Theistic versus atheistic evolution

[Jeffwhosoever]

All,

I'm a bit confused on what differentiates theistic evolution and atheistic evolution. Could you explain to me, at a fundamental level, what distinguishes these? I'm an Engineer, so a scientific viewpoint would be appreciated. As for as myself, I'm undecided except that "God did it". I understand theistic evolution involves God and atheistic evolution does not include God, but I want to go deeper in understanding the differences.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[Dark_Lite]

There really isn't much deeper to go. Theistic evolution states that God started and/or is involved with the process of evolution. There are some variations where God only started life on Earth and let it develop, versus maintaining an active role in directing the evolution of species. Atheistic evolution cuts out any supernatural entity.

The key thing to remember is that from a scientific perspective, there is no difference between theistic or atheistic evolution. Theism has no meaning in science, whether that meaning were to be positive or negative.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Atheistic evolution theorizies that speciation occurred due to random chance (mutations) and natural selection (only viable life forms continued to evolve). How does that contract with theistic evolution?

 

[Mallon]

Theistic evolution = evolution with God.
Atheistic evolution = evolution without God.

Just like theistic gravity = gravity with God.
Atheistic gravity = gravity without God.

There's really nothing more to it than that. The science is the same; the theology is different.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Atheistic evolution theorizies that speciation occurred due to random chance (mutations) and natural selection (only viable life forms continued to evolve). How does that contract with theistic evolution?

As I said, from a scientific perspective there is no difference. The only thing different a theistic evolutionist would say is that God either started the process or brought about conditions such that species evolved in the way he wanted.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Atheistic evolution theorizies that speciation occurred due to random chance (mutations) and natural selection (only viable life forms continued to evolve). How does that contract with theistic evolution?

There are a couple of different views on theistic evolution... one is that the mutations aren't random at all, but planned in advance by God. They only appear random to us because, well.. we're not God.

Or even if the mutations are random, natural selection isn't. God controls nature, after all, and can easily tweak it any way He chooses to insure that it progresses the way He wants it... An ice age here, a drought there... no need to be all ham-fisted about it, God can afford to be patient.

Or perhaps the whole thing is random, after all.. it could be that God set the whole thing in motion knowing that life would form, but wasn't concerned about exactly what form that life would take. I've heard this compared to pushing a snowball down a hill... your goal is for it to reach the bottom, but you're not picky as to how it gets there.

In any case, TEs believe that God was involved in the process of evolution, although different TEs have differing opinions as to exactly how involved.

 

[gluadys]

Atheistic evolution theorizies that speciation occurred due to random chance (mutations) and natural selection (only viable life forms continued to evolve). How does that contract with theistic evolution?

I take it you mean "contrast" not "contract".
And the answer is "It doesn't contrast at all."

Scientifically there is no difference between evolution and theistic evolution. The scientific process of evolution is fully accepted as is. TEs don't tweak the science to make it more "theistic".

But TEs would not accept your first statement i.e. "atheistic evolution theorizes, ... etc." There is nothing atheistic about random mutations or natural selection. The role of natural selection, mutations, and chance arrangements of variations in evolution is not a matter of theology. It is a matter of scientific observation. It is fact whether one believes in or disbelieves in God.

 

[Zivka]

G’day Jeffwhosoever,

What the others haven't said is that there are a growing number of agnostic scientists out there, that is, scientists who are convinced for purely scientific reasons that there must be a god of sorts, who believe that god in whatever form "guides" evolution because they realise that natural processes alone cannot account for the progression of evolution or the complexity of life. Two renowned examples could be Antony Flew and Michael Denton who is the author of the book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.

That is the fundamental difference between atheistic and theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists generally do not believe that nature and nature alone could account for evolution taking place. In a sense it's sort of like a "goddidit" position, which isn't bad. It's following the evidence to where it leads. For example, the first two paragraphs of The Lady Kate's view (see post 6) is typical of this type of thinking - an attempt to get around the points that literally stop atheistic or naturalistic evolution dead in its track.

For you and me, if we can see that nature alone can't account for the creation of life, then we know that God must have played a part in it. As an analogy, dead people don't just get up and walk around several days after dying; but Jesus did. We know that there is no process or function in nature that can allow this to happen, so, we have to conclude that God caused it. How He did this, we have no clue, but evidently He did. Anyway, atheists don't have the same luxury as they have already predetermined that God does not exist. So, to many atheists, nature therefore had to be responsible for the creation of life on earth; I mean, how else right?

In summary, generally speaking it’s the same thing only that theistic evolution gets around the stumbling blocks for naturalistic evolution by invoking God’s divine intervention or guidance in the process. As previous people have said, proponents of theistic evolution lie all along the spectrum from minimal involvement (for which there are many theological issues that come up) through to active involvement. Most, Christians in particular, I suspect, lie somewhere in the middle to more active involvement. Too far on the left and you might as well be an atheist or agnostic, the latter of which many are.

I suspect that there are people who would disagree with what I’ve posted, and that’s okay. It’s what makes life interesting, I guess.

 

[Willtor]

Regarding Randomness:

It's important to understand that scientists, Christian or no, use the term "random" in a non-philosophical way (in their scientific capacity). "Random" is used to describe a process or function that is difficult or impossible for humans to predict. Thus, when random changes occur to the genome each generation, saying that the changes are random is a statement about what is knowable by humanity. It is not an ontological statement about the way the universe operates.

For this reason, evolution (and science in general) does not have anything to say in discussions between Christians and non-Christians or between theists and atheists. Science can only speak to what humans can discover for themselves and cannot speak about the actual being of things. Thus, if evolution were driven by invisible moon bunnies, most scientists would laugh the idea away, but there is no way to criticize it scientifically. In professional capacity, it is impossible to respond to such an assertion. No paper could ever get published that defended or attacked that "basis" for evolution.

 

[gluadys]

G’day Jeffwhosoever,

What the others haven't said is that there are a growing number of agnostic scientists out there, that is, scientists who are convinced for purely scientific reasons that there must be a god of sorts, who believe that god in whatever form "guides" evolution because they realise that natural processes alone cannot account for the progression of evolution or the complexity of life. Two renowned examples could be Antony Flew and Michael Denton who is the author of the book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.

That is the fundamental difference between atheistic and theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists generally do not believe that nature and nature alone could account for evolution taking place. In a sense it's sort of like a "goddidit" position, which isn't bad. It's following the evidence to where it leads. For example, the first two paragraphs of The Lady Kate's view (see post 6) is typical of this type of thinking - an attempt to get around the points that literally stop atheistic or naturalistic evolution dead in its track.

For you and me, if we can see that nature alone can't account for the creation of life, then we know that God must have played a part in it. As an analogy, dead people don't just get up and walk around several days after dying; but Jesus did. We know that there is no process or function in nature that can allow this to happen, so, we have to conclude that God caused it. How He did this, we have no clue, but evidently He did. Anyway, atheists don't have the same luxury as they have already predetermined that God does not exist. So, to many atheists, nature therefore had to be responsible for the creation of life on earth; I mean, how else right?

In summary, generally speaking it’s the same thing only that theistic evolution gets around the stumbling blocks for naturalistic evolution by invoking God’s divine intervention or guidance in the process. As previous people have said, proponents of theistic evolution lie all along the spectrum from minimal involvement (for which there are many theological issues that come up) through to active involvement. Most, Christians in particular, I suspect, lie somewhere in the middle to more active involvement. Too far on the left and you might as well be an atheist or agnostic, the latter of which many are.

I suspect that there are people who would disagree with what I’ve posted, and that’s okay. It’s what makes life interesting, I guess.

Actually, Zivka, what you are describing is a bit more like Intelligent Design than Theistic Evolution, but as you say, TE does cover a broad spectrum and some versions of TE would be compatible with what you are saying.


Where most TEs would disagree is in making a distinction that separates God from nature. Most TEs don't see things being done by either nature alone or God alone, but by both nature and God simultaneously.

Think of how an embryo develops in the womb. It is entirely a natural process;no miracles or "helping hand" from God is needed to give a full scientific explanation of what is happening. But we also believe with the Psalmist that "You knit me together in my mother's womb." Psalm 139:13

So it is true that natural processes "alone" account for the development of the embryo i.e. there is no gap in the natural process where a special helping hand from God is needed, yet it is also true that God is working fearfully and wonderfully to bring us into being. God's work is being accomplished through the natural process.

TEs say the same of evolution. So the idea of distinguishing what nature can do from what God alone can do never arises in most TE thinking. God's work is being accomplished through the natural processes of evolution without any gap appearing in the process that requires a special intervention beyond the power of nature.

 

[Mallon]

Where most TEs would disagree is in making a distinction that separates God from nature. Most TEs don't see things being done by either nature alone or God alone, but by both nature and God simultaneously.

Bingo. God ordained and sustains nature. He is not apart from it, and it is not apart from Him. The alternative is god-of-the-gaps theology.

 

[Papias]

Z wrote:

For you and me, if we can see that nature alone can't account for the creation of life, then we know that God must have played a part in it.

TE does not require one to use God to explain any parts of evolution that are unexplained as being due to God. TEs can do that, but aren't required to do so. As Mallon pointed out, that is the "God of the gaps" approach, where any unexplained "gaps" in our knowledge are ascribed to God. The problem with that approach is that it gives you a continually shrinking God, as gap after gap is solved by science, leaving God fewer and fewer gaps to "hide" in. Worse, it deadens our impulse to learn about God's creation, for fear that our research may close yet another gap.

It effectively plays into the hands of the atheist. Perhaps a better approach is to see God in all of nature, and to (correctly, I think) see all of science as simply a reading of God's full revelation to humans.

Michael Denton who is the author of the book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.

Denton is an early supporter of Intelligent Design Creationism, and his book uses a lot of the common creationist methods of deception, like inappropriate analogies, ignoring relevant evidence, relying out outdated information, painting evolution as a straw man, and so on. He may be getting wiser about this, as he has more recently distanced himself from the Creationists, and has resigned from the Discovery Institute (a major Creationist organization). However, he has yet to publically renounce creationism (including intelligent design creationism), and his 25 year old book (Evolution, a theory in crisis) is still out there, and still creationist.

As has been mentioned, some TEs see God as the source for all the beneficial mutations, which otherwise appear random to us. The Pope takes this view, that evolution is solidly backed by science, and that God may be the source of the many beneficial mutations.

Papias

 

[crawfish]

TEs, just like any other Christian, regard creation and the natural world as intentional. God planned for things to be the way they are. Even a seemingly "random" process such as evolution that takes place over an incredibly long time is still purposeful.

 

[lucaspa]

All,

I'm a bit confused on what differentiates theistic evolution and atheistic evolution. Could you explain to me, at a fundamental level, what distinguishes these? I'm an Engineer, so a scientific viewpoint would be appreciated. As for as myself, I'm undecided except that "God did it". I understand theistic evolution involves God and atheistic evolution does not include God, but I want to go deeper in understanding the differences.

Thanks,
Jeff

OK, Jeff, here goes. Read the following very carefully:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

See what it is saying? That "natural" processes require God to sustain them so that they happen. Take oxygen, hydrogen, and a spark. The result is combustion and the formation of water. Butler is saying that God must will this to happen every time or the reaction does not take place.

Drop a rock. It falls. Butler is saying that God must will gravity to work each and every time or the rock does not fall.

Theologically, this doctrine of God sustaining the universe is called "secondary causes". I suggest you do an internet search on that.

Basically, theistic evolutionists believe God is necessary for all natural processes to happen.

Atheistic evolutionists believe these processes happen on their own.

For theists, science becomes telling them how "God did it". God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution.

Here's another way to put what I have been saying:

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

 

[lucaspa]

TEs, just like any other Christian, regard creation and the natural world as intentional. God planned for things to be the way they are. Even a seemingly "random" process such as evolution that takes place over an incredibly long time is still purposeful.

I would urge caution here. When you say "God planned for things to be the way they are", you seem to be arguing that God planned every detail. Yes, the universe can be intentional and purposeful, but everything does not need to be "planned ... the way they are."

It's strange that Christians have no problem with the concept of "contingency", "God's plan", and "purpose" when it comes to human history. We all accept that there are contingent events in history: history did not have to go the way it did. The past does not completely determine the future. What's more, there is no problem in God using these contingent events (unplanned), incorporating these contingent events for His purpose and so that He can achieve His plan.

For instance, in 1943 a Japanese destroyer sliced PT 109 in half. By accident. It was dark and the destroyer had no idea PT 109 was there. If the collision would have been 6 inches further to the stern, it would have ruptured the fuel tanks and set them on fire. The entire crew would have been killed. As it is, one Lt (jg) John F. Kennedy survived.

Now, do you think God planned to have the destroyer hit where it did? Or do you think that was contingency? If contingent and JFK had been killed, do you doubt that God's plan would still have unfolded and God's ultimate purpose been achieved?

 

[lucaspa]

That is the fundamental difference between atheistic and theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists generally do not believe that nature and nature alone could account for evolution taking place. In a sense it's sort of like a "goddidit" position, which isn't bad. It's following the evidence to where it leads. For example, the first two paragraphs of The Lady Kate's view (see post 6) is typical of this type of thinking - an attempt to get around the points that literally stop atheistic or naturalistic evolution dead in its track.

For you and me, if we can see that nature alone can't account for the creation of life, then we know that God must have played a part in it.

Zivka, there are several points of contention here:

First, as Gluadys noted, you are describing Intelligent Design and not theistic evolution. Michael Denton (not an agnostic) is an Intelligent Designer, not a theistic evolutionists. What you are saying is that God must intervene and manufacture some things in their present form.

Second, as you have God manufacture, you are into god-of-the-gaps theology. This comes out when you say "nature alone can't account for the creation of life, then we know that God must have played a part in it". A major problem with this is that you have said that God is only present when "nature alone" can't account for it. It puts God into the "gaps" in nature. Now, I can present evidence of how nature can produce life from non-life. By your argument, we must now conclude that God did not play a part in it. Theistic evolution says God did play a part in it, by sustaining the chemical reactions.

Now, if you fill in the gaps, god-of-the-gaps mean that God is not there. Basically, what you have stated is the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. The difference between you and atheists is that you think there are gaps and atheists do not. But you share the same faith.

This idea of "gaps" is unBiblical. God created a complete universe. There should be no "gaps" between members of the universe, such as non-living chemicals and living cells. To make God be responsible for connecting members of the universe is to make God a creature of the universe. And this is contrary to Christian beliefs.

As an analogy, dead people don't just get up and walk around several days after dying; but Jesus did. We know that there is no process or function in nature that can allow this to happen, so, we have to conclude that God caused it.

Actually, we are told in scripture that God raised Jesus from the dead. It's not a conclusion like you portray. Without that revelation, we would have to look at other possible causes.

BTW, you are doing really bad science here because you are using theory to reject data: "dead people don't just get up and walk around several days after dying " We have not observed any other person dead for over 36 hours come back to life. Therefore we have a theory that people dead for that period of time don't come back to life. Jesus' resurrection is data. That data means the theory must be modified.

In summary, generally speaking it’s the same thing only that theistic evolution gets around the stumbling blocks for naturalistic evolution by invoking God’s divine intervention or guidance in the process

.

Again, that is Intelligent Design, not theistic evolution.

 

[lawtonfogle]

All,

I'm a bit confused on what differentiates theistic evolution and atheistic evolution. Could you explain to me, at a fundamental level, what distinguishes these? I'm an Engineer, so a scientific viewpoint would be appreciated. As for as myself, I'm undecided except that "God did it". I understand theistic evolution involves God and atheistic evolution does not include God, but I want to go deeper in understanding the differences.

Thanks,
Jeff

Evolution is evolution. Theistic evolution is when someone claims God exist and evolution happened. They may claim that God interacted at some point, they may not.

 

[Mick116]

This thread has brought to the fore the question of how (if at all) God interacts with an evolving creation. Our ideas on this matter are necessarily speculative, as Holy Scripture does not spell it out, nor does human reason get us very far.

I like to speculate that God is working within, through and under the creation, steering it towards God's own ends and purpose, but with a certain freedom for creation in the details along the way. Just as God in his Providence has steered the lineage of the Hebrews and then the Jews to arrive at the birth of Christ, and this without overriding the free will of the paticipants in this lineage, and without (usually) supernatural intervention, so I believe God has steered the evolutionary history of life on this planet, with a destination in mind (the human species), but with freedom along the way.

As has been said already, the science of evolution is identical whether one is a theist or an atheist. But I believe a theistic understanding of evolution can be enriched by the Christian doctrine of divine Providence: that God's purposes in creation are and will be fulfilled, whilst allowing, almost paradoxically, freedom to his creatures.

 

[MoneyGuy]

Jeffwhosoever, I urge you to read Dr. Francis Collins' book, The Language of God. It's the most incredible book I've ever read. Collins might be described as a theistic evolutionist, which is also my belief. I got the book on CD and read it and was totally captivated. I returned it to the library, then a week later I took it out again and listened to it once again. I may do it for a third time.

 

[lucaspa]

I like to speculate that God is working within, through and under the creation, steering it towards God's own ends and purpose, but with a certain freedom for creation in the details along the way. ..., so I believe God has steered the evolutionary history of life on this planet, with a destination in mind (the human species), but with freedom along the way.

OK, there are at least 2 ways that God can "steer" evolution and not be detectable by science:

1. Introducing desired mutations. God can direct cosmic rays to interact with the genome of a sperm or egg such that a particular mutation results. We cannot detect this amongst the background of undirected mutations.

2. Engaging in a bit of artificial selection. In this method, God would act like a human breeder in that He would kill off individuals that have traits He does not want. Again, we can't read the fossil record fine enough to detect this type of interference.

But I'm going to suggest you consider an alternative. Your idea of "steering" presumes that God wants a particular physical form or forms. In our case, a modified ape. But I will ask you: what does God care about physical form? After all, God has no physical form. So does He really care what our physical form is.

In this case, God does not have to "steer" evolution at all. As natural selection explores the Library of Mendel (all possible genomes), eventually it is going to come to that part of the Library that codes for beings capable of communicating with God. This wing could have a near infinite number of forms. Possibly a modified theropod dinosaur. Possibly a near relative of dolphins or whales, or a modified octopus etc. When such a species appears -- and it is certain it WILL appear eventually -- then God can communicate with it by intervening in its history, like God intervened in human history.

If this is how God operates, then there could be millions or billions of sapient species thruout the universe with whom God can, and does, communicate. This would solve the dilemma: if God only has life on earth, then the rest of the universe is a lot of wasted space.

As has been said already, the science of evolution is identical whether one is a theist or an atheist. But I believe a theistic understanding of evolution can be enriched by the Christian doctrine of divine Providence: that God's purposes in creation are and will be fulfilled, whilst allowing, almost paradoxically, freedom to his creatures.

I don't see how this enriches an understanding of evolution. Perhaps you could go into that in more detail.

It provides comfort to our human ego to think that God wanted our particular physical form. But isn't pride a sin?