Theistic Evolution?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

FWIW, what you said is pretty close to my view (though I probably would have tried to say it nicely).

It makes no sense at all to me to assume that a universe that's 99.999...% instantly fatal to life was built to sustain life, or that a biome that's 99% bacteria was built for animals, or that the rise of animals, 99% of which are insects, is all about us.

J.B.S. Haldane was right about what we can infer about our creator from the life around us ("an inordinate fondness for beetles"). The universe we have is not the sort of universe we'd expect if us humans were that universe's main purpose.

 

[George-ananda]

Does this mean that Brahman is working with intent?

I suppose we can see that He is working with intent driving from His creative aspect. His creation of Maya shows intent.

 

[leibowde84]

Science itself is considered to be atheistic in the sense that it does not allow God to be invoked.

That's not necessarily true. There is an absence of verifiable evidence for God, and God's existence is unfalsifiable. If those things changed, God could be invoked.

 

[ThirtyThree]

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.

The theory of evolution does not refute intelligent design or an intelligent designer. For that matter, neither does the theory of the Big Bang.

 

[leibowde84]

The theory of evolution does not refute intelligent design or an intelligent designer. For that matter, neither does the theory of the Big Bang.

Did someone claim that it did?

 

[Katzpur]

FWIW, what you said is pretty close to my view (though I probably would have tried to say it nicely).

Excuse me?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Excuse me?

I mean that I wouldn't say "you believe in total nonsense!" to someone who believes in theistic evolution, but I don't see how the idea makes sense.

... provided we're talking about a guided process with us as the end goal.

 

[Katzpur]

I mean that I wouldn't say "you believe in total nonsense!" to someone who believes in theistic evolution, but I don't see how the idea makes sense.

... provided we're talking about a guided process with us as the end goal.

I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that my response had been impolite. Well, may you wouldn't say, "you believe in total nonsense." Maybe LuisDantas and SkepticThinker wouldn't either, but believe it, I've heard it put a lot more harshly than "you believe in total nonsense" before.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that my response had been impolite.

I thought that might've been what was going on. Sorry - my earlier post could have been clearer.

Well, may you wouldn't say, "you believe in total nonsense." Maybe LuisDantas and SkepticThinker wouldn't either, but believe it, I've heard it put a lot more harshly than "you believe in total nonsense" before.

Like I touched on earlier, I can somewhat understand the belief that God set everything in motion without a defined goal (or maybe with a defined goal that doesn't involve us), but I can't understand the belief that God created the universe in order to give rise to us human beings. IMO, it seems to be contradicted by the facts at hand.

 

[Deidre]

A natural explanation for our being more than the sum total of our parts is the concept and existence of emergent properties.

And the spiritual explanation for our being more than the sum total of our parts is that God is the impetus behind emergent properties. But you knew I might say that, yes?

 

[Deidre]

I won't try to guess about the specific words and their exact meanings, but some possibilities spring to mind.

1. It refers to the creation of beings capable of holding religious concepts - in practice, humans. Not necessarily of the creation of everything that is or even of living beings.

2. It refers to the moment when the intent of God of creating male and female beings arose, not necessarily the moment in time when it was materialized.

3. Creation in the divine sense is timeless, possibly symultaneous for all of existence, and once it happened it was predetermined that genders would eventually develop.

4. Creation, here, referes to human society - a markedly more relevant matter for most humans than cosmology.


(Edited to correct "human beings" into "living beings" in #1).

In reading through the thread since last night, this still stands out to me as the most insightful way of viewing how religious people (if they wish to, some hold a literal view of all things Biblical) can enjoy somewhat blissfully, a marriage between science and religion/spirituality.

 

[Deidre]

The theory of evolution does not refute intelligent design or an intelligent designer. For that matter, neither does the theory of the Big Bang.

In part, this is true. But, it naturally 'conflicts' with Genesis, if one takes the story literally.

 

[ThirtyThree]

In part, this is true. But, it naturally 'conflicts' with Genesis, if one takes the story literally.

If one takes it literally.

 

[Gambit]

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

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

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

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

You're just making a straw man argument.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Yeah, I don't think that God necessarily has to be the creator of everything. In fact, God might even be the product of evolution Himself, I mean like an alien race that has become so powerful that it has become omnipotent for all intents and purposes.

 

[Gambit]

Science allows you to invoke anything that's falsifiable.

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

Because I understand the difference between science and metaphysics. (God is a metaphysical belief, not a scientific one.)

 

[RedDragon94]

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?

I don't see why not unless you're a staunch fundamentalist. I subscribe to theistic evolution.

 

[Gambit]

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.

I don't think the Pope believes that evolution is the key to explain how this world came to being.

 

[Gambit]

The theory of evolution is the product of the sin nature's attempt to deny the existence of God.

The Darwinian theory of evolution is the product of an individual who attempted to explain the origin of the species by appealing to naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[Gambit]

I suppose we can see that He is working with intent driving from His creative aspect. His creation of Maya shows intent.

Then you apparently believe that Brahman is actually the final cause, not the nature spirits.