Theistic Evolution and Humanity

[plainswolf]

A question concerning Theistic Evolution:

If man is the present product of an evolutionary process, is he still evolving? And if he evolves into something else beyond human, will he still be considered "made in the image and likeness of God"?




+

 

[gluadys]

A question concerning Theistic Evolution:

If man is the present product of an evolutionary process, is he still evolving?

Yes.

And if he evolves into something else beyond human, will he still be considered "made in the image and likeness of God"?

This question reflects a misunderstanding of how evolution works. We have evolved "into" humans, but in doing so we have never evolved "out of" what we were before we were human. Evolution never takes a species out of its ancestry.

We evolved from apes and we still are apes. Apes (including us) evolved from primates and we still are primates. Primates evolved from mammals and we still are mammals. Likewise we are still amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, chordates, animals, eukaryotes*. We still are all that our non-human ancestors ever were.

*I am skipping some classifications here for brevity.

The same applies to our descendants. They may differ from us in many ways, but they will still be eukaryotes, animals, chordates, vertebrates, tetrapods, amniotes, mammals, primates, apes and humans. They may be different sorts of humans than us. They may even call themselves by a different name. But whatever they become they cannot cease to be human, because their ancestors (us) are human.

As to whether they are still in the image of God, I cannot say for certain but I see no reason why not.

 

[billwald]

No. Humans are not evolving. We are undergoing Social Darwinism. Society decides who will survive.

 

[Scotishfury09]

The "image and likeness" of God is that we are spiritual beings, it has nothing to do with a corporeal form.

 

[Dannager]

No. Humans are not evolving. We are undergoing Social Darwinism. Society decides who will survive.

That doesn't mean we aren't evolving. Traits are still being selected for, and mutations probably come into play in some respect. All that's changed is the mechanism of selection.

 

[busterdog]

A question concerning Theistic Evolution:

If man is the present product of an evolutionary process, is he still evolving? And if he evolves into something else beyond human, will he still be considered "made in the image and likeness of God"?



+

Great question. Another reason why evolution is the wrong concept to explain Adam or "what we shall be." One question is whether we will have enough time to evolve before the Lord returns --- which will probably make evolution a moot point.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

And let's be perfectly clear, while a very narrow type evolution can be put within the traditional paradigm of creation and redemption of the planet at the second coming, it almost never is. It is virtually antithetical to "our blessed hope".

Tts 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

1Cr 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Cr 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

 

[theFijian]

Great question. Another reason why evolution is the wrong concept to explain Adam or "what we shall be." One question is whether we will have enough time to evolve before the Lord returns --- which will probably make evolution a moot point.

After all this time you'd think that you understood that evolution has no ontological significance regarding the 'image of God'.

 

[busterdog]

After all this time you'd think that you understood that evolution has no ontological significance regarding the 'image of God'.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[crawfish]

A question concerning Theistic Evolution:

If man is the present product of an evolutionary process, is he still evolving? And if he evolves into something else beyond human, will he still be considered "made in the image and likeness of God"?


+

The answer would be "yes" and "yes". To a TE, the process of evolution was used to create a person "in the image of God". Any further evolution would only take us down the path God has defined.

For the record, I do not believe that "in the image and likeness of God" refers to physical characteristics. It means we exist in the spiritual likeness of God. We would still be made in the image of the same God we have now if we'd been made as talking frogs.

 

[theFijian]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

One wonders why you waste your own, and our, time.

 

[durangodawood]

No. Humans are not evolving. We are undergoing Social Darwinism. Society decides who will survive.

There is MUCH less natural selection pressure in advanced societies. We help people overcome all kinds of deficits that, in a previous era, would have prevented them from reaching reproductive age.
.
The really interesting question... what happens when we tinker with our own genes to promote traits that we value for ourselves? We will choose the "likeness" of our offspring, to a certain extent.

 

[MrSnow]

If common descent is true (I normally preface this stuff with the fact that I don't dogmatically hold to any particular origins view, but I lean towards TE. However I lean pretty heavily in that direction. I think that soon I'll probably just drop the formality of the prefaces and just come out of the closet), then I have the following opinion concerning the future of human evolution (or the lack thereof):

Christ is the reason for all of creation, and in particular the reason for humanity. He is our archetype. He is the epitome of all that we are (and supposed to be). Striving to be conformed into His image is the purpose of our Christian life.

Christ is what humanity is supposed to be (and be like). I believe that all aspects of his existance (with the exception of His Godhead) characterize what God had in mind for humanity. If God sovereignly orchestrated the evolution of life to get to the point of humanity, then I believe that Christ is the next step, and the final step. Because of who and what Christ is, I don't believe that humanity will evolve anymore than what it took to get to the point of Christ (as far as His humanity).

I think what Christ represents what God did for humanity in Gen 1. God made us in His image, but he put His image into something that was already formed from the ground. We became something that no animal before us could possibly be. And then God rested from His creative acts. He hasn't made any new "special creations" since He "created" us in His image.

But I believe that the life of Christ innaugurated the "8th day". Through Christ, God elevated humanity to a new level, making us "new creations" (in particular at His resurrection).

But evolution is part of our individual spiritual walks. Change, although not part of who God is, is intrinsically part of who WE are. We evolve spiritually day by day to become more like Christ. And throughout eternity, as our finite selves continuously approach an infinite God, we will evolve spiritually to become more and more like Him (since the finite will never be infinite).

So basically my answer is that I think that human evolution reached its pinacle at the time of Christ, and that He is the epitome of humanity. I personally don't believe that a new human species (or type) will develop before Christ returns.

 

[gluadys]

.
The really interesting question... what happens when we tinker with our own genes to promote traits that we value for ourselves? We will choose the "likeness" of our offspring, to a certain extent.

Interestingly, maybe not much. Francis Collins deals with the question of genetic enhancement in an appendix to his book The Language of God.

On the one hand there is a statistical problem.

The kinds of attributes that parents might want to enhance are generally controlled by multiple genes. Yet getting both Mom's best version and Dad's best version for any given gene will happen in only one out of four embryos. If two genes are to be optimized, it will take sixteen embryos (on average) to find one that meets the requirement. To optimize for ten genes, it would take more than a million embryos! Since that is substantially more than the total number of eggs a woman can produce in her lifetime, the silliness of the scenario becomes immediately apparent.​

The other factor he points out is that many genes create a predisposition for a certain trait without determining to what extent or in what way it will be expressed.

Even for that one-in-a-million embryo, the choice of ten genes for intelligence, musical aility, or athletic prowess would be likely to skew the odds only by a small amount. ... The critical importance of childhood upbringing, education and discipline would not be obviated by a slightly optimized throw of the genetic dice. The self-absorbed couple who insisted on the use of genetic technology to produce a son who could quarterback a football team, play first violin in the student orchestra and get A+ in math might very well find him in his room instead, playing video games, smoking pot and listening to heavy metal music.​

These comments are in reference to embryo selection. There are huge ethical issues with direct genetic engineering of germ-line cells that (in his opinion) will probably keep that option off the table for a long, long time.

 

[Assyrian]

The really interesting question... what happens when we tinker with our own genes to promote traits that we value for ourselves? We will choose the "likeness" of our offspring, to a certain extent.

Of course we always have done that too. It comes when we chose the person we want to be parent to our children...

 

[durangodawood]

....These comments are in reference to embryo selection. There are huge ethical issues with direct genetic engineering of germ-line cells that (in his opinion) will probably keep that option off the table for a long, long time.

Interesting.
But was was thinking of direct genetic manipulation.
.
Dont think the ethical issues will stop people, and doctors, from doing it. First, the ethical issues dont necessarily translate directly to legal obstacles. Second, even if we make it illegal, there will always be other nations that will capitalize on the inevitable demand, assuming the techniques work correctly.
.
I think evolution by conscious-selection is on the horizon.

 

[shernren]

Interesting.
But was was thinking of direct genetic manipulation.
.
Dont think the ethical issues will stop people, and doctors, from doing it. First, the ethical issues dont necessarily translate directly to legal obstacles. Second, even if we make it illegal, there will always be other nations that will capitalize on the inevitable demand, assuming the techniques work correctly.
.
I think evolution by conscious-selection is on the horizon.

But gluadys' quote wasn't related to the ethical issues; rather, it was related to the technical issues. Can it even be done? We certainly can't directly manipulate DNA code at this stage in our technological development. Therefore, we have to get the DNA we want not by manually altering the DNA of a particular zygote, but by getting lots of zygotes and then finding the one that matches our requirements. Gluadys' quote pointed out that to do this for even 10 genes would require more eggs than a woman could probably produce in her lifetime.

Conscious eugenics is a long, long way from being practically implemented at a directly genetic level.

 

[durangodawood]

But gluadys' quote wasn't related to the ethical issues; rather, it was related to the technical issues. Can it even be done? We certainly can't directly manipulate DNA code at this stage in our technological development. Therefore, we have to get the DNA we want not by manually altering the DNA of a particular zygote, but by getting lots of zygotes and then finding the one that matches our requirements. Gluadys' quote pointed out that to do this for even 10 genes would require more eggs than a woman could probably produce in her lifetime.

Conscious eugenics is a long, long way from being practically implemented at a directly genetic level.

20 years out? 100 years out? We should still prepare ourselves for the possibility, and the implications.
.
gluadys made complete sense. Except that I disagree when she says: "There are huge ethical issues with direct genetic engineering of germ-line cells that (in his opinion) will probably keep that option off the table for a long, long time."

 

[gluadys]

Interesting.
But was was thinking of direct genetic manipulation.
.
Dont think the ethical issues will stop people, and doctors, from doing it. First, the ethical issues dont necessarily translate directly to legal obstacles.

They probably will. Probably one of the things holding back such procedures now is the lack of legal direction.

However, the other point that Collins makes is that even direct genetic manipulation will not likely make a lot of difference, because most of the traits we would like to enhance 1) require the manipulation of multiple genes, none of which contribute significantly in themselves to the desirable attribute, and 2) most of these genes only predispose toward, rather than create, the desirable attribute.

You can get all the genes right and still not get the desired progeny because of other factors that are equally if not more important in developing their interests, skills, attitudes and behaviour.