Theistic Evolution

[stevevw]

Can someone please explain to me what Theistic Evolution is. Are there different versions of this. If Theistic Evolution is just the world view version of evolution with God thrown in as the initiator of life then what is the difference between Theistic Evolution and the world view version. Isn't this just reducing Gods role down to abiogenesis which is not really a part of evolution anyway as evolution begins at the point the first single living cell is in existence already? If Theistic evolution starts after God created the first single-celled life then there is no need to include God at all as this is irrelevant to evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Can someone please explain to me what Theistic Evolution is. Are there different versions of this. If Theistic Evolution is just the world view version of evolution with God thrown in as the initiator of life then what is the difference between Theistic Evolution and the world view version. Isn't this just reducing Gods role down to abiogenesis which is not really a part of evolution anyway as evolution begins at the point the first single living cell is in existence already? If Theistic evolution starts after God created the first single-celled life then there is no need to include God at all as this is irrelevant to evolution.

God is active in all of our lives, everyday. Can we see God manipulating physical reality before our eyes on the day-to-day? No. We have faith.

The same is true with matters regarding the physical universe. Just because we don't see God manipulating physical matter before our eyes, doesn't mean that God is irrelevant.

God doesn't need to form His name in the clouds or on a piece of toast for us to know that He is ever present. Nor does God need to miraculously change an organisms DNA in ways that defy understanding, in order for us to know that He is ever present.

 

[HTacianas]

Can someone please explain to me what Theistic Evolution is. Are there different versions of this. If Theistic Evolution is just the world view version of evolution with God thrown in as the initiator of life then what is the difference between Theistic Evolution and the world view version. Isn't this just reducing Gods role down to abiogenesis which is not really a part of evolution anyway as evolution begins at the point the first single living cell is in existence already? If Theistic evolution starts after God created the first single-celled life then there is no need to include God at all as this is irrelevant to evolution.

I am personally a "theistic evolutionist" though I hate labels. I believe that God long ago created life on the Earth and guided it along, making subtle changes here and there, and even "wiping the slate clean" a couple of times and basically starting over again.

 

[SkyWriting]

Can someone please explain to me what Theistic Evolution is. Are there different versions of this. If Theistic Evolution is just the world view version of evolution with God thrown in as the initiator of life then what is the difference between Theistic Evolution and the world view version. Isn't this just reducing Gods role down to abiogenesis which is not really a part of evolution anyway as evolution begins at the point the first single living cell is in existence already? If Theistic evolution starts after God created the first single-celled life then there is no need to include God at all as this is irrelevant to evolution.

I have a unique version.
God had planned and executes the movement of every electron in the Cosmos.
It all seems natural to us.

This version has the most scriptural basis. The other versions seem to me are all compromises based on God not being big enough to handle it all.

 

[stevevw]

I am personally a "theistic evolutionist" though I hate labels. I believe that God long ago created life on the Earth and guided it along, making subtle changes here and there, and even "wiping the slate clean" a couple of times and basically starting over again.

When you say God created life on earth what do you mean? Did he create one universal common ancestor or a number of living organisms/creatures? When you say guided things along was this through evolution or supernaturally?

 

[stevevw]

I have a unique version.
God had planned and executes the movement of every electron in the Cosmos.
It all seems natural to us.

This version has the most scriptural basis. The other versions seem to me are all compromises based on God not being big enough to handle it all.

This sounds interesting. How does he do this, is it through some sort of supernatural event or through perhaps physical laws like quantum physics.

 

[stevevw]

God is active in all of our lives, everyday. Can we see God manipulating physical reality before our eyes on the day-to-day? No. We have faith.

The same is true with matters regarding the physical universe. Just because we don't see God manipulating physical matter before our eyes, doesn't mean that God is irrelevant.

God doesn't need to form His name in the clouds or on a piece of toast for us to know that He is ever present. Nor does God need to miraculously change an organisms DNA in ways that defy understanding, in order for us to know that He is ever present.

So basically are you saying that God uses the laws of physics and other natural laws like evolution to make everything happen. Like how DNA is a sort of code that builds life. These laws and codes/systems give some sort of order to life. All life has these laws and codes inherently within it.

 

[HTacianas]

When you say God created life on earth what do you mean? Did he create one universal common ancestor or a number of living organisms/creatures? When you say guided things along was this through evolution or supernaturally?

Yes, I believe God created one universal ancestor. The rest of history is His reproducing and refining life to suit Himself. To His guiding things along, I don't normally use the term "supernatural" because I don't believe in the supernatural. If something exists, it is natural. But I understand what you mean.

If we look to all the natural phenomena surrounding us we can reach several conclusions. Two conclusions I have reached are that life could not have spontaneously generated itself, and that modern life forms could not have evolved on their own, simply because there hasn't been enough time. But I'm sure people will disagree with that.

If we consider life as generating itself, we have to ask "how many times did it happen"? If some organism sprang forth from inorganic matter, that first organism would have had no capability to reproduce and would quite quickly have gone extinct. The process would then have had to repeat itself countless times over countless time. So how long did that take?

If we look at modern man, modern people generally have two eyes. Modern fish generally have two eyes. It's not hard to deduce that there was some common ancestor of both men and fish that developed at some time not only one, but two eyes. How long ago was that, and what was the time frame between the development of two eyes and that original organism? There wasn't enough time.

Aside from the problem of time, we have the problem of death. Why do things die? What is the evolutionary need for death if not so that new life forms can take the place of older life forms. When you see a pattern like that developing it implies an intelligence behind it.

 

[SkyWriting]

This sounds interesting. How does he do this, is it through some sort of supernatural event or through perhaps physical laws like quantum physics.

All planned, designed, and executed "naturally".
I dated a girl engineer who explained that nothing
is random. If that's true, then God can pre-plan
every event in the Cosmos.

 

[SkyWriting]

God is active in all of our lives, everyday. Can we see God manipulating physical reality before our eyes on the day-to-day? No. We have faith.

The same is true with matters regarding the physical universe. Just because we don't see God manipulating physical matter before our eyes, doesn't mean that God is irrelevant.

God doesn't need to form His name in the clouds or on a piece of toast for us to know that He is ever present. Nor does God need to miraculously change an organisms DNA in ways that defy understanding, in order for us to know that He is ever present.

But He could.....

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I believe God created one universal ancestor. The rest of history is His reproducing and refining life to suit Himself. To His guiding things along, I don't normally use the term "supernatural" because I don't believe in the supernatural. If something exists, it is natural. But I understand what you mean.

I guess I mean supernatural compared to our understanding of natural cause and effect. Everything has a natural explanation at least in theory through a scientific material perspective.

If we look to all the natural phenomena surrounding us we can reach several conclusions. Two conclusions I have reached are that life could not have spontaneously generated itself, and that modern life forms could not have evolved on their own, simply because there hasn't been enough time. But I'm sure people will disagree with that.

The creation of life is not really part of evolution so we can exclude this even though without it there would be no life to evolve. But it is a separate event to evolution which has different processes to evolution. Can you explain why there has not been enough time for the evolution of life? I would have thought 4 billion plus years was enough.

If we consider life as generating itself, we have to ask "how many times did it happen"? If some organism sprang forth from inorganic matter, that first organism would have had no capability to reproduce and would quite quickly have gone extinct. The process would then have had to repeat itself countless times over countless time. So how long did that take?

But isn't reproduction covered in evolution theory. It began with single cells being about to duplicate themselves. I would have thought this was an accepted part of evolution and therefore also be accepted by Theistists. Simple organisms were able to reproduce within themselves (asexual). Then the theory tells us that opposite sex reproduction evolved (once again the explanation is not detailed but the evolution of this is accepted which I would have thought would also be accepted by Theistists.

This is where I have a problem with understanding a Theists perspective of evolution. If they accept the theory of evolution as the Catholic Church does and many non-Theists like to use as an example of how religious people support evolution then should not they accept the theory warts and all. If you start injecting God along the way then this is sort of special creation and not evolution. Evolution covers all the stages of how life evolved from the time it appeared as a single celled universal life though it cannot explain every stage people accept that it is responsible for how all life evolved into what we see today.

If we look at modern man, modern people generally have two eyes. Modern fish generally have two eyes. It's not hard to deduce that there was some common ancestor of both men and fish that developed at some time not only one but two eyes. How long ago was that, and what was the time frame between the development of two eyes and that original organism? There wasn't enough time.

So what are you saying that God had to have intervened and created the two eyes.

Aside from the problem of time, we have the problem of death. Why do things die? What is the evolutionary need for death if not so that new life forms can take the place of older life forms. When you see a pattern like that developing it implies an intelligence behind it.

Evolution does not look for the meaning of death. The only relevance is that it relates back to survival of living things to reproduce. Whenthey die that is it and they no longer exist as with the dinosaurs. But I get what you are saying in so far as time and whether there is any purpose to life in the overall scheme of things. That is why some want to include philosophy and the social sciences in evolution theory. We cannot just look at evolution in purely biological, archeological or anthroprological terms. There are other factors that contribute to evolability such as the way a creature lives which could contribute to its survival.

But for evolution theory I think there has to be a line where it stops at a point where things cannot be verified through science. Other wise the temptation is we could begin to inject non-naturalistic ideas in every time we cannot explain something. That is why I find it hard to understand how Theistic evolution works. If it was about God creating that first universal life or a set of creatures that represented all phylum and everything evolved from this then that is different. Perhaps it is the laws and codes that govern and direct evolution that is what God uses to evolve new forms of life. In that sense Gods involvemment has a more scientific basis. It is just a matter that the worldview of evolution would interpret this as being something that originated through naturalistic processes rather than coming from an intelligent God.

 

[stevevw]

All planned, designed, and executed "naturally".
I dated a girl engineer who explained that nothing
is random. If that's true, then God can pre-plan
every event in the Cosmos.

So in other words there is intelligence behind what we see. The worldview of evolution and the existence of everything is that it happened through self created processes somehow though not always explained. I find it interesting that just about every explanation about life and existence centres around the conditions of a pre-existing state. The big bang happened as a result of quantum fluctuations that happened to already be there. Evolution began after simple life was already there, evolution is based on the pre-existence of conditions already being there ie limbs are based on fins and wings are based on limbs. There is a gap in explanation about how these things happened in the first place. As someone once said evolution is good at explaining survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

 

[NobleMouse]

Isn't the term "theistic evolution" contradictory in a sense... neo-Darwinian theory is believed to be completely natural, unguided... it is supposedly natural selection acting upon random mutations in populations over long periods of time.

Further, God's word gives no indication He has been evolving life through billions of years of death, error, disease, mutation, carnage, etc...

Given how neo-Darwinian evolution is actually defined by those in scientific circles and given what is actually written in scripture, theistic evolution just feels like a mechanism by which a crumbling hypothesis is trying to be reinforced by invoking the [undetectable] supernatural efforts by God, though the involvement itself seems contradictory to His nature based upon what is written in His word.

 

[Tayla]

there is no need to include God at all as this is irrelevant to evolution.

I think the idea is that it looks like evolution, but that God creates each new species. They don't appear by random mutations, although it might look like they do. How God does this does not need to be explained; it is a miracle every time.

 

[stevevw]

I think the idea is that it looks like evolution, but that God creates each new species. They don't appear by random mutations, although it might look like they do. How God does this does not need to be explained; it is a miracle every time.

Is that like Richard Dawkins quote that life gives the appearance of being designed but its not, the Blind Watchmaker. But surely that is not how Theistic evolution works. That would be more like supernatural creation. I think when Christians say their support Theistic evolution that is supporting Darwin's theory except they believe God is behind this, God uses evolution to help living things survive on planet earth.

The main difference is a world view believes the process is blind, purposeless and happens through naturalistic processes that can create a more evolved life. As opposed to Theistic evolution that has a purpose and is guided by Gods laws and codes that are behind all living things. So even though the process is much the same between a world view and theistic evolution it is the interpretation of what we see that makes the difference. On the one hand are random mutations throwing up variations and natural selection sifting through neutral and deleterious mutations to find rare beneficial ones that will gradually create a fitter and more complex life.

God uses evolution by providing what may appear to be random mutations which are actually part of a number of mechanisms that can utilize pre-existing genetic info/codes to vary life so it can adapt to changing environments. There are other processes such as through development and the ability of creatures to self organise and share genetic info that also helps them vary and adapt. God installed a raft of mechanisms for life to live on planet earth. It is just that a world view of evolution will have a different perspective on this. They will restrict evolution down to one process which is centred around adaptations because this is more of a mathematical process that is easier to use as a self-creating mechanism.

 

[The Barbarian]

All planned, designed, and executed "naturally".
I dated a girl engineer who explained that nothing
is random. If that's true, then God can pre-plan
every event in the Cosmos.

Not everying is deterministic:
Quantum indeterminacy - Wikipedia

But that's no problem for God:
I answer that, Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summae Theologiae

 

[Job 33:6]

"God uses evolution by providing what may appear to be random mutations which are actually part of a number of mechanisms that can utilize pre-existing genetic info/codes to vary life so it can adapt to changing environments. " ~ @stevevw

Realistically, no person could ever create or even imagine something more suitable to survive in the universe, than something that can push the limits of transformation through evolution.

The planet is ever changing, and if we did not change as well, we would have all been dead long ago. So it is suitable that God would create life with the ability to change, in some fashion.

Life through evolution can live in extraordinarily hot temperatures or extraordinarily cold temperatures. Several mass extinctions have occurred due to really expansive changes in our environment. Yet here we are, stronger than ever.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not everying is deterministic:
Quantum indeterminacy - Wikipedia

But that's no problem for God:
I answer that, Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summae Theologiae

I think St.Thomas copied that from a paper I wrote in High School.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think St.Thomas copied that from a paper I wrote in High School.

 

[SkyWriting]

I guess I mean supernatural compared to our understanding of natural cause and effect. Everything has a natural explanation at least in theory through a scientific material perspective.

The creation of life is not really part of evolution so we can exclude this even though without it there would be no life to evolve. But it is a separate event to evolution which has different processes to evolution. Can you explain why there has not been enough time for the evolution of life? I would have thought 4 billion plus years was enough.

But isn't reproduction covered in evolution theory. It began with single cells being about to duplicate themselves. I would have thought this was an accepted part of evolution and therefore also be accepted by Theistists. Simple organisms were able to reproduce within themselves (asexual). Then the theory tells us that opposite sex reproduction evolved (once again the explanation is not detailed but the evolution of this is accepted which I would have thought would also be accepted by Theistists.

This is where I have a problem with understanding a Theists perspective of evolution. If they accept the theory of evolution as the Catholic Church does and many non-Theists like to use as an example of how religious people support evolution then should not they accept the theory warts and all. If you start injecting God along the way then this is sort of special creation and not evolution. Evolution covers all the stages of how life evolved from the time it appeared as a single celled universal life though it cannot explain every stage people accept that it is responsible for how all life evolved into what we see today.

So what are you saying that God had to havee intervenes and created the two eyes.

Evolution does not look for the meaning of death. The only relevance is that it relates back to survival of living things to reproduce. Whenthey die that is it and they no longer exist as with the dinosaurs. But I get what you are saying in so far as time and whether there is any purpose to life in the overall scheme of things. That is why some want to include philosophy and the social sciences in evolution theory. We cannot just look at evolution in purely biological, archeological or anthroprological terms. There are other factors that contribute to evolability such as the way a creature lives which could contribute to its survival.

But for evolution theory I think there has to be a line where it stops at a point where things cannot be verified through science. Other wise the temptation is we could begin to inject non-naturalistic ideas in every time we cannot explain something. That is why I find it hard to understand how Theistic evolution works. If it was about God creating that first universal life or a set of creatures that represented all phylum and everything evolved from this then that is different. Perhaps it is the laws and codes that govern and direct evolution that is what God uses to evolve new forms of life. In that sense Gods involvemment has a more scientific basis. It is just a matter that the worldview of evolution would interpret this as being something that originated through naturalistic processes rather than coming from an intelligent God.

It stands to reason that "Natural Laws" we identify were designed by God to do what they do.