Theistic Evolution

[t_w]

Perhaps one of the most central tenets of not only Christianity, but all religions, is that man is superior to other life-forms. From genesis:
"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so."

It is also made clear that heaven, free will, knowledge of right and wrong, original sin, and many other ideas associated with Chrisitanity are all limited to man. The son of God is human. The soul is a purely human attribute.

Of course, it goes without saying that an amoeba, white blood cell or scorpion don't get a look in when it comes to heaven. Neither do apes. So my question is this: at what point along the evolutionary timeline did man qualify for the list above? If no such point can be speculated, surely it can be concluded that there is no line. If humans evolved from single-celled organisms, then, if evolution is accepted, at one point humans had nothing to do with the above list of human attributes in the Bible. So did humans evolve a soul? Evolve free will? Evolve into heaven? Or did God just decide a few 10000 years ago, after his creation had been running for 14 billion years, to 'spice things up a bit?' The above list are perhaps the most central tenets of Christianity, and yet a Te must conclude that these 'central tenets'(free will, heaven and hell, etc.) have only been relevant for around 0.000000001% of the duration of God's creation. Isn't such a conclusion even more irrational than that of YEC's? Their beliefs certainly contradict science, but at least they don't contradict themselves.

 

[coyoteBR]

wow, T_w, easy there. Too many questions.
Allow me not to discuss the tales of origins that passed from father to son fron dozens and dozens of generations untill one decided to write'em down.

Now, you said:
"...is ...clear that heaven, free will, knowledge of right and wrong, original sin, and many other ideas associated with Chrisitanity are all limited to man. The son of God is human. The soul is a purely human attribute.

Of course, it goes without saying that an amoeba, white blood cell or scorpion don't get a look in when it comes to heaven. Neither do apes. So my question is this: at what point along the evolutionary timeline did man qualify for the list above? If no such point can be speculated, surely it can be concluded that there is no line. If humans evolved from single-celled organisms, then, if evolution is accepted, at one point humans had nothing to do with the above list of human attributes in the Bible. So did humans evolve a soul? Evolve free will? Evolve into heaven? Or did God just decide a few 10000 years ago, after his creation had been running for 14 billion years, to 'spice things up a bit?' The above list are perhaps the most central tenets of Christianity, and yet a Te must conclude that these 'central tenets'(free will, heaven and hell, etc.) have only been relevant for around 0.000000001% of the duration of God's creation. Isn't such a conclusion even more irrational than that of YEC's? Their beliefs certainly contradict science, but at least they don't contradict themselves."

Allow me to put things in perspective. Ant take in consideration this is quite unorthodox christianity.
I would have to agree with you, if "God's Creation" was about only this planet.

But there's an ancient universe out there, that is also creation of God.
And also there's the spiritual dimension, where souls, spirits, anima, you name it, come to existence. Those are Created by God simple and ignorant.

And those are the souls that entered our ancestors. And so, bodies, societies and souls began to develop together. A caveman, on a hunter/gatherer tribe, probably used much more his lower instincts, of selfisheness, for instance, than a modern man.
We still have this instincts, just like those ancestors did had some idea about the Laws of God, free-will, etc. - even if they did not used'em.

Just like an Ferrari engine and a Mini engine. Both are engines, and one can recognize basically the same parts on both. But try to put a Ferrari engine on a Mini and vice-versa.

So, the development of our souls match the advancement of our bodies and societies. It is a form of evolution of souls, yes, on moral, charity and knowledgement.

... at least, that's how I see it. I don't know if I made myself clear.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So (when) did humans evolve a soul?


at this point, i would word the question in two ways.

first, what does it mean to be human?
an answer in terms of the image of God appears to be the proper way for a Christian to pursue the topic.

second, is there more to being human than just the imago dei? yes, a relationship with God, a religiousity, a need for metaphysical answers, an awareness of death.

I think that the answers to these two questions are different. That human beings existed with souls but God simply was silent towards them. With Adam we have God talking to humanity, or at least one or two members of the group.

so the soul appears to be a gift from God when human beings are developed enough to use it.

but the proper use of the soul, its orientation towards God occurs tens of thousands of years later when God breaks His silence and creates a man to talk with-Adam.

for more, google "young earth, old adam" or "two adams" or "dick fisher origins" or "stephen jones adam"

 

[Mallon]

If no such point can be speculated, surely it can be concluded that there is no line.

Why?
This sounds similar to the IDist argument that since we can't imagine how life came from non-life, then God must have done it via a miracle. How is that the only logical conclusion?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So (when) did humans evolve a soul?


at this point, i would word the question in two ways.

first, what does it mean to be human?
an answer in terms of the image of God appears to be the proper way for a Christian to pursue the topic.

second, is there more to being human than just the imago dei? yes, a relationship with God, a religiousity, a need for metaphysical answers, an awareness of death.

I think that the answers to these two questions are different. That human beings existed with souls but God simply was silent towards them. With Adam we have God talking to humanity, or at least one or two members of the group.

so the soul appears to be a gift from God when human beings are developed enough to use it.

but the proper use of the soul, its orientation towards God occurs tens of thousands of years later when God breaks His silence and creates a man to talk with-Adam.

for more, google "young earth, old adam" or "two adams" or "dick fisher origins" or "stephen jones adam"

To add to this, one must also remember that "In the image of..." ment to represent something more than to look like something or be like something. Generals were sent to wage war "in the image" of thier king, traders were sent "in the image" of their king or company to negotiate trade deals. Today the Wal-Mart greeters greet you "in the image" of Wal-Mart. Your car dealer is selling you that new Chevy "in the image" of GM corp.

Humans are assigned to treat the world as if they were acting "in the image" of God.

 

[Silent Bob]

So my question is this: at what point along the evolutionary timeline did man qualify for the list above?

At the point our species could make a distinction between right and wrong. At that point we gained our God given spirit and we also inherited the accountability for our actions. Thats the way I see it anyway, I don't have a scientific study or a bible quote to fully support it but I don't think that everything in life has to be scientifically or biblically approved. We have a brain, we can put it to good use with a bit of our own philosophy.

So did humans evolve a soul?

Possible, but I am not sure. It can be argued that God in His infinite wisdom 'designed' (don't take me for an IDist) a system that when left to it's own devices would produce an image of His spirit.

Evolve free will?

Again possible.

Evolve into heaven?

Yes and no. As a species we needed a bit of a push in the right direction. And that is what that 'crazy' guy who was saying that He was God's son tried to do. We all know however how much we love being told that we should be good to each other and forgive and that is why we nailed Him to a cross.

Or did God just decide a few 10000 years ago, after his creation had been running for 14 billion years, to 'spice things up a bit?'

Nope He decided to spice things up when He started this whole thing, a few billion years ago.

The above list are perhaps the most central tenets of Christianity, and yet a Te must conclude that these 'central tenets'(free will, heaven and hell, etc.) have only been relevant for around 0.000000001% of the duration of God's creation. Isn't such a conclusion even more irrational than that of YEC's?

Ahh but God is beyond time. So the argument is irrelevant. Duration and proportion has no meaning when you deal with timelessness and infinity.

Btw, I may have missed Sunday school a couple of times, but the most central tenet of Christianity (to me) is: be good. But then again I am a liberal Christian and a weird one at that.

 

[Dracil]

That's like asking at what point of evolution did humans become human?

Or at what point did we develop consciousness?

 

[stumpjumper]

So did humans evolve a soul? Evolve free will? Evolve into heaven? Or did God just decide a few 10000 years ago, after his creation had been running for 14 billion years, to 'spice things up a bit?'

I don't see why animals can not have some form of free will and I think the amount of freedom of will would differ with the amount of knowledge and self-awareness of the individual. No one is controlling the mind of a dog so their will belongs to them whatever that may mean to a non-rational animal...

In regards to the "soul", I'm not sure if that is a concept that is wholly defensible. It has always sounded too dualistic to me and too heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. I do think that there is a portion of us that lives on after death in the form of consciousness and fellowship with God but the concept on the injection of a "soul" from a bank or something doesn't make sense to me.

But, I'm wierd and a little unorthodox...

 

[Phred]

It's just as likely that there are no gods, no afterlife and no soul. Human beings are conscious within our bodies and when the body dies the consciousness dies with it.

 

[Asimov]

So did humans evolve a soul? Evolve free will? Evolve into heaven? Or did God just decide a few 10000 years ago, after his creation had been running for 14 billion years, to 'spice things up a bit?' The above list are perhaps the most central tenets of Christianity, and yet a Te must conclude that these 'central tenets'(free will, heaven and hell, etc.) have only been relevant for around 0.000000001% of the duration of God's creation. Isn't such a conclusion even more irrational than that of YEC's? Their beliefs certainly contradict science, but at least they don't contradict themselves.

You forget that God is timeless and eternal, so that 14 billion years would be nothing to him.

Just like when you're making a cake, you have to prepare. The cake turns out to be greater than the eggs, flour, sugar, vanilla...etc. And then it's eaten. The cake itself is around for less time than the duration of creating the cake, but that doesn't lessen the importance of it.

 

[t_w]

I'll get back to most of your comments later. All I'll say at this point is, in reply to the 'God is timeless line'; God assigned humans to monitor the world. Whether one takes Genesis literally or not, this seems to be the general consensus. Now, if humans were to monitor other life, why is 99.9999999% of all other life extinct before humans evolved? And why did they monitors arive on the scene? The notion that humans have dominion over animals is disproven by the fact that nearly all animals were extinct before we could be called 'humans'. Here we can see that any 'God is timeless' argument is irrelevant here. We are talking about the timescale of life and earth - which are bound by time(I could argue God is too, but that would detract from the point of the thread).

 

[Brennin]

Whoops! Wrong thread.

 

[Asimov]

I'll get back to most of your comments later. All I'll say at this point is, in reply to the 'God is timeless line'; God assigned humans to monitor the world. Whether one takes Genesis literally or not, this seems to be the general consensus. Now, if humans were to monitor other life, why is 99.9999999% of all other life extinct before humans evolved? And why did they monitors arive on the scene? The notion that humans have dominion over animals is disproven by the fact that nearly all animals were extinct before we could be called 'humans'. Here we can see that any 'God is timeless' argument is irrelevant here. We are talking about the timescale of life and earth - which are bound by time(I could argue God is too, but that would detract from the point of the thread).

Even so, t_w, nowhere does it say that animals couldn't have existed and become extinct before Adam came around.

Genesis does say that animals were created before the onset of man. Who's to say that those animals didn't evolve and die out and get replaced by more animals until God decided it was right to make humans? I certainly don't see how your argument applies, since it is an objection that man didn't get to have dominion over every single animal that ever lived and that isn't what God was saying in Genesis.

and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

The context is present-tense, not past-tense.

 

[t_w]

Even so, t_w, nowhere does it say that animals couldn't have existed and become extinct before Adam came around.

Genesis does say that animals were created before the onset of man. Who's to say that those animals didn't evolve and die out and get replaced by more animals until God decided it was right to make humans? I certainly don't see how your argument applies, since it is an objection that man didn't get to have dominion over every single animal that ever lived and that isn't what God was saying in Genesis.
The context is present-tense, not past-tense.

Ok, but then I could just add that humans are in contact with very, very few living things. 'To rule over the fish of the sea, birds of the air, etc.' seems to be a statement from God that ignores the reality that humans arena of life is completely different and unrelated to that of most birds and fish. God's act of encouraging us to rule over all animals, even if they are animals currently living, is an irrational encouragement for the above reasons and surely not one to be expected of an omniscient being.

 

[t_w]

Why?
This sounds similar to the IDist argument that since we can't imagine how life came from non-life, then God must have done it via a miracle. How is that the only logical conclusion?

I agree that my argument was a fallacious one. But still, I would expect that a theistic evolutionist would be able to offer their perspective on where the line is.

 

[t_w]

Humans are assigned to treat the world as if they were acting "in the image" of God.

So why didn't God assign humans to earth right at the beginning? Surely if humans are to represent or 'be an example if' God, then wouldn't the fact that we have only been around for a fraction of life indicate that such a position as ours(god's image) is a pety and unneccessary one? It's true that life got along fine without us. And yet we are supposedly the main aspect of God's creation.

 

[Mallon]

I agree that my argument was a fallacious one. But still, I would expect that a theistic evolutionist would be able to offer their perspective on where the line is.

What would you have us tell you that is within the realm of scientific scrutiny???
If you can develop a way to detect a human soul, then maybe I can draw you a line.

 

[t_w]

At the point our species could make a distinction between right and wrong.

Well, at least we have a suggestion for the point at which humans qualified as God's favourites. But, why do you feel that right and wrong are an objective thing? Right and wrong are just an evolutionary mechanism which have been favoured because such a morality is beneficial to a social animal such as humans. I'm sure a scorpion would consider you killing its offspring 'wrong' in the same way that we consider murder of children wrong, or at least for the same reasons. Such a conclusion is inevitable if evolution is accepted, which I presume it is by you.

At that point we gained our God given spirit and we also inherited the accountability for our actions. Thats the way I see it anyway, I don't have a scientific study or a bible quote to fully support it but I don't think that everything in life has to be scientifically or biblically approved. We have a brain, we can put it to good use with a bit of our own philosophy.

I agree. For me, a Bible quote would have detracted from your statement.

Possible, but I am not sure. It can be argued that God in His infinite wisdom 'designed' (don't take me for an IDist) a system that when left to it's own devices would produce an image of His spirit.

I don't think a spirit or free will would be favoured by natural selection. Nor would they be caused by a physical mutation or genetic drift. So how exactly is it possible? If it were to appear, evolution is not a possible explanation in my view.

Nope He decided to spice things up when He started this whole thing, a few billion years ago.

Nope. He can't spice things up when there are no things. He can only spice things up when things exist to be spiced up.

Ahh but God is beyond time. So the argument is irrelevant. Duration and proportion has no meaning when you deal with timelessness and infinity.

Irrelevent. See one of my above posts.

Btw, I may have missed Sunday school a couple of times, but the most central tenet of Christianity (to me) is: be good. But then again I am a liberal Christian and a weird one at that.

The point is the command 'be good' is directly purely at humans. So really, you've only strengthened by argument that man is the most important aspect of Christianity.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Right and wrong are just an evolutionary mechanism which have been favoured because such a morality is beneficial to a social animal such as humans. I'm sure a scorpion would consider you killing its offspring 'wrong' in the same way that we consider murder of children wrong, or at least for the same reasons. Such a conclusion is inevitable if evolution is accepted, which I presume it is by you.

this is the naturalist fallacy.
science doesn't do: ethics, morality, right wrong etc. these things are outside of its domain. it is descriptive, never prescriptive. my favorite example stems from an argument i had maybe 30 years ago about human beings having two breast and cows having 4 [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. which obviously means that evolution intended us to kill one triplet because if more children at one pregnancy were evolutionary desirable then the human body would have evolved like the cow.
that is b.s. science can't make the connection between description and prescription, between what is and what ought to be. People do.

 

[t_w]

this is the naturalist fallacy.
science doesn't do: ethics, morality, right wrong etc. these things are outside of its domain. it is descriptive, never prescriptive. my favorite example stems from an argument i had maybe 30 years ago about human beings having two breast and cows having 4 [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. which obviously means that evolution intended us to kill one triplet because if more children at one pregnancy were evolutionary desirable then the human body would have evolved like the cow.
that is b.s. science can't make the connection between description and prescription, between what is and what ought to be. People do.

I don't see a fallacy at all. Every aspect of human beings has evolved, or is as a result of our evolution. I don't see why a sense of morality is any different.
Now, would a society that had laws etc. be more successful? Would a set of individuals that had a set of morals be more successful? The answer is clearly yes. They would be less likely to starve, less likely to kill each other and in general more stable and ordered as a society. This is a logical conslusion? I see no non sequitor from my premises to my conclusion.


P1: Every aspect of us is as a result, direct or indirect, of our evolution. A TE would accept this, as if we had never evolved form bacteria Jesus wouldn't have existed. And of course, a bacteria can't have a morality or free will or any of the attributes Christians say humans have.
P2: Morality is an aspect of us as a species, in that most human societies have some form of morality or some set of laws and some ideas of right and wrong.
C1: Morality is a result of our evolution.

Now, where is the fallacy. Where is the non-sequitor. Even if P1/2 is wrong(which they aren't), that wouldn't make the argument fallacious. it would be wrong, but not fallacious. I fear you have no grasp of what a fallacy, or even of what logic is.

As to 'this is outside science's realm', this is a statement that shows a true lack of understanding about what morality is and what science is. Evolution can explain, or attempt to explain, the existence of morality. Nothing else can.