Suggestions for Theistic evolution wiki...

[stumpjumper]

I made the wiki entry on [WIKI]theistic evolution[/WIKI]but was wondering if there was anything someone felt I missed or need to improve upon.

Anyone can edit it also so if there's something you'd like to change feel free to do so...

 

[gluadys]

I made the wiki entry on [WIKI]theistic evolution[/WIKI]but was wondering if there was anything someone felt I missed or need to improve upon.

Anyone can edit it also so if there's something you'd like to change feel free to do so...

I think the most problematic section is the paragraph on Teilhard de Chardin, and it may be best to leave it out altogether. There are several difficulties with it.

Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit paleontologist, described the God of evolution as a god who pulled the world ahead and towards the future in comparison to Aristotle’s prime mover who guided or pushed the world and life from behind.

Actually what Chardin is describing IS the Aristotelian view. Aristotle proposed 4 causes: material, formal, efficient and teleological. The material and formal causes are simply the matter from which physical bodies are formed, and the shape or form that gives them definition. The efficient cause is the push-from-behind force of cause-and-effect. The telelogical cause is the pull-from-ahead cause and Chardin is actually taking this from Aristotle as he describes the Omega point.


Science today does not acknowledge a teleological cause in nature and works only with the concept of efficient cause. It may be that theistic evolution picks up the teleological cause again in saying that evolution works, not only from the efficient causes in nature but also toward the purposes of God.

Teilhard described this God as almost completely Omega and primarily concerned with the future. This is the God that evolution requires and it is a God that is motivated by love.

I am not certain I would go to the point of saying evolution "requires" this God. Theistic evolution may, as a theological stance, but evolution, as science, would not. But I am not certain that even theistic evolution would insist on this theology.

Another problem with referring to Chardin's vision, is that science has moved on since his time. Chardin's vision of evolution was relatively linear and progressive, along the lines of orthogenesis.. Modern evolutionary biology rejects this concept.

An Omega God would primarily be a pulling force drawing new and complex life towards itself. Not surprisingly, then, the feature most obvious about macro-evolution, and the feature that caught Charles Darwin’s eye, is the emergence of novel life.

The association of evolution with new and complex life is more typical of creationist views. Special creation identifies each species as a wholly new life form, without precedent in the past.

But what Darwin noted was not so much the newness of species, but the continuity of new with old, such that a relationship could be posited between extinct and extant species. The connectedness of descent is fundamental to evolution.

In fact, it is appropriate to say that what evolution stresses is not the novelty of diverse life forms but the continuity of life forms. There are no completely novel life forms. All new forms are modifications of previous forms.

I am also wary of identifying the purpose of evolution, even theologically, with complexity. A better term than complexity is diversity. Had God chosen to populate the world with no other life form than bacteria, the diversity of bacteria is still due to evolution. Complexity is not an inevitable end of evolution, but diversity is. As it happens, the diversification of life forms included the production of complex life forms. Is this an outworking of God's purpose for evolution? Maybe. But it is not, on a scientific basis, a necessary outcome of evolution.

I am going to think on this a bit more and will post some additional thoughts tomorrow. Looking at evolution to me conveys several positive values, but I need to think yet how to articulate them.

 

[stumpjumper]

Thanks Gluadys

Those points are helpful as most of my reading about theistic evolution comes from John Haught and he is really into process theology and stresses the novelty of life aspect. I have also read some Chardin but didn't explain it very well obviously...

The focus of the article would be the religious stance over the scientific stance so any more info that goes with that line would be helpful.

I just changed some stuff but I don't know if it's better or worse now...

 

[Willtor]

One perspective: God is the cause of all natural occurrences, just as nature is. There is no natural process apart from God, but God is moving it. This is different from Pantheism in that it doesn't say that God is the process, but that He created it. It is also different from Deism which says He created it and left it to its own. This works on any level in nature. In this sense, a TE would really just be an E, and acknowledge that nothing happens apart from the hand of God.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks Gluadys

Those points are helpful as most of my reading about theistic evolution comes from John Haught and he is really into process theology and stresses the novelty of life aspect. I have also read some Chardin but didn't explain it very well obviously...

I think you explained Chardin well. The problem is that Chardin himself was wrong on some points.

I have been promising myself for some time to read more on process theology, with which I only have a nodding aquaintance. But I expect, that as theologians, they often make scientific errors too.

The focus of the article would be the religious stance over the scientific stance so any more info that goes with that line would be helpful.

Yes, that it important because the chief feature of TE is that it does not quibble with the science of evolution.

I just changed some stuff but I don't know if it's better or worse now...

Looks better to me, anyway. I think it might be helpful to add that beyond theism, TE is not limited to any specific theology. TE is a position which can be adopted by theists of any stripe: Deists, Unitarians, Jews and Muslims as well as Christians. And by almost any Christian theologian, even those with enough of a literalist bent to affirm that Adam and Eve were actual historical persons.

 

[Dracil]

You might find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution to be helpful as well.

 

[relspace]

You might say in defense of TE against detractors that although the TEist may defer to the scientists on matters of science, the interpretation and philosophical implications are vastly different. Science looks at the world from a purely materialist point of view, but the idea that this is the totality of reality is absurd (you can quote Eddington). Therefore the interpretation of evolution as a mechanical or random process is unwarranted. There is ample evidence that the production of genetic variation is very much an intentional and creative process by living things and that the process of evolution is nothing more than a species level of the trial and error learning process open to a full spectrum of environmental influences, including what Christians call spritual influences in their own lives.

The TEist tends to be more informed on the nature and methodology of science and is less likely to confuse rhetoric with science as does the Creationist. The TEist is in no way capitulating to the atheistic scientists because the TEist recognizes that the real issue is not science but philolosophy and religion. The TEist also recognizes that there is a difference between a scientific text and a religious and spiritual one, and that the Bible was never intended to be taken as a detailed manual on how God created the universe. The Bible describes what God did, not how He did it. It, in fact, seems rather presumptuous to suppose that we as Christians understand how God did created the world/universe when we cannot do the same ourselves.

Are we really intended to take the Bible so literally that we could be expected to analyse the atomic abundances in the composition of dust to verify that the human body has the same composition? Are we to presume that he used fission and necleosynthesis to alter these atomic abundances? Are we really to presume that God would use a process that is so incredibly wasteful of energy when the actual materials He needs are all around us? Why do we have to pretend that we understand and know things that we obviously know nothing about? Why are we so ready to use the word of God as a pretext for meaningless bickering when it was obviously intended for the glorification of God instead?

 

[shernren]

Science looks at the world from a purely materialist point of view, but the idea that this is the totality of reality is absurd (you can quote Eddington). Therefore the interpretation of evolution as a mechanical or random process is unwarranted.

While your post as a whole is a good one, I object to this because science never assumed that its view of the world was complete. Scientism assumes that science is a complete view of the world. It is perfectly possible to accept science and reject scientism. Also, it is similarly possible to accept that evolution is to some extent mechanical and random (in a scientific sense) and yet not random, but purposefully directed (in a teleological sense).

 

[relspace]

While your post as a whole is a good one, I object to this because science never assumed that its view of the world was complete. Scientism assumes that science is a complete view of the world.

I never said or implied otherwise. Clearly my post is not a criticism of science, it is a defense of TE and says that the TEist accepts the authority of science where it is valid and can do this without compromising Christian belief precisely because the TEist understands this.

It is perfectly possible to accept science and reject scientism. Also, it is similarly possible to accept that evolution is to some extent mechanical and random (in a scientific sense) and yet not random, but purposefully directed (in a teleological sense).

Sure it is possible, but it is wrong. Evolution is not mechanical because it is not simply the operation of mathematical laws on inert matter. It is an activity of living things. It is not random because living things actively embrace it. (see notes below)

Viewing ones life as random is a symptom of a crisis in finding meaning in ones life. It is a response to being overwhelmed by challenging changes in circumstance with which one cannot cope because of the lack of an adequate worldview. It is a lazy and fearful response which instead of seeking a new worldview that can give meaning to new circumstances it simply says that there is no meaning. Meaning is not objective. It is purely subjective. We create meaning as part of the process of perception and understanding.

“Once it was recognized that DNA is the informationally active chemical component of essentially all genetic material (with the notable exception of RNA viruses), it was assumed that this macromolecule must be extraordinarily stable in order to maintain the high degree of fidelity required of a master blueprint. It has been something of a surprise to learn that the primary structure of DNA is in fact quite dynamic and subject to constant change. For example, gene transposition is a well established phenomenon in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. In addition to these larger scale changes, DNA is subject to alteration in the chemistry or sequence of individual nucleotides.”

The book out lines the process by which DNA participates in a constant cycle of damage and repair.
> No genetic alteration is external or random, because alteration is not due to random damage or replication error as much as it is due to a particular type of response to DNA damage.
The book describes 3 types of cellular responses to DNA damage (including errors): Reversal, excision and tolerance. The first is a reaction to fairly minor damage which can be repaired by the action of a single polypeptide enzyme. Excision is a much more elaborate process by which the damaged or mismatched pieces are cut away and the original sequence is restored. Tolerance mechanisms do no remove the primary damage and thus often results in a permanent change in the genome.
There are at least 4 known mechanisms for reversing different types of DNA damage, the simplest of which is called photoreactivation of DNA by which a light activated enzyme removes the type of damage that is most commonly caused by UV radiation.
Heterogeneity of excision repair chapter 7
Because some of the repair mechanisms are tied to the transcription process, there is a bias towards the repair of transciptionally active DNA sequences. But the existence of repair mechanisms for nonactive DNA has been shown to be of critical importance to the prevention of cancer.
>This pheonmena of “heterogeneity of exicision repair” is another example of how the whole process is anything but random.
Mismatch repair chapter 9
Tolerance chapters 10-12
“For example, prokaryotic cells have evolved mechanisms for repairing single-strand gaps and double-strand breaks in their DNA that have arisen either directly from DNA damage or indirectly as the result of processing of the initial DNA damage. These mechanisms involve proteins that also play roles in the homologous recombination of undamaged DNA. Niether of these processes appear to be particulary mutagentic. In addition, prokaryotic cells have evolved another class of mechanisms for processing damaged DNA which, although not yet fully understood a biochemical level, appears to involve the polymerization of DNA past a lesion and is often referred to a translesion DNA synthesis. In contrast to other systems that act on damaged DNA, this type of processing can be highly mutagenic and, in fact is required for most UV radiation and chemical mutagenesis.” pg 407
“In the case of E coli, in which these alternative mechanisms for dealing with damaged DNA have been studied most closely it has become clear that their regulation and operation is intimately related to the complex SOS regulatory network. The expression of the more than 20 genes in this network is induced by DNA damage and is regulated by the LexA and RecA protiens.” pg 407
The book described the experiements, “that first suggested that an inducible system is required for mutagenesis,” where UV radiation failed to induce mutation in bacteriophages unless the host cell was also irradiated thereby activating the SOS system of the cell that allowed the translesion DNA sythesis process to occur in the DNA of both the host cell and the invading viral DNA. pg 466
“Studies of UV radiation-induce mutagenesis of the bacterial chromosome played a key role in the development of the notion that recA+ -lexA+-dependent functions are required for the specialized processing of damaged DNA that gives rise to mutations and that this process is inducible. Evelyn Witkin’s observation that lexA(Ind-) mutants were not mutable by UV radiation led her to postulate that the lexA+ gene might encode or control a new or modified DNA polymerase capable of inserting nucleotides oposite UV radiation lesions and that UV mutagenesis occurred by a mechanism of translesion replication.” pg 467
> So we have a set of genes for the express purpose of of bypassing the DNA repair system to allow mutations to occur!
Edward A. Birge, “Bacterial and Bacteriaophage Genetics”

“Transposons are units of DNA that move themselves from one DNA strand to another or to a new position on the same molecule, inserting at nearly random positions. They are also capable of catalyzing DNA rearrangements such as deletions or inversions.” pg 80.
“One of the basic tenets of genetics is that indiscriminate exchange of genetic information is disadvantageous to a species. In eukaryotic cells, problems with chromosome pairing during mitosis and meiosis often prevent cells that have acquired foreign chromosomes from surviving. However, because segregation of the nucleoid in prokaryotic cells requires no such elaborate mechanism, other strategies must come into play. In particular, many bacterial cells and their viruses use a system of restriction and modification to tag their own DNA and disrupt any foreign DNA that may be present.”