Evolution

[Zoness]

There are two major problems with the theory of evolution.

The first is that for something to evolve you would need a living organism to begin with. Life does not start for no reason because if it did then every planet should have life. Some scientists may say we need certain conditions for life to begin and earth just happened to have them, but you can look at extremophiles which live in conditions scientists said were impossible years ago. They live off things that are poisonous to every other living being on earth and they live in temperatures that nothing else can.

The second major problem is that for living beings to evolve you would need drastic mutations and when things mutate they lose their ability to reproduce most often. Everything has a maximum level of how different they can be from the original being before they have mutated too far and become sterile. Microevolution does happen but the being produced is still within the parameters allowed by the DNA.

Where are you getting the idea of drastic mutations? Evolution isn't frogs randomly turning into monkeys. It is natural selection, genetic drift and gradual change over long periods of time. If you were watching it happen in real time, it would be an excruciatingly boring process.

 

[Crandaddy]

Do you think evolution could produce a functioning brain?

I think evolution can, in principle at least, produce brains that satisfy the computational input/output requirements to simulate rational behaviors, but I don't think it can produce discursive thought that proceeds on the basis of truly rational reasons.

Say, for example, that I form the thought of 4×4, and I then form the thought that that equals 16. Why do I form the latter thought? Because I can see that, necessarily, 4×4=16. The thought 4×4 serves as the rational ground for the consequent thought that it equals 16. At best, I think evolution can say that our brains were selected to operate this way in order to facilitate survival, but I don't think this can be sufficient to preserve genuine rational thought. What should prevent evolution from producing minds that think such nonsense as 4×4=15, or 4×4=cat if such thoughts might facilitate survival?

 

[Bravo Year]

I think evolution can, in principle at least, produce brains that satisfy the computational input/output requirements to simulate rational behaviors, but I don't think it can produce discursive thought that proceeds on the basis of truly rational reasons.

Say, for example, that I form the thought of 4×4, and I then form the thought that that equals 16. Why do I form the latter thought? Because I can see that, necessarily, 4×4=16. The thought 4×4 serves as the rational ground for the consequent thought that it equals 16. At best, I think evolution can say that our brains were selected to operate this way in order to facilitate survival, but I don't think this can be sufficient to preserve genuine rational thought. What should prevent evolution from producing minds that think such nonsense as 4×4=15, or 4×4=cat if such thoughts might facilitate survival?

If I'm grasping this correctly - which I'm likely not - our brains evolved to perceive logic and define it. I'm not sure that thinking that 4x4=cat would have been beneficial to us because it isn't true. 2 objects plus 2 objects was always 4 objects, even when we weren't around to perceive it. We came along and defined that in terms like "two," "four," "object," "plus," and "equals." We wouldn't have lasted long if we couldn't grasp these things.

I don't think our capacity to perceive and qualify reason is much different from lower creatures who can comprehend basic truths in order to survive in and navigate throughout the world around them.

We're pretty highly evolved, considering. We can understand higher levels of absolutes. I think the only thing we need to be rational is a functioning brain. Evolution produced a digestive tract as well, but it didn't produce digestion - that's just what the digestive tract does. Similarly, evolution didn't produce reason, it's just what the functioning brain does.

You may be making it more difficult than it has to be.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is just something I'm curious about, and I'd like to know the range of answers to this.

How many of you religious people accept evolution? If not, why not? If so, why, to what extent, and how does it fit into your religion?

I've been away for a few days, otherwise I'd probably have chimed in sooner.

Evolution is science. I can no more reject the basic facts of biological evolution than I can reject the basic facts about the size and shape of the planet or its orbit around the sun.

It "fits" into my religion about the same as any other basic fact of the natural world does: That there is a good Creator God who has created all things, and created them "exceedingly good" as the text of Genesis 1 says. I marvel at the wonder of the fossil record the same as I marvel at the wonder of the sunset or the changing autumn leaves, in the profound beauty and complexity of the cosmos.

This places me in what is usually called the "Theistic Evolution" camp, though I might prefer the term "Evolutionary Creationism", as I don't believe Young Earth Creationists should get a monopoly on the concept of creation. Of course, in an ideal world, that would be moot; it's sort of like saying I believe in "Theistic Gravitation" or "Theistic Germ Theory", I really shouldn't have to codify my acceptance of basic scientific facts with my religious faith--but unfortunately there is a social narrative of Science vs. Religion and despite the fact that most religious people, arguably, have no problem with science; and science has said nothing that damages religion, the narrative persists due to a vocal community of people who clearly feel this narrative is real.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bravo Year]

This places me in what is usually called the "Theistic Evolution" camp, though I might prefer the term "Evolutionary Creationism", as I don't believe Young Earth Creationists should get a monopoly on the concept of creation. Of course, in an ideal world, that would be moot; it's sort of like saying I believe in "Theistic Gravitation" or "Theistic Germ Theory", I really shouldn't have to codify my acceptance of basic scientific facts with my religious faith--but unfortunately there is a social narrative of Science vs. Religion and despite the fact that most religious people, arguably, have no problem with science; and science has said nothing that damages religion, the narrative persists due to a vocal community of people who clearly feel this narrative is real.

-CryptoLutheran

This is a really good point. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of a god. If you understand and accept the scientific evidence for evolution, you're an evolutionist. The "theistic" claim refers to abiogenesis - which we're always screaming is completely different than evolution. I don't think I used the term "theistic evolutionist" much in the past, but I'll certainly not be using it in the future.

However, "creationism" still refers to origins, whereas evolution just refers to how life got so diverse. I think any connotation of "creation" might extend past the scope of evolution - even cosmic evolution. Perhaps a term like "theobiogenesist" would be more apt. I just made that one up.

And as for your last statement - would it be more entertaining to see an intelligent atheist debate Francis Collins or Ray Comfort? That's why the rift still persists.

 

[ChristianT]

This is a really good point. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of a god. If you understand and accept the scientific evidence for evolution, you're an evolutionist. The "theistic" claim refers to abiogenesis - which we're always screaming is completely different than evolution. I don't think I used the term "theistic evolutionist" much in the past, but I'll certainly not be using it in the future.

However, "creationism" still refers to origins, whereas evolution just refers to how life got so diverse. I think any connotation of "creation" might extend past the scope of evolution - even cosmic evolution. Perhaps a term like "theobiogenesist" would be more apt. I just made that one up.

And as for your last statement - would it be more entertaining to see an intelligent atheist debate Francis Collins or Ray Comfort? That's why the rift still persists.

Actually, rather than "theobiogenesis," try this word: Orthogenesis

In terms of origins, I'd think orthogenesis is closer than (a)biogenesis to the Christian perspective. Of course, the application of evolution after this genesis doesn't necessarily have to conform to this definition.

(just trying to be a blessing )

 

[Bravo Year]

Seems sort of like the difference between deism and theism. I believe ViaCrucis believes in a personal God rather than just an "external driving force." Hence theobio - God to life; genesis - origin. Maybe I'm biased toward my made up word. If I really made it up.

 

[ChristianT]

Seems sort of like the difference between deism and theism. I believe ViaCrucis believes in a personal God rather than just an "external driving force." Hence theobio - God to life; genesis - origin. Maybe I'm biased toward my made up word. If I really made it up.

To be fair, I believe in theogenesis, that God is the originator and sustainer of all things, but it's not really a theory as biogenesis is, and I don't mind.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is a really good point. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of a god. If you understand and accept the scientific evidence for evolution, you're an evolutionist. The "theistic" claim refers to abiogenesis - which we're always screaming is completely different than evolution. I don't think I used the term "theistic evolutionist" much in the past, but I'll certainly not be using it in the future.

However, "creationism" still refers to origins, whereas evolution just refers to how life got so diverse. I think any connotation of "creation" might extend past the scope of evolution - even cosmic evolution. Perhaps a term like "theobiogenesist" would be more apt. I just made that one up.

Insofar as we're speaking theology. The material narrative of origins that one would find in an average text book--the big bang, natural stellar evolution, planetary evolution within a proto-planetary disk, the earth cooling, and life arising naturally from non-living organic compounds--is something I can accept without trouble. Theology enters the scene in that, as a confession of faith, I believe God is the creative power behind it all, and thus the material/natural processes and mechanisms at work in the cosmos from the big bang and onward are simultaneously the Divine Activity of the Creator God as well as entirely natural, material phenomena.

One of the worst turns in "doing" theology today has been the advent of the "god of the gaps". Wherein "God" is seemingly little more than, "I don't know what did X, therefore God." That's a remarkably tiny deity.

And as for your last statement - would it be more entertaining to see an intelligent atheist debate Francis Collins or Ray Comfort? That's why the rift still persists.

Oh, absolutely, showing an atheist and a Christian being in total agreement over, say, the material origins of the universe would make for a far less entertaining bit of viewing. It's also why we tend to hear about all the fringe nutters in every religion or segment of society. A story about a Muslim fundamentalist trying to blow something up makes for far more exciting television than a local imam running a fundraiser to help the local hospital's child wing. And also having a Christian fundamentalist group up in arms over said imam, accusing him of having nefarious anti-democratic goals in mind is far more ratings-worthy than hearing about how the local Catholic parish is donating money to the same fundraiser.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Crandaddy]

If I'm grasping this correctly - which I'm likely not - our brains evolved to perceive logic and define it. I'm not sure that thinking that 4x4=cat would have been beneficial to us because it isn't true. 2 objects plus 2 objects was always 4 objects, even when we weren't around to perceive it. We came along and defined that in terms like "two," "four," "object," "plus," and "equals." We wouldn't have lasted long if we couldn't grasp these things.

I don't think our capacity to perceive and qualify reason is much different from lower creatures who can comprehend basic truths in order to survive in and navigate throughout the world around them.

We're pretty highly evolved, considering. We can understand higher levels of absolutes. I think the only thing we need to be rational is a functioning brain. Evolution produced a digestive tract as well, but it didn't produce digestion - that's just what the digestive tract does. Similarly, evolution didn't produce reason, it's just what the functioning brain does.

You may be making it more difficult than it has to be.

But did our brains evolve to perceive logical and mathematical truths, or did they evolve to enable our ancestors to survive and reproduce? Perhaps we might say that believing basic logical and mathematical truths was conducive to our ancestors' survival and reproduction, but then it would be by virtue of the usefulness of holding such beliefs in order to survive and reproduce that our brains evolved to believe such truths, and not by virtue of the truth of the propositions themselves.

Rational thought requires that we hold certain of our beliefs on the basis of rational reasons, and these I submit are irreducible in principle to any exclusive combination of mechanistic causal processes and random occurrences. What I mean by this is that truth must be causally efficacious of rationally inferred beliefs, in that in order for a true belief to be rationally inferred from a set of other true beliefs, the truth of the propositions that comprise the set must be causally efficacious of the belief inferred from them. In other words, in order for a genuine case of rational inference to occur, truth must be causally relevant to the occurrence of the inferred belief, in that it is because the truth of the inferred belief is seen to follow from the truth of some set of prior beliefs that the inferred belief occurs.

It is for this reason--that the truth of certain beliefs must be causally efficacious of certain other beliefs if genuine rational thought is to occur--that I say that naturalistic evolution (i.e. evolution exclusively via mechanistic causal processes operating on random occurrences) cannot even in principle produce genuine rational thought. If an exhaustive causal account of why it is that we happen to hold a certain belief does not entail that that belief is caused to exist by certain other beliefs by virtue of those beliefs being true, then we cannot be said to have rationally inferred that belief.

 

[Bravo Year]

But did our brains evolve to perceive logical and mathematical truths, or did they evolve to enable our ancestors to survive and reproduce? Perhaps we might say that believing basic logical and mathematical truths was conducive to our ancestors' survival and reproduction, but then it would be by virtue of the usefulness of holding such beliefs in order to survive and reproduce that our brains evolved to believe such truths, and not by virtue of the truth of the propositions themselves.

No, I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive, and I don’t particularly agree with your wording. I don’t think we “hold such beliefs” as much as we “recognize this as true,” and we use that logic as a tool. I don’t hold a belief in the law of identity, I recognize that the law of identity is true. Any brain that did not recognize that would not be very well adapted to its environment, thus would probably not survive and reproduce.

Rational thought requires that we hold certain of our beliefs on the basis of rational reasons, and these I submit are irreducible in principle to any exclusive combination of mechanistic causal processes and random occurrences. What I mean by this is that truth must be causally efficacious of rationally inferred beliefs, in that in order for a true belief to be rationally inferred from a set of other true beliefs, the truth of the propositions that comprise the set must be causally efficacious of the belief inferred from them. In other words, in order for a genuine case of rational inference to occur, truth must be causally relevant to the occurrence of the inferred belief, in that it is because the truth of the inferred belief is seen to follow from the truth of some set of prior beliefs that the inferred belief occurs.

Had to reread this several times – tell me if I’m completely missing it: Are you saying that we do not use our senses to perceive and understand the world around us, the center of those senses being a functioning brain? Honestly, I don’t know what you mean by a “set of prior beliefs.” 2 objects plus 2 objects equaling 4 objects isn’t a prior belief from which we made an inference of truth. It is a truth of the world around us. Like I said earlier, it was true before we, or any other minds were around to perceive it. It seems that you’re smuggling in a “belief holder” where none needs be – but again, I could have completely missed what you’re saying.

It is for this reason--that the truth of certain beliefs must be causally efficacious of certain other beliefs if genuine rational thought is to occur--that I say that naturalistic evolution (i.e. evolution exclusively via mechanistic causal processes operating on random occurrences) cannot even in principle produce genuine rational thought. If an exhaustive causal account of why it is that we happen to hold a certain belief does not entail that that belief is caused to exist by certain other beliefs by virtue of those beliefs being true, then we cannot be said to have rationally inferred that belief.

We hold beliefs to a certain degree of certainty. Even things that are axiomatic – that is things whose negations are impossible – we only hold to a certain degree. But depending on the degree of certainty of knowledge we have, we form beliefs, as belief is a subset of knowledge. But if I’m mistaken there’s no need to continue with my response.

 

[dazed]

How can one be a Christian and not believing in evolution? From Adam and Eve or Noah's 3 sons, we now have black, brown, white skin people with curly, straight, blond, black or red hair. All within 1000 years.

 

[awitch]

One cannot be a christian and accept the doctrine of evolution. It is impossible.

Oh no! ViaCrucis is imaginary.

 

[dlamberth]

One cannot be a christian and accept the doctrine of evolution. It is impossible.

I know a lot of Christians who are living the impossible dream than.

.

 

[Bravo Year]

One cannot be a christian and accept the doctrine of evolution. It is impossible.

Umm... No it's not.

 

[gord44]

Oh no! ViaCrucis is imaginary.

Dang. I always liked his posts.

 

[Zoness]

I'd say most Christians are reasonable people and most reasonable people accept evolution as generally not in conflict with their beliefs. The vast silent majority of Christians passively accept evolution and the minority are biblical literalists.

Of course those Christians who accept evolution aren't real true Christians(tm).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Something of note, that I think is rather fascinating, are the conversations the Christians of antiquity wrestled concerning the subject. Origen of Alexandria (early 3rd century), for example supposes that those who imagine the existence of light in the cosmos without sun, moon, or stars to be foolishness,

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?" - De Principiis, IV.16

While some of the Eastern Fathers, such as St. Basil the Great (4th century) consider it foolish to try and treat the text less-than-literally,

"'And there was evening and there was morning: one day.' And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say 'one day the first day'? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says 'one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -- we mean of a day and of a night;" - Homily II.8

Writing in the first quarter of the 5th century, St. Augustine attempts to tackle just what exactly the author of Genesis wants to convey, in his work De Genesi ad Litteram (the Literal Meaning of Genesis) he seeks to find out what the literal, that is the intended, meaning is. Augustine cautions Christians from speaking ignorantly when plain observation of the natural world reveals certain facts about the world in which we live, and that we disgrace Sacred Scripture by insinuating that it speaks on matters it does not or says things which are observably false.

To this end Augustine sees in Genesis a figurative meaning; for the ancient Doctor all things were created in but a moment, and the six days of creation are not a chronological account, but a framework of orderliness. Augustine even suggests that all things were created in a seminal form, from which they developed further; the seeds of creation developed along their natural course. Something akin to a pre-Darwinian, and pre-scientific kind of evolution.

"Augustine draws out the following core themes: God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Using more technical language, Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation. The development of God's creation is always subject to God's sovereign providence. The God who planted the seeds at the moment of creation also governs and directs the time and place of their growth." - Alister McGrath, Christianity Today

As concerns modern Christian thinkers and theologians, here's a rad video of John Polkinghorne, N.T. Wright, and Alister McGrath,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Most people who call themselves christians are not. "Not all who Israel is true Israel" says Paul. I can put up a sign on my front door, M.D. Does that make me a doctor or a fraud? Judge them by their works. Do they do the works of God? Do they preach hell, sin, judgment and repentance towards good works or do they teach lies in the name of God? False prophets will have their part in the lake of eternal fire and sulfur as well.

As for evolution, if it is true, Adam and Eve are lies. If Adam never sinned, humans are not sinners and the entire new testament is based on lies. No need for a savior, no need for redemption, no need for anything. Paul lied when he said we were all hellbound sinners fit for hell and born in sin and in need of a savior. Christianity cannot survive without a literal creation.

Baptismus sum.

All else is sinking sand.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

'Many will say unto Me, LORD, LORD, and I will reply, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity for I never knew thee." ' - Matthew 7

Words to take seriously.

I would also add Matthew 25:31-46.

Also, Romans 1:16, Romans 6:1-14, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 2:6-15, just for good measure.

Baptismus sum.

-CryptoLutheran