Theistic Evolution

[Doom]

I will note again that in the 4th century, Augustine suggested something like evolution. This obscure fact is the basis of a truly hilarious joke in Walter Miller’s dystopian science fiction novel “A Canticle For Liebwicz”

Right before a devastating nuclear war which exterminates all human knowledge, a monk collects all of human knowledge and stores it in the desert.

1200 years later, there is a renaissance and a new renewal of learning, a secular scholar visits the monastery to examine the books. He holds a Q&A session with the monks and one of them asks “ One of our great theologians, St Augustine once proposed that higher forms of life might have gradually evolved from lower forms of life. Have any of your scholars considered this possibility?”

The secular scholar scoffs “no, we do not seek inspiration from religious folk takes.”


The irony of the scene is appearant.

[Doom]

It just doesn't make sense, why would God use such a violent and mutated process to bring about his crowning creation? Are species still macro evolving?

No, I have zero background in any science, but I know enough not to trust it, especially when it's tied to an agenda.

Why would a good God allow evil? This must be proof he doesn't exist. When anti-evolution arguments become anti-God arguments with very little fine-tuning, it's a sure sign the arguments are bad.

[gherkin]

I've never been tempted to YEC, possibly largely because I just don't care much about evolution one way or the other.

There's little doubt, though, that Pro Zak is correct in thinking that evolutionary theory supports atheism in a certain sense: (a) it does offer an explanation for facts that had previously been thought pretty inexplicable on naturalistic grounds and (b) it plays into supporting a kind of scientistic attitude, in a sort of science-of-the-gaps way. "True," the atheist says, "perhaps science hasn't yet explained the emergence of life itself, and can't produce anything resembling a plausible theory of abiogenisis, but that's just the situation we were in pre-Darwin, and see how that worked out." Plus there's the indefensible but popular thought that somehow evolution itself constitutes an argument against God by way of showing he's explanatorily unnecessary. You may say these issues aren't related to evolution as such, but are rather distortions of its implications; and that's true, but culturally there's no doubt that evolution has served to undermine the case for God very strongly.

[Doom]

Only in the same sense that ALL science supports atheism.

It is not science that makes people atheists it is that people who already are atheists on other grounds tend to be attracted to a career in science.

[gherkin]

Only in the same sense that ALL science supports atheism.

I don't see how something like, say, the germ theory of disease supports atheism. It identifies plausible candidates as the source of the spread of disease--but people already knew that diseases spread before germ theory, and had competing accounts of the mechanism. Deciding that it's germs rather than bad air doesn't seem to lead us to think God isn't present.

It is not science that makes people atheists...

That's what I said!

[Kage_ar]

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO REVEREND GEORGE V. COYNE, S.J.
DIRECTOR OF THE VATICAN OBSERVATORY


Seems as good a time and place as any to post the article where this appeared to me:


https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacr ... beginning/

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Your analogy is lacking as well, especially if you don't buy into TE...

Why would God use such a violent process to bring about redemption?

I'm not arguing for a particular answer to the problem of evolution/creation; I'm just saying that, "I don't see why God would have ..." turns into, "I wouldn't have done it that way if I were God." Since I'm not, and you aren't either, those arguments aren't persuasive.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It just doesn't make sense, why would God use such a violent and mutated process to bring about his crowning creation? Are species still macro evolving?

No, I have zero background in any science, but I know enough not to trust it, especially when it's tied to an agenda.

Why would a good God allow evil? This must be proof he doesn't exist. When anti-evolution arguments become anti-God arguments with very little fine-tuning, it's a sure sign the arguments are bad.

I agree with ... with ... it's a lovely afternoon. I think I will take a walk.

[Doom]

Only in the same sense that ALL science supports atheism.

I don't see how something like, say, the germ theory of disease supports atheism.

Extremely primitive societies tend to attribute everything to a direct willed act by God. If I get a heart attack and die, they would say "God has struck you down for your sin!" Today, people would more likely say "well, he knew he had heart problems, and he still didn't take care of himself, he brought it on himself." We would not likely say "God willed that you do right now", we would say "God allowed it rather than directly willed it."

There can be no doubt that in learning to attribute these kinds of things to natural actions that could be avoided, such as me not indulging in fatty foods and eating vegetables instead to avoid a heart attack, this is a kind of decline of religion, what used to be seen as the mysterious act of God is now seen as an avoidable act of nature.

This tendency to attribute everything to a direct willed act of God likely explains some of the more troubling passages in the Old Testament, such as the massacres of the Canaanites and others by Israel. Was it actually a case of the Israelities thinking literally commanded genocide or was it more a case of "well, we just committed this act of genocide, I guess God must have willed it?" I'm inclined to think the latter is the most likely explanation.

[Doom]

It just doesn't make sense, why would God use such a violent and mutated process to bring about his crowning creation? Are species still macro evolving?

No, I have zero background in any science, but I know enough not to trust it, especially when it's tied to an agenda.

Why would a good God allow evil? This must be proof he doesn't exist. When anti-evolution arguments become anti-God arguments with very little fine-tuning, it's a sure sign the arguments are bad.

I agree with ... with ... it's a lovely afternoon. I think I will take a walk.

In fact, I have heard professed atheists from Carl Sagan to Neil Degrasse Tyson and everyone in between use Pro zak's argument against evolution to "prove" God doesn't exist "God wouldn't create the world in such a cataclysmic way which causes so much unnecessary suffering and mass death, therefore since is undeniably true, God must not exist"

[ProZak]

They're blinding us with Science!

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

As arguments go, "Don't confuse me with the facts!" is not a terribly good one.

Yes, there is no such thing as disinterested "science." Yes, it's good to ask questions. No, it's not good to discard everything that doesn't appeal to you.

[ProZak]

So TE appeals to you, or do you find it repugnant but believe it to be true?

"BioLogos?"

https://www.equip.org/articles/new-thei ... consensus/

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Again, Theistic Evolution is a broad category covering lots of things. Which of them are you asking about?

[ProZak]

Again, Theistic Evolution is a broad category covering lots of things. Which of them are you asking about?

Macro evolution, our bodies evolved from other species that were not human, as opposed to animals and plants reproducing after their own kind.

[Doom]

Again, Theistic Evolution is a broad category covering lots of things. Which of them are you asking about?

Macro evolution, our bodies evolved from other species that were not human, as opposed to animals and plants reproducing after their own kind.

You were raised fundamentalist were you not? It is easier to get the boy out of the fundamentalist church than it is to get the fundamentalist church out of the boy. If great Catholics like Augustine, Pope Pius XII and John Paul II had no problem with evolution why should you?

And I will note that “our bodies evolved from other species” is a mischaracterization of evolution.

[peregrinator]

The primary issue with macroevolution is philosophical - how can a creature give its progeny something it doesn't have itself?

[ProZak]

As if only Fundamentalists reject TE!

[gherkin]

Only in the same sense that ALL science supports atheism.

I don't see how something like, say, the germ theory of disease supports atheism.

Extremely primitive societies tend to attribute everything to a direct willed act by God. If I get a heart attack and die, they would say "God has struck you down for your sin!" Today, people would more likely say "well, he knew he had heart problems, and he still didn't take care of himself, he brought it on himself." We would not likely say "God willed that you do right now", we would say "God allowed it rather than directly willed it."

There can be no doubt that in learning to attribute these kinds of things to natural actions that could be avoided, such as me not indulging in fatty foods and eating vegetables instead to avoid a heart attack, this is a kind of decline of religion, what used to be seen as the mysterious act of God is now seen as an avoidable act of nature.

This tendency to attribute everything to a direct willed act of God likely explains some of the more troubling passages in the Old Testament, such as the massacres of the Canaanites and others by Israel. Was it actually a case of the Israelities thinking literally commanded genocide or was it more a case of "well, we just committed this act of genocide, I guess God must have willed it?" I'm inclined to think the latter is the most likely explanation.

I think you're muddling up some issues. First, you said all science supports atheism in the same sense that darwinism does, which I reject, and gave as a counterexample germ theory. Now you've shifted to saying that science undermines primitive conceptions of how things work. That may certainly be true (or not), but primitive religions are in that sense degenerate religions given to idolatry and polytheism rather than to Theism. (Exactly how much the original knowledge of God remained in these degenerate religions is subject to debate, of course, but in practical terms pagan religions are just not theistic, properly speaking (in just the same way, Mormonism is not theistic, properly speaking, though it refers regularly to "God").

And anyway, my argument was not that darwinism actually supports atheism if the arguments are well-understood, etc. It's that culturally it has had a profoundly atheistic impact.

[gherkin]

The primary issue with macroevolution is philosophical - how can a creature give its progeny something it doesn't have itself?

I think this is where something like St Augustine's doctrine of seminal reasons comes in. Note that this is not an area I have any real knowledge about.

ETA: along those lines, though I continue to point out I'm speaking out of school, I think St. Augustine did not actually advance an evolutionary account, but rather proposed that something like it could in principle be true. To the best of my knowledge, St. Thomas disagreed with that latter contention.