Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[Jamdoc]

The word itself isn't the issue. It is the concept which the word is being applied to. The concept behind evolutionary theory is that there is no intelligence, which makes no sense.

That's because you're letting 1 world view toted by non believers take ownership of a word it didn't even originate.
Life changes on a genetic level through several mechanisms, that is evolution, that's fact. The only debate is to what extent it happens whether they evolve to the point of becoming a new species or not, and whether the source of the changes comes from God, with intelligent (theistic), or is random chance and happens on its own (naturalist/atheistic)

 

[John Helpher]

That's because you're letting 1 world view toted by non believers take ownership of a word it didn't even originate.

Ownership of a word is not my argument. As I said before, the word evolve is not exclusive to evolutionary theory. The design of a watch can evolve over time. I have no problem with that usage.

The problem I have is specifically in the context of evolutionary theory, where the word evolve is used to describe a lack of intelligence, purpose and intent. Evolutionary theory expressly and specifically denies intelligence behind life. That is the purpose of the theory; it is an alternative explanation to an intelligent creator.

When theists refer to theistic evolution, it is not that they believe God could have used trillions of tiny changes over time to produce life as we know it which bothers me. While I do not believe God used that mechanism, I would not be dismayed to find out that he did do it that. Whether the creator did it in 6 days or in billions of years, the point, to me, would be that an intelligent designer did it. This is important because The creator is worthy to be recognize for his creation; the glory, the intelligence, the amazing design; we should give him credit for it.

However, when we refer to theistic evolution, that credit-giving becomes distorted, because the context is that of evolutionary theory. Even if a theists does not consciously recognize the title as giving credit to a theory which denies intelligence, that is essentially what they're doing.

While you may believe he used a process whereby changes occurred over millions of years, this is not evolution; it is intelligent design. I understand you have a problem with that title because you believe it's been taken over by religious nuts who make weird claims which you believe are not consistent with the science. I get that. But, that does not mean you should abandon calling the issue what it really is; intelligent design.

I'm guessing the reason you do not want to do that is because you fear being ridiculed as someone who does not agree with the supposed science. Atheists are famous for this technique, not just here online or in casual settings, but in professional settings as well, including universities and scientific communities. Any hint of intelligent design is often met with derision so you're careful to avoid that title, even though the end result to everyone around you is that the designer doesn't get the credit he should.

"Theistic evolution" is a kind of compromise. You include "theistic" as a nod to your religious position and you include "evolution" to keep the Atheists from ridiculing you. Most of them seem to be fine with that as they recognize the compromise. They'll let you keep your fairytale fantasy regarding theism because the bottom line is that you're still calling it what they call it; evolution.

See, calling it intelligent design doesn't mean you cannot still believe the changes were gradual over time. You can still believe that and refer to it as intelligent design. Sure, there is likely to be confusion whether or not you're a young earth creationists or not, but so what? All you have to do is clarify that you're not a YEC. God gets the glory of being the intelligent designer and you get to keep believing he did it in this particular way.

Don't let Atheist ridicule stop you from giving the designer the glory he deserves.

 

[Jamdoc]

Nobody who believes in theistic evolution claims that God didn't do it, that's the entire point of Theistic evolution is that God is causing it. It's just recognizing that there has been change over time, and attributing that change to God, rather than a young earth creationist who sees everything as static since creation week, attributing creation to God and believing the word but disbelieving and ignoring nature around them, and rather than an atheist, who recognizes that nature has changed over time but disbelieving and ignoring the word of God. The point of theistic evolution is that God is evolving creatures gradually over time, rewriting their code, like a computer programmer making a 2.0 of their program. We're all biological programs that God wrote in genetic code. Sometimes His plans involve 2.0's. He's going to make an earth 2.0, and we're all promised to be Human 2.0's after Jesus 2.0 comes back to earth, why is it so far fetched to believe He would create many different iterations of animals and plants over time?

 

[stevevw]

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

I think whether you believe that life began from that universal common ancestor or from maybe a few animal types including humans there was the evolution of living things as we have many more different shaped creatures than we have at the beginning. So there is some evolution of different forms.

For me, I think the key is whether that information was there, to begin with, to allow those different forms or it was evolved purely by the Darwinian method of random mutations and blind natural selection. I think there is more organization and direction in how living things adapt to environments and evolve for which God intended all along which ensures certain outcomes ie man in the image of God as opposed to some animalistic creature. Darwinian evolution has no certainties of outcomes so there had to be God intended direction.

Evolution is a combination of processes and not one fixed idea. natural selection and mutations play a role but so does development and feedback from other living things and the environment. So call that theistic evolution of divine intervention or just evolution it doesn't matter to me. But apart from that very beginning, there has been a biological evolution that connects all living things to a blueprint for life rather than a supernatural process. But that biological process is a miracle of itself as it has produced life in all its glory which was not there in the beginning.

 

[Job 33:6]

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

I'll now provide evidence for evolution as it pertains to the question "Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?".

As we all know, tiktaalik is a popular transitional fossil. Its traits are significant as they're some of the earliest of their kind. It has a flat head with eyes on top, much like amphibians of the late devonian. It has wrist bones. It has spiracles for breathing air. It has robust pectoral girdles and a robust rib cage for lifting itself against the forces of gravity above water, much like amphibians of the late devonian. It also has an infused skull and a neck for turning it's it's while it's body remains stationary, which is something found in amphibians but not fish.

It is very much a tetrapodomorph with many traits of amphibians.

But it also has fins,gills and scales like a fish.

Which means that it was basically a hybrid between fish and tetrapods.

All the above aside, what makes tiktaalik more significant isn't simply its traits, but how, where and even "when" it was found.

In the fossil record, no land animals are found anywhere in precambrian, Cambrian, ordovician or silurian rock, nor anywhere in between. By the mid to late devonian, we find tetrapods/amphibians like salamander like species that walked on land.

So if evolution were true, of tetrapods evolved from fish, a species like tiktaalik ought to exist between the earliest formations of the devonian or by the end of the silurian at the latest, and the late devonian.

Before tiktaalik was found, Neil Shubin and his team knew this. So the scoured geologic maps for rocks of roughly the mid devonian to find rocks between fish and tetrapods where tiktaalik might hypothetically be found.

So they rented a helicopter trip to the Canadian Arctic where these middle aged rocks could be examined.

They originally started out searching marine devonian strata and realized that they needed to move inland (prehistoric inland) to the west, and they had to make their way to geology of a river bed/lacustrine origin. And it was there that some 10-15 tiktaalik specimen were found.

The reason that this serves as evidence for evolution is that it confirms the succession of fossils in accordance with genetic analyses of modern day life. Fish are genetically more similar to tetrapods than to any other animal of higher derivation, which means that it ought to follow, based on genetics, that tiktaalik ought to be present in the location in which it was later found. This is a prediction made with the understanding of descent with modification and common descent, and tiktaalik holds the feature that we might expect to be found in a particular place at a given time.

I'll post more shortly.

 

[Job 33:6]

with the above said, see the following:

Google Image Result for http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

Google Image Result for https://cdn.britannica.com/03/403-050-F1B9349F/Phylogeny-differences-cytochrome-c-protein-sequence-organisms.jpg

Google Image Result for http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio213/evolution/cytochrome.2.gif

Google Image Result for https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau7459/F1.large.jpg

Google Image Result for https://slideplayer.com/slide/4852752/15/images/3/Pituitary+Gland+Figure+Phylogeny+of+the+vertebrate+pituitary..jpg

Google Image Result for https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure/image?download&size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000436.g002

above, we have evolutionary relationships based on what species have certain endogenous retroviruses, based on genetic changes of cytochrome C, based on fossil morphology, based on comparative anatomy of living species, and even based on biogeographic distributions, (you can see fossils change not only vertically through the fossil record, but also horizontally), respectively.

Independent studies in each of these fields yield their own cladistic relationships/phylogenetic trees, and while theyre all derived independently, they all match one another.

Which is to say that you can make predictions about genetics, based on the order in which fossils are found in the earth, and the reverse is true as well, in that we can use studies of proteins and DNA in modern day species, to predict the depth, geospatial location and temporal locations of fossils. And these predictions can be made, even to the extent that biologists can predict where fossils will be found in the earth, sometimes with more precision than even paleontologists can.

As the commom statement goes, this is something that really only makes sense in light of evolution.

To go back to my prior post, Neil Shubin is a professor of anatomy. He understood or rather, understands anatomical relationships between fish and tetrapods, and it is with this understanding that the locality of tiktaalik was predicted (Along with assistance from geologists and paleontologists).

 

[Paul James]

As it is impossible to manage sailing or trading based on a mythological view of the world, so it is impossible to use mythological model of Genesis for biology, astronomy, meteorology or paleontology.

Therefore some other plausible models must be proposed like the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution.

But because there is still a need for God as the origin and purpose of all creation and reality, the theistic evolution works for most Christians. Also because we believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

If Genesis is mythological and not historical, wouldn't that destroy the reason why Jesus died on the cross?

 

[Job 33:6]

If Genesis is mythological and not historical, wouldn't that destroy the reason why Jesus died on the cross?

I'd be curious to see solid cores response to this.

But I'd note that, in science, you start with baseline information. Such as, facts of the theory of evolution for example. Or the theory of plate tectonics.

And if the evidence suggested that either of these theories were true, we would then construct our worldview with that foundation.

We wouldn't deny something like our observation of continental drift because scripture "appeared" to suggest otherwise. All we can really do is say "ok, if the earth is old, then what does that mean about how I am interpreting scripture?".

To ask the question "wouldn't that destroy the reason why Jesus died on the cross?", I think logically is working backwards. It's saying "I have an interpretation of scripture, so how should that guide my observation?" But what comes as a result is secondary in significance to the baseline that brought about the result. It's an irrelevant question to whether or not the baseline is true.

And a lot of young earthers do this and then subsequently reject the theory of plate tectonics.

To summarize, do we start with observation and then build our interpretation? Or do we start with interpretation and then build our observation?

 

[Paul James]

That's because you're letting 1 world view toted by non believers take ownership of a word it didn't even originate.
Life changes on a genetic level through several mechanisms, that is evolution, that's fact. The only debate is to what extent it happens whether they evolve to the point of becoming a new species or not, and whether the source of the changes comes from God, with intelligent (theistic), or is random chance and happens on its own (naturalist/atheistic)

Life changes on a genetic level involves genetic code being deleted, for example, two cats mating, both with a black (B) and a white (W) gene, can produce either black or white offspring or even a black and white offspring. But the white offspring will have just the W gene, and no longer the B gene, and if it mates with a cat with another W gene, then its offspring has to be white, because the B gene is no longer there for a black offspring to be possible. Yet, if a W gene cat mates with a B gene cat, it could produce either white or black, depending on the dominant gene. The only way that two W gene cats can produce a B offspring is if a B gene is added to either cat; and according to accepted gene theory, this is impossible, because genetic information cannot be added.

This would make evolution from one species to another such as a blue whale from a four legged animal (as is shown in an artist impression in some science textbooks) impossible because it means adding a whole lot of genetic information to the four legged animal to enable it to produce blue whale offspring.

 

[Paul James]

I'd be curious to see solid cores response to this.

But I'd note that, in science, you start with baseline information. Such as, facts of the theory of evolution for example. Or the theory of plate tectonics.

And if the evidence suggested that either of these theories were true, we would then construct our worldview with that foundation.

We wouldn't deny something like our observation of continental drift because scripture "appeared" to suggest otherwise. All we can really do is say "ok, if the earth is old, then what does that mean about how I am interpreting scripture?".

To ask the question "wouldn't that destroy the reason why Jesus died on the cross?", I think logically is working backwards. It's saying "I have an interpretation of scripture, so how should that guide my observation?" But what comes as a result is secondary in significance to the baseline that brought about the result. It's an irrelevant question to whether or not the baseline is true.

And a lot of young earthers do this and then subsequently reject the theory of plate tectonics.

To summarize, do we start with observation and then build our interpretation? Or do we start with interpretation and then build our observation?

The death of Jesus on the cross has meaning for me, because I believe that there was a real Adam and Eve who disobeyed God and brought sin and death into the world. If there were no Adam and Eve, no disobedience, no sin, then Jesus dying on the cross for our sin would lose its meaning, because there would be no sin to Jesus to die for. Of course, there are those who believe that Jesus Himself was not a historical person but just a mythological figure to give religious people pointers on how to be better human beings. But I don't believe that.

 

[Jamdoc]

Life changes on a genetic level involves genetic code being deleted, for example, two cats mating, both with a black (B) and a white (W) gene, can produce either black or white offspring or even a black and white offspring. But the white offspring will have just the W gene, and no longer the B gene, and if it mates with a cat with another W gene, then its offspring has to be white, because the B gene is no longer there for a black offspring to be possible. Yet, if a W gene cat mates with a B gene cat, it could produce either white or black, depending on the dominant gene. The only way that two W gene cats can produce a B offspring is if a B gene is added to either cat; and according to accepted gene theory, this is impossible, because genetic information cannot be added.

This would make evolution from one species to another such as a blue whale from a four legged animal (as is shown in an artist impression in some science textbooks) impossible because it means adding a whole lot of genetic information to the four legged animal to enable it to produce blue whale offspring.

it isn't impossible for God to add genetic information. In fact no matter where your stance is on theistic evolution or *poof* creation, you acknowledge that God has added genetic information.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

If Genesis is mythological and not historical, wouldn't that destroy the reason why Jesus died on the cross?

There's loads of information addressing this and related questions on biologos.org, for example does this article address your question? It basically argues there are two types of death. First there is natural biological death. Second there is the type of death that ends ones relationship with God. Natural biological death is not the enemy. In fact we can use it for sacrifice if necessary as Jesus says it's the greatest love we can show (John 15:13). But the kind of death that results from sin, the death that causes enmity between God and man, that kind of death is the enemy as Paul writes, “sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Romans 5:12; 2 Timothy 1:10). Then soon after Paul says, “Just as sin ruled as king with death, so also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness leading to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:21).

 

[Job 33:6]

Life changes on a genetic level involves genetic code being deleted, for example, two cats mating, both with a black (B) and a white (W) gene, can produce either black or white offspring or even a black and white offspring. But the white offspring will have just the W gene, and no longer the B gene, and if it mates with a cat with another W gene, then its offspring has to be white, because the B gene is no longer there for a black offspring to be possible. Yet, if a W gene cat mates with a B gene cat, it could produce either white or black, depending on the dominant gene. The only way that two W gene cats can produce a B offspring is if a B gene is added to either cat; and according to accepted gene theory, this is impossible, because genetic information cannot be added.

Well there are gene duplications. So imagine if there is a cat WWWW, a gene duplication would result in cat WWWW WWWW. Thereby doubling genetic information.

There can be deletions of genetic information as well, as you said, where WWWW WWWW could become just WWWW, thereby losing genetic information. But a duplication could do the opposite in adding genetic information.

 

[Paul James]

There's loads of information addressing this and related questions on biologos.org, for example does this article address your question? It basically argues there are two types of death. First there is natural biological death. Second there is the type of death that ends ones relationship with God. Natural biological death is not the enemy. In fact we can use it for sacrifice if necessary as Jesus says it's the greatest love we can show (John 15:13). But the kind of death that results from sin, the death that causes enmity between God and man, that kind of death is the enemy as Paul writes, “sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Romans 5:12; 2 Timothy 1:10). Then soon after Paul says, “Just as sin ruled as king with death, so also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness leading to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:21).

I saw a post in another thread where the question was asked: "When did death exist in the world? Before or after Adam?" I didn't see a clear answer to that question, and so I am interested in your answer.

 

[Paul James]

Well there are gene duplications. So imagine if there is a cat WWWW, a gene duplication would result in cat WWWW WWWW. Thereby doubling genetic information.

There can be deletions of genetic information as well, as you said, where WWWW WWWW could become just WWWW, thereby losing genetic information. But a duplication could do the opposite in adding genetic information.

Whatever happens, the cat would remain a cat and not another type of animal. The original cat would have the complete genetic information for all the different breeds that came after it, and as cats interbred, genetic information in the cat gene pool would be deleted, so if the original breed of cat became extinct, then there would be no way of restoring that particular breed because the genetic information to enable cat offspring to be of the same breed would be deleted for ever.

There is a theory that because the gene pool of humans is slowly diminishing, it would be probable that in several thousand years, human beings could become extinct. This is because gene information with each successive generation is being deleted, and so it is only a matter of time before there will not be enough genetic information for humans to survive. In view of this, if humans existed millions of years ago, the gene pool would be so depleted, that we would have become extinct already.

 

[Jamdoc]

Whatever happens, the cat would remain a cat and not another type of animal. The original cat would have the complete genetic information for all the different breeds that came after it, and as cats interbred, genetic information in the cat gene pool would be deleted, so if the original breed of cat became extinct, then there would be no way of restoring that particular breed because the genetic information to enable cat offspring to be of the same breed would be deleted for ever.

There is a theory that because the gene pool of humans is slowly diminishing, it would be probable that in several thousand years, human beings could become extinct. This is because gene information with each successive generation is being deleted, and so it is only a matter of time before there will not be enough genetic information for humans to survive. In view of this, if humans existed millions of years ago, the gene pool would be so depleted, that we would have become extinct already.

All of this is still basing it on a naturalist based evolution rather than theistic evolution.

 

[Paul James]

All of this is still basing it on a naturalist based evolution rather than theistic evolution.

But I wouldn't call it evolution but mutation within the same animal type.

 

[Jamdoc]

But I wouldn't call it evolution but mutation within the same animal type.

Evolution is just change over time.
That's what the word means. Quit trying to put specific definitions on a word that does not mean what you think it means and you'll actually be on topic.
The topic is THEISTIC evolution.
The moment you start spouting off something about something happening completely on it's own is the moment you went off topic.

 

[Paul James]

Evolution is just change over time.
That's what the word means. Quit trying to put specific definitions on a word that does not mean what you think it means and you'll actually be on topic.

You can call it evolution if you choose, but it is still a change within the same animal group and not a gradual change from one type of animal to another. Because we live in a fallen, sin cursed world, everything is degrading and the world is wearing out, because it is not being perfectly maintained by God as it was before the Fall. Genetic mutation did not exist before the Fall because everything was created perfect. Genetic mutation began at the Fall when sin and death entered into the world.

In fact, the whole universe is running down, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This did not happen before the Fall when the whole universe was cursed and decay began. This universe, including our world is decaying, and in several million years if the universe is still existing, it would have burned out and it will be nothing but cold sterile rocks hanging in space.

So, mankind is not improving genetically, it is constantly mutating as each generation is born. Genetic information is being lost until the day comes, if the Lord doesn't return before then, mankind will become extinct.

Evolution implies that everything is developing into something better, but this is not true, because genetic information cannot be added, but it is progressively being deleted. This is why the dinosaurs went extinct. They died out because they ran out of genetic information to enable them to survive. This is why many animals have also become extinct, and not because of human interference. They became extinct for the same reason that dinosaurs became extinct - their genetics had mutated to the degree that their offspring could not survive.

But then, to know these things, one has to believe that there was a real Adam and Eve, a real forbidden fruit, disobedience and sin entering into the world bringing a curse of decay and death with it. It also makes sense of why Jesus died on the cross.

 

[solid_core]

If Genesis is mythological and not historical, wouldn't that destroy the reason why Jesus died on the cross?

No, sin is real.