Evolution conflict and division

[o_mlly]

I'm going to like this, because it's true that the OP opens with a false dichotomy. As though there were no such thing as a theistic evolutionist.

So, I take it that you identify as a theistic evolutionist, right?

 

[Job 33:6]

So, I take it that you identify as a theistic evolutionist, right?

Yes. Or evolutionary creationist is becoming a more popular term these days. As opposed to young earth or old earth, or others.

 

[The Barbarian]

OK. So there no need for those two modifiers, right?

I guess it would distinguish atheists from theists. If you think that's a useful distinction.

 

[stevevw]

The first humans (not our particular species) evolved from other hominins about 2 million years ago. This nicely sums up the outline of our physical origins:

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*
..."In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Life, God says, was brought forth by the earth. Humans came along relatively recently, long after the first living things appeared.

I like this explanation. Especially the end part where the end result of all of this is conscious humans with agency, free will, and creativity came into being. That is the ultimate aspect which allows us to have relationship with our creator. What a marvellous creation evolution is.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes. Or evolutionary creationist is becoming a more popular term these days/

Thanks. I am interested to discover how debates in this sub-forum would be any different than those in the forums that allow atheists.

Do theistic evolutionists hold that every human being -- from Adam to the present -- required a supernatural act to come into existence?

 

[TGGIL]

Author’s Clarification and Intent
I am the original author of this forum post, and I want to explain the mindset behind my earlier version of the debate. When I first wrote it, I used the word “evolutionist” to mean people who accept evolutionary science and who, in my fictional scenario, had no concept of God in their worldview.
To explore that idea, I created a fictional debate between two groups:
• Believers in a supreme Creator (God)
• Non‑believers who held a purely scientific, godless worldview
My goal was to ask a philosophical question inside that fictional world:
If a group of people truly believed there was no God, no gods, and no supreme Creator, how would the very idea of “God” ever arise in their vocabulary or imagination?
In other words:
• If everyone in that worldview agreed that the universe is only science, matter, and natural processes…
• And if no one had ever believed in a divine being…
• Then where would the concept of “God” come from in the first place?
That was the heart of the thought experiment.
However, I later realized that the word “evolutionist” was not the right term. People who accept evolution can still believe in God—many do. So the term didn’t accurately describe the group I was trying to portray.
That’s why I rewrote the debate using the correct term:
Atheist
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God or gods.
That’s it.
It’s simply a position on the existence of a deity.
Important clarifications:
• An atheist may or may not care about science.
• An atheist may or may not believe in evolution.
• An atheist may or may not base their worldview on naturalism.
Atheism answers one theological question:
“Does God exist?”
The atheist’s answer is no.
This term fits the fictional scenario far better, because it directly describes the group that denies the existence of any divine being.

The Great Divide: Believers vs. Atheists
By TGGIL
Two Halves of Humanity
Imagine a world split evenly in two.
One half believes in a spiritual, all‑knowing Creator who designed and sustains everything—space, time, matter, and life. The other half believes there is no God at all. No divine mind. No higher power. No spiritual realm. Only nature, physics, and human reason.
These two foundations—faith in God and faith in a godless universe—form the deepest divide in human thought.
❓ A Question for the Atheist Side
Now place both groups in a global debate hall.
To the atheist half, a question is posed:
If there is no God, why did humans ever invent the idea of one?
What force—fear, awe, imagination, politics, or survival—would lead early humans to conceive of an invisible, omnipresent Creator?
This is not an accusation.
It’s a philosophical challenge:
What explains the origin of belief in God if God does not exist?
⚔️ A Hypothetical Split Within the Atheist Camp
To explore the question, imagine a fictional scenario.
Picture two early thinkers—brothers—who both deny the existence of God but disagree on how society should be shaped. Their conflict grows. Followers gather. A rift forms.
Neither brother is evil. Both are convinced of their own vision.
The Birth of a New Story
In this imagined world, one brother proposes a radical idea to resolve the divide:
Introduce the concept of a spiritual Creator.
Not as a scientific claim, but as a new narrative, a way to unify his followers and distinguish them from the opposing camp. Over time, this story becomes more than a symbol. It becomes a belief. A worldview. A culture.
Books are written. Traditions form. Generations pass.
What began as a philosophical gesture becomes a lived reality for half the world.
The Power of Belief
This belief in a Creator offers meaning, identity, and moral grounding.
It becomes woven into law, culture, and personal purpose.
For millions, God is not an invention—He is the ultimate truth.
The Final Question
And so we return to the heart of the thought experiment:
Did humans create the idea of God, or did God create humans with the capacity to seek Him?
Is belief in God a product of human imagination—or evidence of a real, eternal Creator who placed that longing within us?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are we talking about microevolution or macroevolution? I think people tend to get the two confused.

I agree with microevolution (Basically natural selection within a group) but don't agree with macroevolution (apes turning into humans or wolves turning into whales.) Or the idea that we came from nothing. That there is no creator.

With all due respect, it would appear that you're the one who is confused.

The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are non-scientific terms and have no meaning in biology. The statement "microevolution (basically natural selection within a group)" establishes a purely arbitrary barrier that does not exist in nature.

Cladistics is a human-generated idea; it's a way that we, as human beings, sort life into clades. With a hierarchical structure: Kingdom > Phylum > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Species

Each of these categories can be called a "group", after all if I want to talk about "dogs" as a group there are several ways I could do that. I could speak of the genus Canis, which includes everything from wolves, jackals, and coyotes to the domestic dog. Or I could just be talking about the subspecies of Canis lupus (the common wolf) known as Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog and all its many breeds.

But here's the important point: What stops biological forces from continuing to operate beyond an arbitrary boundary which we human beings have come up with? These cladistic categories that we made up are not hard edges in nature, they are categories designed by people; which is why we are constantly re-drawing the lines (even literally) of cladograms as we learn more about life here on earth (both living and extinct).

Further, your definition of "macroevolution" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution at its base conception, the examples you gave "apes turning into humans" and "wolves turning into whales" are nonsense from an evolutionary perspective, but for two very different reasons.

For the first example "apes turning into humans" this is a fundamental misconception, because humans are apes. This is a category mistake, it's like saying "mammals became dogs" or "plants became grass". The term "ape" refers, broadly, to a Superfamily of primates, technically called Hominoidea. A Superfamily is a higher order of familes, above Family but below Order in cladistics (the existence of these smaller step groupings within cladistics is, again, evidence of how cladistics is a human-generated concept used for categorization, not an example of any hard edges found in nature). As such human beings are, cladistically, Hominoidea (Superfamily) > Hominidae (Family) > Homo (Genus) > Homo sapiens (Species) > Homo sapiens sapiens (Sub-species). This places Homo sapiens sapiens within the Family Hominidae (the "great apes") and the Superfamily Hominoidea (the "apes").

For the second example "wolves turning into whales" we have a purely nonsensical statement. The theory of evolution does not postulate that a wolf can, will, or ever could become a whale. That's impossible according to the theory of evolution. Because evolution is not magic. A wolf will never become a whale, a dog will never become a cat, an apple will never become an orange. A wolf, could, under the right selective pressures and given sufficient time evolve into a form that is whale-like in appearance, but it would never be a whale. Whales are cetaceans, whose ancestors were quadrupedal predatory ungulates. While the common ancestor of all cetaceans does bear a superficial resemblance to a canine-looking animal, it did not descend from the wolf--the wolf is a canine, the proto-cetacean was an ungulate; with closer relationships to other ungulates living today such as cows, deer, and pigs.

And both of these examples, or rather the ways in which these examples demonstrate confusion over the nature of biological evolution, actually help illustrate precisely why terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are fundamentally meaningless--they presume an arbitrary wall which does not exist within nature.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is the aspect of humans that purely material processes that evolution and I think all the sciences need to account for.

They can't. Science can't consider the supernatural. It can neither deny nor confirm it. Fortunately, science isn't the only way of knowing.

 

[The Barbarian]

But here's the important point: What stops biological forces from continuing to operate beyond an arbitrary boundary which we human beings have come up with? These cladistic categories that we made up are not hard edges in nature, they are categories designed by people; which is why we are constantly re-drawing the lines (even literally) of cladograms as we learn more about life here on earth (both living and extinct).

Further, your definition of "macroevolution" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution at its base conception, the examples you gave "apes turning into humans" and "wolves turning into whales" are nonsense from an evolutionary perspective, but for two very different reasons.

For the first example "apes turning into humans" this is a fundamental misconception, because humans are apes. This is a category mistake, it's like saying "mammals became dogs" or "plants became grass". The term "ape" refers, broadly, to a Superfamily of primates, technically called Hominoidea. A Superfamily is a higher order of familes, above Family but below Order in cladistics (the existence of these smaller step groupings within cladistics is, again, evidence of how cladistics is a human-generated concept used for categorization, not an example of any hard edges found in nature). As such human beings are, cladistically, Hominoidea (Superfamily) > Hominidae (Family) > Homo (Genus) > Homo sapiens (Species) > Homo sapiens sapiens (Sub-species). This places Homo sapiens sapiens within the Family Hominidae (the "great apes") and the Superfamily Hominoidea (the "apes").

For the second example "wolves turning into whales" we have a purely nonsensical statement. The theory of evolution does not postulate that a wolf can, will, or ever could become a whale. That's impossible according to the theory of evolution. Because evolution is not magic. A wolf will never become a whale, a dog will never become a cat, an apple will never become an orange. A wolf, could, under the right selective pressures and given sufficient time evolve into a form that is whale-like in appearance, but it would never be a whale. Whales are cetaceans, whose ancestors were quadrupedal predatory ungulates. While the common ancestor of all cetaceans does bear a superficial resemblance to a canine-looking animal, it did not descend from the wolf--the wolf is a canine, the proto-cetacean was an ungulate; with closer relationships to other ungulates living today such as cows, deer, and pigs.

Today's winner.

 

[The Barbarian]

A wolf, could, under the right selective pressures and given sufficient time evolve into a form that is whale-like in appearance, but it would never be a whale.

Right. Something like that happened to produce pinnipeds, seals and their kin. But you will never see a seal with an ungulate digestive system. Whales have artiodactyl digestive systems because they evolved from other artiodactyls, even-toed ungulates.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do theistic evolutionists hold that every human being -- from Adam to the present -- required a supernatural act to come into existence?

Depends, I suppose, on what sort of theist they are. Christian theists would. Not sure about Shinto or Hindu theists.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks. I am interested to discover how debates in this sub-forum would be any different than those in the forums that allow atheists.

Do theistic evolutionists hold that every human being -- from Adam to the present -- required a supernatural act to come into existence?

I’m assuming by “supernatural act” you mean a distinct miraculous intervention for each individual human, as in something that would defy biology or physics. If that’s what you mean, then no, as far as I am aware, that is not a standard or necessary claim of theistic evolution (although some Theistic evolutionists may believe this to be an option or a possibility. Theistic evolutionists hold a range of views, but Scripture itself does not require a separate miracle for every human life. This would still be compatible with the idea that God is still the ultimate source and sustainer of human existence.

Alternatively, if by “supernatural act” you mean something like God’s sustaining and governing activity, His providence, then yes, every human life is the result of a supernatural act. But that is true under every Christian framework.

 

[ViaCrucis]

They can't. Science can't consider the supernatural. It can neither deny nor confirm it. Fortunately, science isn't the only way of knowing.

I'm reminded of the difficulty in trying to force everything into a single box. For example, when science describes a rose as any number of species and cultivars within the genus Rosa, this doesn't invalidate a poet who says, "O my Luve is like a red, red rose" (Robert Burns, 1794).
A botanist says one thing about a rose, a poet can say another. And they aren't mutually exclusive statements.

When I, a Christian, confess that human beings were created by God in the Divine Image, that is not a biological statement, it is a theological statement; and it isn't superseded by the biological truth that human beings are members of Hominoidea--apes. I am, biologically, an ape; an ape created in the Image and Likeness of God, created to love Him and my neighbor and to reflect His goodness to the rest of creation--that is a uniquely human vocation that separates human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom. That I'm an ape, biologically speaking, also doesn't change the fact that "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever trusts in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life". It doesn't change the fact that "Christ came to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners". It doesn't change the fact that there is Good News, of a Child born of the Virgin Mary, who was heralded by angels to poor shepherds, and who healed the blind, made the lame to walk, and cast out demons; who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, and on the third day rose again.

Truth is truth. And we worship the God of truth.

 

[Job 33:6]

Depends, I suppose, on what sort of theist they are. Christian theists would. Not sure about Shinto or Hindu theists.

Well, does he mean supernatural miracles like something that would defy biology or physics?

I guess we could use clarity on his question.

 

[Job 33:6]

Author’s Clarification and Intent
I am the original author of this forum post, and I want to explain the mindset behind my earlier version of the debate. When I first wrote it, I used the word “evolutionist” to mean people who accept evolutionary science and who, in my fictional scenario, had no concept of God in their worldview.
To explore that idea, I created a fictional debate between two groups:
• Believers in a supreme Creator (God)
• Non‑believers who held a purely scientific, godless worldview
My goal was to ask a philosophical question inside that fictional world:
If a group of people truly believed there was no God, no gods, and no supreme Creator, how would the very idea of “God” ever arise in their vocabulary or imagination?
In other words:
• If everyone in that worldview agreed that the universe is only science, matter, and natural processes…
• And if no one had ever believed in a divine being…
• Then where would the concept of “God” come from in the first place?
That was the heart of the thought experiment.
However, I later realized that the word “evolutionist” was not the right term. People who accept evolution can still believe in God—many do. So the term didn’t accurately describe the group I was trying to portray.
That’s why I rewrote the debate using the correct term:
Atheist
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God or gods.
That’s it.
It’s simply a position on the existence of a deity.
Important clarifications:
• An atheist may or may not care about science.
• An atheist may or may not believe in evolution.
• An atheist may or may not base their worldview on naturalism.
Atheism answers one theological question:
“Does God exist?”
The atheist’s answer is no.
This term fits the fictional scenario far better, because it directly describes the group that denies the existence of any divine being.

The Great Divide: Believers vs. Atheists
By TGGIL
Two Halves of Humanity
Imagine a world split evenly in two.
One half believes in a spiritual, all‑knowing Creator who designed and sustains everything—space, time, matter, and life. The other half believes there is no God at all. No divine mind. No higher power. No spiritual realm. Only nature, physics, and human reason.
These two foundations—faith in God and faith in a godless universe—form the deepest divide in human thought.
❓ A Question for the Atheist Side
Now place both groups in a global debate hall.
To the atheist half, a question is posed:
If there is no God, why did humans ever invent the idea of one?
What force—fear, awe, imagination, politics, or survival—would lead early humans to conceive of an invisible, omnipresent Creator?
This is not an accusation.
It’s a philosophical challenge:
What explains the origin of belief in God if God does not exist?
⚔️ A Hypothetical Split Within the Atheist Camp
To explore the question, imagine a fictional scenario.
Picture two early thinkers—brothers—who both deny the existence of God but disagree on how society should be shaped. Their conflict grows. Followers gather. A rift forms.
Neither brother is evil. Both are convinced of their own vision.
The Birth of a New Story
In this imagined world, one brother proposes a radical idea to resolve the divide:
Introduce the concept of a spiritual Creator.
Not as a scientific claim, but as a new narrative, a way to unify his followers and distinguish them from the opposing camp. Over time, this story becomes more than a symbol. It becomes a belief. A worldview. A culture.
Books are written. Traditions form. Generations pass.
What began as a philosophical gesture becomes a lived reality for half the world.
The Power of Belief
This belief in a Creator offers meaning, identity, and moral grounding.
It becomes woven into law, culture, and personal purpose.
For millions, God is not an invention—He is the ultimate truth.
The Final Question
And so we return to the heart of the thought experiment:
Did humans create the idea of God, or did God create humans with the capacity to seek Him?
Is belief in God a product of human imagination—or evidence of a real, eternal Creator who placed that longing within us?

This sounds like a series of questions that would be better posed toward atheists than asking a bunch of Christians.

If God does not exist, how did the idea of God arise at all?

Is there a reason that you're asking us this question rather than asking it in the non-christian forum?

 

[The Barbarian]

If God does not exist, how did the idea of God arise at all?

That was on Aquinas' list.

 

[stevevw]

They can't. Science can't consider the supernatural. It can neither deny nor confirm it. Fortunately, science isn't the only way of knowing.

Yes I agree. But I was thinking more about subjective experiences. Which we know are real. Even science acknowledges this. Its weird as it can never be directly verified and yet its well acknowledged as a reality.

Almost like acknowledging a form of magic coming out of physical stuff that should not by its very nature produce such phenomena.

Its the subject phenomena we know is real that is not being accounted for by the physical hard sciences. Something we intuit and know is real and yet completely ignored or relegated to a by produce or non causal aspect.

Nevermind a supernatural God which is actually beyond science.

I think the sciences are coming to the same general crossroads of dealing with the role of the subject and subjective experiences in the equation of causal influences. For physics its the observer effect and subjective choices that influence reality.

For evolution its teleology, agency and free will. When it comes down to it our choices mean something vert fundemental.

Maybe to the point where at the very bottom reality is the opposite of the physical causal chain where subjective experiences and free choice is classed as a byproduct and not fundemental. Instead it is the objective world that is the by product of free choice and agency.

 

[TGGIL]

This sounds like a series of questions that would be better posed toward atheists than asking a bunch of Christians.

If God does not exist, how did the idea of God arise at all?

Is there a reason that you're asking us this question rather than asking it in the non-Christian forum?

Why I Posted The Great Divide: Believers vs. Atheists
I want to offer a gentle clarification about my purpose in sharing The Great Divide: Believers vs. Atheists. My intention is not to attack, judge, or diminish anyone’s beliefs—Christian or non‑Christian. I respect the freedom of every person to hold their own convictions, and I have no desire to argue anyone into my viewpoint.
My goal is much simpler and more reflective.
I am genuinely curious about how people who do not believe in a Supreme Creator understand the origin of the very idea of God. In other words:
If someone’s worldview holds that no God exists, how did the concept of “God” ever enter human thought, language, or imagination in the first place?
This is not meant as a trap or a challenge. It’s a philosophical question that fascinates me, and I believe it’s worth exploring respectfully. None of us—believers or non‑believers—can say with absolute certainty how the earliest idea of God emerged. But the question itself opens a meaningful doorway into understanding how different worldviews interpret the human longing for meaning, purpose, and transcendence.
So when I posted The Great Divide, it wasn’t to deny anyone’s belief system or to elevate my own. It was simply to invite thoughtful reflection:
• For believers, it’s a reminder of the deep roots of our faith.
• For non‑believers, it’s an opportunity to consider why the idea of God exists at all.
My hope is that the discussion remains respectful, honest, and open-hearted—because that’s the spirit in which I wrote it.

 

[o_mlly]

Depends, I suppose, on what sort of theist they are. Christian theists would (hold that every human being -- from Adam to the present -- required a supernatural act to come into existence).

... as far as I am aware, that is not a standard or necessary claim of theistic evolution (although some Theistic evolutionists may believe this to be an option or a possibility.

So, which is it for Christian theists, i.e., a supernatural event, or not?

 

[o_mlly]

Science can't consider the supernatural.

So, theistic-evolution is not a science? If it is not science then is it primarily a religion, and only secondarily a science? That is, a theistic evolutionist's religious beliefs can never be displaced or altered by his scientific claims?

From this forum's prologue.
"Creationism & Theistic Evolution Statement of Purpose Theistic Evolution: Theistic evolution is the effort to reconcile Darwin’s theory of undirected evolution with belief in God in general and Christian theology in particular."