TE or DE?

[Dust and Ashes]

I was a rabid YEC before I converted to Orthodoxy and I've had my rear handed to me more than once by people when I went off half-cocked talking about things I didn't understand. Now, I'm somewhere between OEC and TE but I could swing YEC without any problems as the whole thing has become somewhat of a non-issue with me.

I think the thing that bothered me more than anything was that it seemed some people who called themselves theistic evolutionists actually held to a belief that would be more accurately described as deistic evolution. I say that because they seemed to agree that everything evolved in a materialistic fashion with no guidance from God other than some vague, overall plan that was alluded to.

Recently there was a guy in TAW who expressed something that I've thought about quite a bit. Being Orthodox, I believe that nothing happens that is not part of God's will as He is perfectly sovereign and even Satan (albeit unwittingly or unwillingly) obeys His will. This being so, could theistic evolution truely be called TE? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it something like Progressive Creationism or somesuch if God guided the evolution of every living thing? For that matter, if God guided the evolution of every living thing, can it even be said that those life forms truely evolved? Or is evolution just defined as change over time?

Another thing that I've given some thought to recently:

I was watching In Search Of... and there was a guy who hypothesized (theorized?) that because of the evolutionary gap between Neanderthals and modern man that aliens had come to earth and genetically engineered Neanderthals into modern man to make more efficient/effective slaves then left them here to overthrow the lower species of "humans."

Obviously, I don't believe this but I was thinking that if the gap he speaks of is factual, could it be that at that point, God created modern man in a special way? I'm not really hooked on any of these ideas, I just thought they might make for some lively, interesting discussion. Peace!

Forgive me,

 

[gluadys]

I was a rabid YEC before I converted to Orthodoxy and I've had my rear handed to me more than once by people when I went off half-cocked talking about things I didn't understand. Now, I'm somewhere between OEC and TE but I could swing YEC without any problems as the whole thing has become somewhat of a non-issue with me.

I think the thing that bothered me more than anything was that it seemed some people who called themselves theistic evolutionists actually held to a belief that would be more accurately described as deistic evolution. I say that because they seemed to agree that everything evolved in a materialistic fashion with no guidance from God other than some vague, overall plan that was alluded to.

Recently there was a guy in TAW who expressed something that I've thought about quite a bit. Being Orthodox, I believe that nothing happens that is not part of God's will as He is perfectly sovereign and even Satan (albeit unwittingly or unwillingly) obeys His will. This being so, could theistic evolution truely be called TE? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it something like Progressive Creationism or somesuch if God guided the evolution of every living thing? For that matter, if God guided the evolution of every living thing, can it even be said that those life forms truely evolved? Or is evolution just defined as change over time?

Another thing that I've given some thought to recently:

I was watching In Search Of... and there was a guy who hypothesized (theorized?) that because of the evolutionary gap between Neanderthals and modern man that aliens had come to earth and genetically engineered Neanderthals into modern man to make more efficient/effective slaves then left them here to overthrow the lower species of "humans."

Obviously, I don't believe this but I was thinking that if the gap he speaks of is factual, could it be that at that point, God created modern man in a special way? I'm not really hooked on any of these ideas, I just thought they might make for some lively, interesting discussion. Peace!

Forgive me,

You raise some good points. "Theistic evolution" is a broad term that covers virtually the whole range of viewpoints that include two theses:

1. God exists and creates.
2. The theory of evolution is the best current scientific description of the origin of biodiversity.

One could also add that the scientific evidence in favour of an old universe and an old solar system/earth is taken for granted as well, but age is a somewhat different concept than evolution.

In that broad range there can be quite a bit of variance in personal interpretations. Some would be indeed closer to deism than theism. At the other extreme some include a literal garden of Eden and a literal Adam & Eve, etc.

I would take any position that accepts a personal interaction of God and humanity as theistic rather than deistic, even if, in regard to evolution, it did not suggest direct guidance. OTOH, I see no reason to exclude direct guidance either.

If you have not yet read John Polkinghorne's work (search www.amazon.com using "Polkinghorne" as a key word) on this topic, I highly recommend it. Polkinghorne has a PhD in theoretical physics and was a professor for 25 years before turning to the Anglican priesthood. His ideas are fascinating, and will, I think, provide some possible answers to your questions. I would begin with Faith of a Physicist or Belief in God in an Age of Science.


As for my personal take on some of your questions:

"if God guided the evolution of every living thing, can it even be said that those life forms truely evolved?"

It would depend on how one envisioned the form of guidance. If one supposes that at some point God helps evolution past an uncrossable gap by specially creating an organ and inserting it fully formed into an organism, that would not be evolution.

However, there are two forms of guidance that would be consistent with evolution. One is acting to change environmental conditions via determining some initial conditions to which the environment is quite sensitive. It doesn't take a lot to create significant environmental changes through small changes in the movement of tectonic plate, normal current or wind direction, or overall average temperature. Or, for that matter, through a new viral infection, or the chance introduction of a plant or animal into an ecology where it never existed before. God could easily arrange for the necessary "chance occurrences" to happen without any scientific process being able to detect the divine hand at work. And many species would react by either adapting to the changed environmental conditions or becoming extinct through failure to adapt.

The other way would be to manipulate the process of DNA mutation. As far as science can tell, mutations happen randomly. So if some were caused by God and some by pure chance, how is science supposed to discriminate between these causes?

This is why I do not understand the reason for condemning "random mutation" or any other random process as if it were anti-biblical. To me it is obvious that if God wishes to intervene in nature without always undoing its laws, God must create a universe in which events can happen randomly. This is what gives the universe the flexibility which permits divine guidance of processes such as evolution.


"I was watching In Search Of... and there was a guy who hypothesized (theorized?) that because of the evolutionary gap between Neanderthals and modern man that aliens had come to earth and genetically engineered Neanderthals into modern man to make more efficient/effective slaves then left them here to overthrow the lower species of "humans." "

This is a non-sensical notion based on the incorrect supposition that Neanderthals were ancestors of modern humans. They were not. They were more like older cousins who shared a common ancestor with modern humans. Most paleontologists today consider Homo erectus to be the common ancestor of both groups.

A basic understanding of phylogeny is necessary to avoid confusing relationships in this way. It explains such things as why birds can be derived from dinosaurs, yet cats cannot be derived from dogs, nor H. sapiens from H. neanderthalensis.

"could it be that at that point, God created modern man in a special way?"

As noted above, though the gap is real, it is irrelevant, since Neanderthals did not become H. sapiens. However, I would note that as far as the physical biology of humans is concerned evolution does not include any sort of creation of modern man in a special way under any conditions.

This does not disallow a special intervention to create in an anatomically modern human whatever spiritual condition was needed for humans to become the "image of God" and to have spiritual communion with their Creator in a special way. Some TEs identify Adam as the first person to be fully human in both physical and spiritual senses.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Great response, thanks! I will definately have to check out Dr. Polkinghorne's book. I love science, especially physics.

I suppose it could also be said that God could create a world in a way that it would "randomly" evolve in just the way He wanted it to with no further intervention at all. It is truely mind boggling to think that He could actually do this even though I don't personally believe He did. Would that not give the appearance that everything evolved randomly when, in fact, it was completely planned at the beginning?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Also remember how scientists and people interested in science (like most TEs posting here) look at random and how laypeople look at random are two different things.



A laypersons random is unplanned and mysterious.



A random event in science is one we do not currently know enough about to properly calculate the results or the calculations are too massive and the results too minor to bother trying to calculate it.



From an all knowing God's point of view there may be nothing that is actually random in the universe, or maybe there even needs to be a true randomness in the universe to allow for free will.