Theistic versus atheistic evolution

[Assyrian]

OK, there are at least 2 ways that God can "steer" evolution and not be detectable by science:

1. Introducing desired mutations. God can direct cosmic rays to interact with the genome of a sperm or egg such that a particular mutation results. We cannot detect this amongst the background of undirected mutations.

2. Engaging in a bit of artificial selection. In this method, God would act like a human breeder in that He would kill off individuals that have traits He does not want. Again, we can't read the fossil record fine enough to detect this type of interference.

3.

 

[lucaspa]

Or an impact of a meteor to end the Cretaceous. However, that doesn't get you to specific forms. It just leads to a mass extinction. The type of situation that was being discussed was to get specifically to the human physical form.

 

[Mick116]

OK, there are at least 2 ways that God can "steer" evolution and not be detectable by science:

1. Introducing desired mutations. God can direct cosmic rays to interact with the genome of a sperm or egg such that a particular mutation results. We cannot detect this amongst the background of undirected mutations.

First of all, thanks for the reply, and sorry it's taken me a little while to reply to you. This idea - that God is able to introduce mutations by directing cosmic radiation in its interaction with DNA - could be an example of God directing the creation at the quantum level: beneath the radar of direct empirical observation by humans, and potentially leaving freedom for God to "change his mind" (to speak analogically) without violating the physical laws at work at higher organisational levels. Perhaps God's "still small voice" to creation itself.

2. Engaging in a bit of artificial selection. In this method, God would act like a human breeder in that He would kill off individuals that have traits He does not want. Again, we can't read the fossil record fine enough to detect this type of interference.

Again, this could be God's subtle influence at the quantum level - directing the small bits of creation (electrons, strings, photons or what-not) to influence the larger bits (the death or infertility of a creature, or the final destination of a meteor) - or it could be supernatural intervention (Jesus did this to a fig tree whose traits he didn't like).

But I'm going to suggest you consider an alternative. Your idea of "steering" presumes that God wants a particular physical form or forms. In our case, a modified ape. But I will ask you: what does God care about physical form? After all, God has no physical form. So does He really care what our physical form is.

I think God does care about creation's details - the sparrows and the lillies - but you're really asking whether or not God could have used a completely different creature to bear his image; perhaps a mental capacity to think, create, explore and wonder was important, but other than this, could the creature have been a reptile, or a bird, or a dinosaur... or something different entirely? Was God just waiting around for a suitable creature to evolve, or was there a plan in place from the beginning, for the evolutionary tree to end up precisely where it is?

I guess this might be akin to asking whether or not God was waiting around (again, speaking analogically) for a holy woman to conceive the Christ, or whether he had Mary on his mind from the moment of creation. I suspect the answer is the same: only God knows.

In this case, God does not have to "steer" evolution at all. As natural selection explores the Library of Mendel (all possible genomes), eventually it is going to come to that part of the Library that codes for beings capable of communicating with God. This wing could have a near infinite number of forms. Possibly a modified theropod dinosaur. Possibly a near relative of dolphins or whales, or a modified octopus etc. When such a species appears -- and it is certain it WILL appear eventually -- then God can communicate with it by intervening in its history, like God intervened in human history.

I think this goes back to the question of whether or not God can be surprised by creation. Does God know the future, or does the freedom of creation dictate that the future remain hidden from God, at least until God gets the ball rolling. Personally, I feel the scriptures teach that God does know creation's (and life's, and mankind's) destiny, and that while there is room for freedom along the way, the endpoint is known by God; creation is, therefore, set toward a goal of sorts. In terms of the evolutionary history of life on earth, this goal are the tips of the evolutionary tree extant today; not that every point of speciation was a direct act of God, but that God can see the tree at the point of the acorn, and see that it is "good". Whether or not this goal is set in the mind of God before the moment of creation, or only after the play button has been pressed, is a question for greater minds than my own.

And I suppose, after all this, the questions remain: does God influence the growth of this tree, and if so, how? Is God playing an active role in drawing all things to himself? Can God "change his mind"? Does God act in the mundane, day-to-day workings of creation, or take the back seat of a spectator with only occasional acts of supernatural intervention? Are what we recognise as the laws of nature and of physics just manifestations of God's sustained and orderly maintenance of creation? Or do they exist somewhat apart from God? How far is the pendulum swung towards theism, and away from deism, or vice versa?

If this is how God operates, then there could be millions or billions of sapient species thruout the universe with whom God can, and does, communicate. This would solve the dilemma: if God only has life on earth, then the rest of the universe is a lot of wasted space.

I agree with your sentiments here.

I don't see how this enriches an understanding of evolution. Perhaps you could go into that in more detail.

Not our understanding of evolution in terms of the scientific theory, but rather in terms of theology, and the comfort it provides knowing that this cosmos is not hurtling randomly towards an unknown end. It is indeed comforting to know that the God of love has and will continue to see his purposes fulfilled; whether God’s chosen species be a bipedal, balding ape or a green-skinned reptilian out of Star Trek, it was presumably God’s purpose that intelligent life with the capacity for morality and creativity evolve somewhere on this planet.

It provides comfort to our human ego to think that God wanted our particular physical form. But isn't pride a sin?

Can we give thanks that we as a species have evolved the hardware necessary to consider the divine, and to come into a relationship with this loving God? If so, I don’t think it is pride to recognise our species as a fulfilment of God’s purpose. The idea of God “steering” the cosmos to see his purposes fulfilled recognises God’s power underlying the physical laws of the universe (or at least continually operating at the quantum level). The scenario of “wait and see what creatures we get” sees a cosmos operating somewhat apart from God’s control or influence, although certainly God could have written his purposes into the evolving creation at the beginning. Either way, I think we can give God thanks for the evolution of the human species, including our biological form and capabilities.

 

[MattLangley]

In direct response to the OP, one can believe God does not have to (or even does) work in the supernatural but is in fact everything natural... hence God is part of and behind everything.

 

[lucaspa]

First of all, thanks for the reply, and sorry it's taken me a little while to reply to you. This idea - that God is able to introduce mutations by directing cosmic radiation in its interaction with DNA - could be an example of God directing the creation at the quantum level: beneath the radar of direct empirical observation by humans,

The reason this would be undetectable is not because it is at the quantum level, but because there is a huge background of undirected mutations. The few directed mutations can't be picked out of the background. It is the concept of "noise" and "signal". In this case the "noise" is much larger than the "signal".

Again, this could be God's subtle influence at the quantum level - directing the small bits of creation (electrons, strings, photons or what-not) to influence the larger bits (the death or infertility of a creature, or the final destination of a meteor) - or it could be supernatural intervention (Jesus did this to a fig tree whose traits he didn't like).

Why are you obsessed with the quantum level? Whatever the mechanism, quantum change in molecule leading to brain aneurism or a macro lighning bolt, if God engages in a bit of artificial selection by killing off those individuals He doesn't want, then that would be analogous to human breeders killing off individuals that don't meet the selection criteria.

A meteor impact that causes a mass extinction would be a third category. The problem with that is that it is so non-specific. Whole species become extinct, so getting a particular species to survive would not be an assured outcome of the impact.

I think God does care about creation's details - the sparrows and the lillies -

Caring about the individuals is one thing, and that is what the saying be Jesus is talking about. But caring about the exact form a sparrow has? Or the exact shape of the flower of a lilly? Why would He? Another slightly different shape or even an entirely different flower would still be beautiful.

but you're really asking whether or not God could have used a completely different creature to bear his image; perhaps a mental capacity to think, create, explore and wonder was important, but other than this, could the creature have been a reptile, or a bird, or a dinosaur... or something different entirely? Was God just waiting around for a suitable creature to evolve, or was there a plan in place from the beginning, for the evolutionary tree to end up precisely where it is?

"in his image" does not refer to a physical form. After all, it can't. Why? Because God does not have a physical form! God isn't a white bearded white man. Yes, that's how He is sometimes depicted in paintings, but scripture is very clear that God does not have a physical shape or form. One reason why we are forbidden to make "likenesses" to worship.

The evolutionary process is guaranteed to produce a creature that has the mental capacity to think, create, explore, wonder, and be capable of communicating with God. What else is important?

I think this goes back to the question of whether or not God can be surprised by creation. Does God know the future, or does the freedom of creation dictate that the future remain hidden from God,

The second. Yes, god can be surprised by Creation. You see, God set up Creation so that some things cannot be known. You referred to the quantum level. Well, at that level it is impossible to know both the precise position and momentum of an electron (or other complementary pair). This isn't a limitation of our knowledge or ability to meaure. They can't be known! Period. And that would mean not knowable even by God.

There are other events at the quantum level that make the exact future unknowable. By anyone. Now, we can speculate why God set the universe up that way, but there is no doubt that the universe is that way.

Personally, I feel the scriptures teach that God does know creation's (and life's, and mankind's) destiny,

General destiny, yes. Particular destiny? No. For instance, the general destiny (absent intervention) is heat death. The universe keeps exanding forever. At some point there will be no energy available to do work and life will cease. Of course, scripture does hint that God will intervene at some point and bring about the Kingdom of God. Depending on how eschatelogical you are, there are details on how that will happen.

But know, ahead of time, the physical form of a creature capable of communicating with God on this particular planet? I don't think so. I personally think the desire that God would know and would work specifically to get a modified ape is nothing more than human pride. It's looking at how we would want it so that we are important. It's not looking at it from God's perspective.

In terms of the evolutionary history of life on earth, this goal are the tips of the evolutionary tree extant today;

How do you know that? Evolution isn't done. How do you know that we are not simply a waypoint on the path to where God really wants to go? Do you see your human pride here: God's supposed goal is humans? Not only that, but humans are causing a mass extinction. If God's goal was the species "extant today", how is God going to feel about humans destroying that goal by wiping out thousands of species? Was one of God's goals the passenger pigeon or the dodo? Both species whose extinction humans caused in historical times. If you say that God cares about the details of creation, then you need to explain why God does not care enough to act when those details are wiped out by humans. Whether you realize it or not, you have made a great argument for atheism.

Is God playing an active role in drawing all things to himself?

Apparently not much of a role, because so many of those "all things" are being wiped out by humans. If you base a theology on God playing such an active role, then the argument becomes that God is obviously playing such an inactive role that He might as well not be here. Therefore maybe He isn't.

Are what we recognise as the laws of nature and of physics just manifestations of God's sustained and orderly maintenance of creation?

That is standard Christian belief.

Or do they exist somewhat apart from God?

That's atheism. The basic belief of atheism is that the processes of nature happen on their own. Without that belief it is impossible to be an atheist.

Not our understanding of evolution in terms of the scientific theory, but rather in terms of theology,

Then you meant to say that it enriches our understanding of theology.

the comfort it provides knowing that this cosmos is not hurtling randomly towards an unknown end.

The problem here is that we do know the ultimate end of the cosmos. But that knowledge does not give comfort, since the ultimate end is the solar system will be alone (the expansion will mean that everything else is beyond our view), the sun will exhaust its nuclear fuel, and everything will be dead. Even if we do make it off earth, eventually all the energy available to do work in every star in the universe will be exhausted and the universe will reach maximum entropy. At that point all life simply ends -- without even a whimper.

Can we give thanks that we as a species have evolved the hardware necessary to consider the divine, and to come into a relationship with this loving God?

Yes.

If so, I don’t think it is pride to recognise our species as a fulfilment of God’s purpose.

Yes, it is pride. Because you have the pride that God steered things to get our particular physical shape because you think it is "in his image". But as you noted, an intelligent green reptile capable of communicating with God would also be "in his image". So what is the pride in our particular species compared to all the other species.

Yes, we should give thanks that God loves us and considers having a relationship with us. We may also be thankful that we can receive this relationship. But we should also be very humble in realizing that, altho evolution produced the capability of receiving God's communication, it is still completely and solely God's choice that He does communicate and love us.

The scenario of “wait and see what creatures we get” sees a cosmos operating somewhat apart from God’s control or influence,

Not at all. God must still sustain all those physical processes. It's just that God did not intend, specifically, you or I or the human species. What it does is realize that we are completely dependent on God seeing us as special; there is nothing inherent in us that is special. If we are special to God, it is only because God chooses to regard us as special.

The idea that God "steered" evolution to get us specifically means that humans are inherently special. God is obligated, thru all that work and effort, to regard us as special.

although certainly God could have written his purposes into the evolving creation at the beginning.

Again, you are making humans special. After all, you have God intending us specifically and setting things up so that we are inevitable. That means that God must regard us as special, otherwise He would not have gone to that effort. Do you see the pride inherent in this? Or perhaps the emotional insecurity? The desire to ensure that God is compelled someway to regard us as special.

Christianity says we are totally dependent on God. But apparently we don't like that idea. We keep trying to find ways to compel God to regard us as special: by special creation, steering evolution, or regarding ourselves as the "purpose" of creation. You say we should give thanks to God, but this is not unconditional thanks, because you are setting up arguments that require God to make our biological form and capabilities.

Instead, we should be giving thanks to God for bothering to notice us, for somehow regarding us unworthy creatures as worthy of His love and attention. In the words of the psalmist: "what is man, that Thou are mindful of him."

 

[lucaspa]

hence God is part of and behind everything.

You can't have God be "part of" everthing. That is panentheism and contradicts Christian theology. God can't be part of the universe; that makes God a creature of the universe.

What you can do is say that God sustains the universe and everything in it. That all the "natural" processes work only because God wills them to work -- each and every time.

 

[Willtor]

Theistic evolutionists are those who have bowed to the evidence of evolution but want to keep their God in control of things. No sense in believing in evolution and not believing that God is omnipotent. Evolutionists just want to keep God out of everything and glorify themselves. I take this stance: Evolution is man's idea of how things operate and Hawkins becomes the God of Christians, agnostics, and atheists alike. Thus bringing everyone into a unified world way of understanding the world with God present or not. How many times do we perceive a thing as one thing, and find out at second glance it is something entirely different?

I'm not clear what you're saying. And who is Hawkins?

 

[Assyrian]

Hawkins... Hawkins... Yarr young Jim Hawkins that be.

 

[Assyrian]

I thought Humanist for God was Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Willtor]

Hard to hit a left-handed slider? Just blows your mind. I corrected my spelling error, by the way. (Dawkins) That would be humanist for God.

I see. I saw that it was one letter off both from Dawkins and Hawking, and I wasn't sure whether you meant one of those two or a third.

But I still don't quite understand your previous post. You seem to be characterizing a lot of different groups within a few sentences. Can you narrow your focus and expand, a bit?

 

[Mallon]

This guy makes no sense.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally Posted by dawkins owns christianity

Theistic evolutionists are those who have bowed to the evidence of evolution but want to keep their God in control of things. No sense in believing in evolution and not believing that God is omnipotent. Evolutionists just want to keep God out of everything and glorify themselves. I take this stance: Evolution is man's idea of how things operate and Hawkins becomes the God of Christians, agnostics, and atheists alike. Thus bringing everyone into a unified world way of understanding the world with God present or not. How many times do we perceive a thing as one thing, and find out at second glance it is something entirely different?
​

I'm not clear what you're saying. And who is Hawkins?

I can't seem to find the dawkins owns christianity post. Did the mods remove it?

It sounds like "dawkins owns christianity" is an atheist. "The statement "Evolutionists just want to keep God out of everything and glorify themselves." implies that. But the statement doesn't account for theistic evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists are not keeping God out. So I agree it's not clear what "dawkins owns christianity" is saying.

To answer "dawkins owns christianity", theistic evolutionists say that evolution is not "man's idea of how things operate", but rather how God created. Theistic evolutionists regard science as studying God's second book: Creation.

Dawkins (to be correct) is certainly not a god to theists or agnostics. Remember, Dawkins is NOT evolution. Many of the ideas about evolution Dawkins has introduced have been rejected by evolutionary biologists. Dawkins is a militant atheist, and he mistakenly thinks evolution backs atheism.

Evolution happened. That's a fact. Evolution happened whether you are theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. The question is whether God exists/God created. Science cannot tell you whether God exists or God created. Science is agnostic. If you believe God exists and created, then evolution is how God created.

If, OTOH, you believe God does not exist and physical processes operate solely on their own, then you can be an atheist.

 

[Willtor]

His icon said "atheist" but he may have been a Poe.

Yeah, his posts seem to be cleared away.

 

[lucaspa]

It is basically plugging in "god" into things that need "god". Things we know how they happened in nature and we know how these systems can operate without a guiding force.

Actually, we don't know these systems can operate without God. Science has a limitation called "Methodological Materialism" in that science can only test material causes. What science can't tell you is whether the material causes are the only causes. The following is a hypothesis:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Read that carefully. Do you need an "intelligent agent", i.e. God, so that hydrogen and oxygen will burn to form water? Science can't tell you either "yes" or "no" because we can never have a test tube where we know God is present and one where we know God is absent in order to compare them.

Evolution, colloquial at least, is a fact. A god that we can't see any evidence of on the other hand, 99.99% sure isn't there.

Well, we do have all that evidence in the form of personal experience. We also have accounts where God interferred in human history. So the "can't see any evidence" is wrong.

What is worse, you have to factor in whether we have the tools to see God. That's where MM comes in. Look at it this way. If all you have is the Hubble Telescope, you won't see any evidence for mitochondria. Does that mean mitochondria are not there? Of course not. It just means that you have the wrong tool to look for them.

The same applies to God. Because of the limitations of science, science is actually the wrong tool to look for God. That means that your "99.99% sure isn't there" is wrong.

 

[callmeMurph]

It is basically plugging in "god" into things that need "god". Things we know how they happened in nature and we know how these systems can operate without a guiding force.

Not at all, I don't plug God into things that need "god". He wouldn't be God if I had to plug Him in. God is sovereign.

I think you're describing ID, specifically irreducible complexity and things like that, which I do not agree with.

Evolution, colloquial at least, is a fact. A god that we can't see any evidence of on the other hand, 99.99% sure isn't there.

If absolutely everything is created by God you wouldn't be able to find scientific "evidence" of God "working" in the universe because everything would be evidence. You wouldn't have any reference point to determine what was evidence because there would be no lack of it.

 

[Willtor]

I was.




The problem with that is I would change your x (god) to anything. From a piece of paper, to any other god and it would hold true. Why because of the idea of absolute gnosticism. But in realism you need evidence to suppose X, a hypothetical can work as an idea, but any hypothetical can be used to explain any idea. Does it make it true? No.

It's like saying. "Evolution is guided by the magic hand of an invisible monkey, supposing that monkey exists."

Not only in their no point to it but it holds no positive or negative truth value.

That isn't true at all, unless that invisible monkey had the properties of God or a god... in which case, why call it a monkey?

Indeed, it's fair to ask why religion x or y believes what it does about a First Mover (or whether there is a First Mover), but a piece of paper doesn't fit the characteristics of First Mover. To put it another way, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a useful critique of religion inasmuch as it has the necessary properties of First Mover, and then also has other arbitrary properties (a beer volcano, etc.). But you can't fit just anything into the spot of First Mover.

 

[Willtor]

That piece of paper and that monkey live outside of this universe and created this universe for paper to thrive (or monkeys). Then humans started messing things up so he created AIDS.

The thing is we are supposedly made in "gods" image. Correct? Do we have all the properties that a god has? No.

So the same could be said for that paper or monkey, they were created in the "gods" image but don't have all the properties of that god.

Okay. So, if you redefine paper to mean "First Mover" then, technically, yes. But I hope you get my point.

 

[callmeMurph]

The thing is we are supposedly made in "god's" image. Correct? Do we have all the properties that a god has? No.

Does an image of a person have all the properties that that person has? No, nor should we expect it to, it is only an image.

As a symbol of their authority, ancient Near Eastern kings would sometimes erect a personal statue in the geographical spheres of their jurisdiction (Dan. 3:1).1

Reading the Genesis account of man as God’s “image” and God’s “son” (1:26-27; 5:1-3) in light of ancient Near East kingship ideology, with which Moses and his original readers were well-familiar, suggests that man not only resembles God constitutively and relationally but also functionally, in the capacity of a vice-regent with dominion over the creation.7 Hans Wolff agrees and writes

"Man is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies."

-Reformed Baptist Seminary

Hopefully this clarifies what to be made in God's image means (in one sense).

That piece of paper and that monkey live outside of this universe and created this universe for paper to thrive (or monkeys). Then humans started messing things up so he created AIDS.

You could make anything up and pretend it was God, but a piece of paper or a monkey cannot create the universe and act in it like God does. If you want to say that they have god-like attributes then really you are just calling God a piece of paper or a monkey.

So the same could be said for that paper or monkey, they were created in the "gods" image but don't have all the properties of that god.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”27 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 God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I don't see paper or monkeys ruling over the rest of creation. The only creature that does that is man.

 

[Willtor]

I get your point, the the problem is that there is no proof or need for it. It's like me telling you about a force that saves you everyday but you can't know it or test for it.

It's a pointless hypothesis and is just not smart.

To tackle the last point first, it isn't an hypothesis at all, and as to whether it is "smart"... that sounds political. I am more concerned with whether it is so.

As to whether it is needed, that's a philosophical question. There are, indeed, many proofs. You may well point out holes in the proofs, and say that therefore they are inadequate for persuading you (as they are inadequate for persuading me), but you can't say there are no proofs. Your much stronger point is asking why one who is persuaded by those proofs should think that God has any of the properties attributed to Him by religion that is not exposed in those proofs.

 

[lucaspa]

I was.

ID isn't about whether God exists. ID is a scientific theory and corresponds to a particular method that God uses to create: direct manufacture in present form.

ID is also god-of-the-gaps theology. ID is invalid by Christian theology as well as science.

But in realism you need evidence to suppose X,

No. The philosophy of realism does not state why you suppose X.
"Generic Realism:
a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone's beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/

What you are thinking of is Logical Positivism. Science doesn't work that way and, in fact, nearly every "X" proposed in science is proposed in the absence of evidence.
"When Günter Blobel and David Sabatini first proposed the signal hypothesis in 1971, .... There was not a shred of evidence to support it." Nobel Laureate Ready To Head Back to Lab - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

a hypothetical can work as an idea, but any hypothetical can be used to explain any idea. Does it make it true? No.

That's why we have testing. But the testing is done to show the hypothesis to be false. If you can't show it to be false, then it stays on the table as possible.

It's like saying. "Evolution is guided by the magic hand of an invisible monkey, supposing that monkey exists."

Ah, the "rose by any other name ..." switch. Monkeys, invisible or not, do not have the ability to guide evolution. So what you mean here is God, but call it "invisible monkey" in an attempt to throw us off. It's the Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy: Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Not only in their no point to it but it holds no positive or negative truth value.

Oh, the statement saying "God guided evolution" definitely has positive or negative truth value. The problem is that science is unable to determine that truth value. Inability to determine a truth value is not the same as not having a truth value.