Theistic Evolution?

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I believe in gods and I believe in evolution, but i do not believe in "theistic evolution".

 

[Sunstone]

So, does mean that you really do not believe that consciousness is a nonreducible emergent property?

What is the logic of supposing that on the basis of my not believing in soul?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A serious problem with theistic evolution is that it imposes purpose on evolution. Purpose is not evidenced in nature. You might as well describe the workings of your car with perfect rationality up until you come to some crucial computer chip and then declare, "Here there be fairies".

I agree. If God's intent with evolution was to bring about humans, then evolution is the ultimate Rube Goldber machine.

Catholicism (unofficially) subscribes to theistic evolution. However, the Church rejects polygenism. (Monogenism in the form of the "out of Africa" theory is actually the most widespread theory.)

"Out of Africa" is not monogenism. "Out of Africa" is not predicated on the idea of one original lone paur of humans.

Monogenism (at least the way that the Catholic Church defines it) is the idea that all of humanity is entirely descended from an original male/female pair of humans. Monogenism is rejected as impossible by modern genetics: one lone breeding pair does not provide enough genetic diversity to allow for a viable population... though if we're assuming God's hand in the matter, I suppose you can assume whatever magic poofing you want to resolve the genetic problem without worrying about being falsified.

 

[Gambit]

What is the logic of supposing that on the basis of my not believing in soul?

Well, it seemed to me that you argued that our humanity (at least some aspect of it) is some kind of emergent property - a property that is not reducible to the sum of our physical parts. So, if that doesn't imply our conscious experiences or soul is a nonreducible emergent property, then perhaps you can tell us exactly what you meant. What exactly is it about our being that is not reducible to the sum of its physical parts?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

It came about because anyone with basic scientific knowledge can recognize that evolution happened, so this needs to be reconciled with their other beliefs somehow.

As I mention above, theistic evolution suggests a Rube Goldberg-esque god, or the sort of God who would light his cigarette the Penn & Teller way. The hypothesis can be reconciled with the facts, but I see no reason to think that God is necessary in this process (and a bit of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in those who do think this).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, if that doesn't imply our conscious experiences or soul is a nonreducible emergent property, then perhaps you can tell us exactly what you meant.

Why on Earth would you treat "conscious experiences" and "soul" as synonyms?

 

[Gambit]

"Out of Africa" is not monogenism. "Out of Africa" is not predicated on the idea of one original lone paur of humans.

My sources tell me that the "Out-of-Africa" theory qualifies as a form of monogenism.

Monogenism or monogenesis is the theory of human origins which posits a common descent for all human races. It may also refer to:

• Recent African origin of modern humans
• Monogenesis (linguistics)

(source: Wikipedia: Monogenism (disambiguation))

Monogenism (at least the way that the Catholic Church defines it) is the idea that all of humanity is entirely descended from an original male/female pair of humans. Monogenism is rejected as impossible by modern genetics: one lone breeding pair does not provide enough genetic diversity to allow for a viable population... though if we're assuming God's hand in the matter, I suppose you can assume whatever magic poofing you want to resolve the genetic problem without worrying about being falsified.

There appears to be evidence for what scientists are calling the "Mitochondrial Eve" and the "Y-chromosomal Adam."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My sources tell me that the "Out-of-Africa" theory qualifies as a form of monogenism.

There's a difference between the idea that humanity descended from one GROUP of interbreeding humans and the idea that we descended from one PAIR of humans. The first one is a scientific hypothesis with some support. The second is what the Catholic Church advocates (and what they need for Original Sin to work the way they say it does).

There appears to be evidence for what scientists are calling the "Mitochondrial Eve" and the "Y-chromosomal Adam."

Genetic bottlenecks aren't monogenism, either.

(BTW: I always wondered why they use the term "Y-chromosomal Adam". By the Biblical narrative, the last common male ancestor is Noah, not Adam)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Appealing to the supernatural is not rejecting science. But you cannot appeal to the supernatural and call it science. That's why I said science is atheistic...it is atheistic in the sense that you cannot invoke God as a scientific explanation. And Darwinian evolution is definitely atheistic in this sense.

Science allows you to invoke anything that's falsifiable.

If you don't think God is falsifiable, why do you believe in him?

 

[Quintessence]

As I stated before: A lack of evidence in support of the notion that evolution has a purpose. You could, of course, assert in the absence of evidence that evolution has a purpose after all. Just as I could, in the absence of evidence, assert that undetectable pixies are living in my closet. Perhaps the only grounds we have for believing either is what makes us feel good.

I suppose I'm wondering why you feel "purpose" is necessarily part of the theistic half of that equation. I don't find that to be the case. Granted, I'm also wondering how anyone could possibly see a lack of purpose or function in anything in the universe. In the case of biological evolution, it's pretty well-evidenced that it is a mechanism by which biological organisms adapt to their environment so they are good enough at surviving to sustain their existences. That is it's function or purpose... that's what biological evolution is and what it does (as far as we've observed at any rate).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just my opinion, I believe God is the impetus behind evolution, and was the 'guide' for humans to have souls and/or levels of consciousness, and consciences. Don't think that theists need to be scientifically ignorant in order to embrace both their faith and evolution. As an atheist, I used to think the two worlds couldn't coexist, however. lol

How do you make them coexist? How do you reconcile God and evolution?

I can understand somewhat if we're talking about a God that just gets the evolutionary ball rolling without a particular goal in mind... but the idea that the intent behind all of evolution was to produce us seems to have all the problems that we would have with the idea that me boiling water in the kitchen is about making the flowers in my front garden grow. Yes, I suppose that some of that steam might escape the house, and a small amount might settle on the flowers, and water does help flowers grow... but it just seems like a roundabout way to do it, and less reasonable to assume that the intent is about the flowers than it is to assume that it's about my wife's tea.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheists will say it's not only "not acceptable," but "total nonsense." Many theists, such as me, believe this is absolutely the case. I have no trouble at all reconciling my belief in God with my belief that life evolved over billions of years.

I'm an atheist and I would not say that.

 

[Estro Felino]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

well... most Catholics believe in Evolution. The Pope himself said that he doesn't think of God as a magician...and that evolution is the key to explain how this world came to being.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

well... most Catholics believe in Evolution. The Pope himself said that he doesn't think of God as a magician...and that evolution is the key to explain how this world came to being.

The Catholic Church holds that its believers are not free to believe that humanity arose as a group of individuals as opposed to a single original male/female pair. This just isn't how speciation works. This belief is wrong in a way that's more subtle than the way young earth creationism is wrong, but it's still wrong.

(Though I'm sure that plenty of individual Catholics don't agree with Church teaching on the issue of polygenism versus monogenism)

 

[Intojoy]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

No it is unacceptable

The theory of evolution is the product of the sin nature's attempt to deny the existence of God. When a believer begins to accept evolution he is losing the spiritual war against the world.

There is a three front battle going on in spiritual warfare it's against the world, the flesh and Satan. On each front the fight is for the control of the mind. Evolution is the mind of this cosmos under satan's control.

 

[Gambit]

Why on Earth would you treat "conscious experiences" and "soul" as synonyms?

Because in philosophical discussion of the mind-body problem, the terms "mind" and "soul" are often used interchangeabily.

 

[Gambit]

There's a difference between the idea that humanity descended from one GROUP of interbreeding humans and the idea that we descended from one PAIR of humans. The first one is a scientific hypothesis with some support. The second is what the Catholic Church advocates (and what they need for Original Sin to work the way they say it does).


Genetic bottlenecks aren't monogenism, either.

(BTW: I always wondered why they use the term "Y-chromosomal Adam". By the Biblical narrative, the last common male ancestor is Noah, not Adam)

I just cited a source to support my claim that the "Out-of-Africa" theory qualifies as a form of monogenism. I also cited a source that there appears to evidence that all human beings today descended from one woman (mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosomal Adam). (I'm afraid my supported claims trump your unsupported objections.)

 

[Katzpur]

I'm an atheist and I would not say that.

Okay, well I've been told twice now by atheists that I'm wrong, so guess what? I admit that I was wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just cited a source to support my claim that the "Out-of-Africa" theory qualifies as a form of monogenism.

... but not the sort of monogenism we're talking about:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

I also cited a source that there appears to evidence that all human beings today descended from one woman (mitochondrial Eve)

...who was alive at the same time as many other people, both male and female...

and one man (Y-chromosomal Adam).

... who was alive at the same time as many other people, both male and female (but not at the same time as "Eve")...

(I'm afraid my supported claims trump your unsupported objections.)

And I'm afraid you have such a poor understanding of what wr're talking about that you actually believe this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay, well I've been told twice now by atheists that I'm wrong, so guess what? I admit that I was wrong.

Some atheists may agree, I'm just not one of them.