner.
for sake of proposed mechanism, say He is at some level a breeder of creatures, bringing the right ones together at the right time. Very analogously to the Bene Gesserit breeding program in Dune, but on a massive scale with all living things.

from our viewpoint could we see it? too much of live is random, who meets whom, why we fall in love, how many children etc. etc. if God is doing something like this could we detect it in a signficant matter?

what i am thinking about is that the traditional providence arguments for God are sufficent to propose this kind of lowlevel involvement of God. furthermore i dont believe we have an way to detect it, with the naturalist tools available to us.

the only argument for it is that it violates the principle of simplicity. that is occam's razor, dont propose God's involvement unless absolutely necessary.

so we need to look at if randomness is sufficent for the explanation of man's consciousness. i'd look at the idea of a video tape of the entire process of evolution, the contention is that if evolution's tape was replayed it would be entirely different. that is due to the randomness factor things would arise differently the second time.


now if God intends a self conscious moral being to arise , and involves Himself to this end. the tape would create something like us again. but since replaying the tape is not possible (although i wonder if intelligent life on other planets would qualify?) this seems to be simply a thought experiment.

richard williams
 
I want to feel special!

There is no other reason not to accept evolution other than the need to feel special. I have news for the people who want to feel special. There are other ways to make yourself feel special. Accept the obviousness of our position in the grand scheme of things and get on with your life.
Click to expand...

Translation: Accept evolution in its broadest definition as truth because we are telling you the obvious!

Meaning: You stupid asses that still debate evolution, don't you realize resistance is futile?

All kidding aside for the moment.


The neo-Darwinian notion of evolution is heady stuff. Let me be clear about something. After five years of reading and researching both sides of the debate, I still don't understand how it works. However, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot simply accept the TOE just because someone tells me to. Then I am no different than those who are accused of blind faith in God's creation account in the Bible.

While it is true, I can't fully understand every arguement because I'm not qualified to, this primarily based on my credentials being a Bachelor's of Science in Criminal Justice and not a Doctrate in Biological Sciences or Creation Theology (if there is such a thing).

Scientists may be comfortable with certain aspects of evolutionary theory but so what? So is the Pope. There are still many things that are left totally unresolved by the TOE.

It seems there are many paradoxes within the theory. Survival of the fittest? Yes, I see examples of that, but what about applying the theory to the whole universe? Does it fit? Are there signs of a universally pervasive process that is directional, irreversible, increases variety and produces higher levels of organization?

Perhaps in some cases yes, until one examines the tree of life in detail and it appears as a mutated bush, with severed branches surgically reattached by dashed lines and question marks. Yes, quickly remind us that the TOE is a "theory" while quickly reminding us it is a "fact", like one hand washing the other.

I know it isn't possible, but if it were, I'd love to see the "strip" of life. In otherwords, take an animal, say an elephant and follow it backwards through time. The end of the strip would have a modern elephant, next to it would be that elephant's parents, then their parents, then their parents, going on back through to wooly mammoths and whatever. All the way back to a fish presumably. Now keep going back. That would be what I'd like to see.

I can live with either scenario, a creative action or an explanation which closely matches naturalistic evolution. Why? How in the hell should anyone, least of all myself, know what a divinely created biosphere shoud look like? This could be it but I can't prove it can I? This could all be dumb luck and chance, but you can't prove it can you?


The evolution-creation debate is like a gerbil in one of those wire wheel contraptions, it's great exercise but you can't depend on it taking you anywhere.
 
Bridge

The evolution-creation debate is like a gerbil in one of those wire wheel contraptions, it's great exercise but you can't depend on it taking you anywhere.

There is one significant difference – that of evidence. Can you guess which one lacks?
 
Evolution via evidence of......?

change over time?

Yeah, I'll grant you that much but how does that evidence invalidate a creation event at some given point in the history of the universe? Or....how does it lend credence to the idea that evolution was solely an unguided process? Do we really have evidence of this too? Is there evidence against creation?

There isn't anbody in theistic evolution/creation circles that would claim evolution has no scientific evidence. Even the hardcore fundamentalist YECs admit that small scale evolutionary changes can happen.

Theists believe humans possess a soul. It is the materialistic/naturalistic philosophy of the athiest that requires natural law and chance be adequate to explain the facts and evidence surrounding evolution.

If the probabilites and statistics associated with life are a hurdle for chance and natural law then it is they, the atheists, who dogmatize science.
 
Re: I want to feel special!

Originally posted by Bridge



Scientists may be comfortable with certain aspects of evolutionary theory but so what? So is the Pope. There are still many things that are left totally unresolved by the TOE.
Click to expand...

like what?

you are just trying to construct the false perception that the theory of evolution poses major scientific problems, when it doesn't. It's one of those classic attacks on the theory of evolution. Make it seem like there are major problems with the theory and maybe some people will think that there are.
 
Dear Mr. Monkey

I said:

“Scientists may be comfortable with certain aspects of evolutionary theory but so what? So is the Pope. There are still many things that are left totally unresolved by the TOE.”

You said:

“like what?
Click to expand...


Like:

1. How did sexual reproduction evolve from asexual reproduction

2. How did the structural systems within eukaryotic cells evolve? (Similarly prokaryotic cells)

3. What is the biological mechanism for the origin of new plants and animals? Are they the same?

4. How did DNA/RNA evolve ?

5. What is behind the phenomenon of the left-handed domination of amino acids (chilarity) .

6. Which appeared first, eukaryotic chlorophyll or bacteriochlorophyll and how did they evolve?

7. What is the common ancestor of man and ape?

You said:

you are just trying to construct the false perception that the theory of evolution poses major scientific problems, when it doesn't. It's one of those classic attacks on the theory of evolution. Make it seem like there are major problems with the theory and maybe some people will think that there are.”
Click to expand...

Actually, Monsieur Monkey, I don’t need to construct anything, false or otherwise, because the problems are clear to anyone who wants to face them, regardless of your philosophical stance on origins. Major problems? I don’t recall having made that argument. In fact, I was pretty specific in my earlier post that I don’t personally have a problem with evolution as “theory”. I merely claimed there are unresolved “things”. These things could include but are not limited to those I listed above. If you have the answers to these issues, no doubt I’d be interested in reading them. Please, no URLs linking me to talkorigins. Just put it in your own words and cite any peer reviewed references so I can look them up. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by Maia
HOLD IT. Humans did NOT descend from monkeys. Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. Big difference there!
Click to expand...

what is the fun in saying descendents of homosapiens...! monkeys are real fun.!:D
 
Re: Dear Mr. Monkey

Originally posted by Bridge

In fact, I was pretty specific in my earlier post that I don’t personally have a problem with evolution as “theory”. I merely claimed there are unresolved “things”. These things could include but are not limited to those I listed above.
Click to expand...
You claimed in fact that there were still things totally unresolved.
there are always unresolved things in science, otherwise there wouldn't be any science anymore. None of the things you list would bring the current theory of evolution in any danger, so what's the point of your list? There is no point i tell you.

and i am not going to do a literature search for you. Do it yourself. I've fallen in that trap too many times. I spend a lot of time searching and the references are never satisfactory for the other person, because they don't understand the scientific language.

for instance using ISI web of science and the parameters 'human evolution' in the last 12 months i found:
Search = human evolution
Products Searched = ISI Web of Science; ISI Current Contents Connect. Timespan = Latest 12 months.
101123 document(s) matched the query.

you want me to copy past them all?

similar for all the other things you listed.

do not pretend that there is no research on these topics and that there are no ideas floating around with answers to these questions. You just never looked for them seriously. All you probably ever did was a google search or something similar.

and if you want to read about evolution in my own words, you might want to look up my latest paper. I mention the word evolution a few times in that one.


edit: oh yeah, and answer to no.3 is of course : evolution by means of natural selection.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top