Theistic Evolution (page 2)

cantleave

Theistic evolution is simply an attempt to marry philosophy with science.

Jumping to philosophical conclusions, when science has not yet discovered the answers, is lazy!

Sulla

I guess we just have to wait for science to figure out when we developed spiritual souls and tell us what the meaning of life is, then.

simon17

Jumping to philosophical conclusions, when science has not yet discovered the answers, is lazy!

I don't know if I agree with this. There is an open question, not answerd by science, so what is wrong with a person filling that void with God if they are willing to alter their beliefs in the face of new evidence? It is a valid hypothesis, even if less likely than a forthcoming scientific answer.

I don't see how it could be lazy, unless the person actually IS a scientist in that field. Its not like a person's believing in a scientific answer is going to HELP science in some way get that answer faster. We, who believe in a scientific answer, are doing no more or less for reaching that scientific answer than the person who believes in a thiestic answer.

botchtowersociety

Jumping to philosophical conclusions, when science has not yet discovered the answers, is lazy!

Without philosphical conclusions, there would be no science.

NewChapter

Cofty, thanks for showing the difference between TE and ID. ID is horrible stuff.

TE is probably how I learned about evolution in a Chatholic school when I was 13ish. They taught evolution as it was understood at that time, and simply stated that God caused it to happen. So at least TE does not deny science.

However I still find it quite problematic. Humans have a much longer history than H sapien. At what point did this species become morally accountable to a god? And what about the Neanderthal and Denisovians? We interbred with them, so they must have been very like us in many ways. And as to Abrahamic religions, these are quite new to the scene. Humans did not seem to be in touch with this particular god until quite recently. What about the 200,000 years before that? In fact, groups of humans had already transferred out of the foraging stage into the agricultural/ city/state stage long before we got writings on this god. And those writings and laws were strongly tied to an agricultural life.

Life was short and brutal, which kind of suggests no real guidance, especially since those writings claim a life span is 70 or 80 years at the most. Ancient humans would not have expected anything close. So it seems all this wisdom was not something that had been carried for years before it was written down, but was something new and according to the times. They would not even have understood the advantages of agriculture as compared to the hundreds of thousands of years before to have even have commented on it.

But I understand that all TE's would not be adhering to the Abrahamic religions.

In the end, as a god or creator becomes increasingly unnecessary, this is a way to hold onto a belief and still remain grounded in science.

NC

rocketman

This kind of touches on a little 'theory' I have about the Genesis account involving Adam and Eve:

Man evolves to a point where God decides that man can now be subject to 'test', and the account is allegorical.

Of course, this scenario is full of holes, and I don't even really believe it.

Twitch

Earlier I had said "creationist first cause" where I should've said "theistic". It may just be semantics but terms are important.

Either way, it implies a willful hand to put things in motion. Whether or not it's aware of it's own handedness and "loves" you is a another question and one more relevant to the topic.

I get a drift from Sulla that says prior to humans developing higher brain functions and the concept of mind, we were just animals with no free will and thus not qualified for an afterlife or god's love, in a nutshell. I guess that answers the question, do dogs go to heaven? Perhaps in a few million years...

Some interesting ideas here, worthy of some pondering.

Knowsnothing

I guess my question back is: is it really true that a good creator could only have created life (and the universe, really) without using a process as brutal as evolution? - Sulla

Well, if you are talking about an omnipotent creator as well, then you are limiting his power. Also, how does such brutality fit into the description "good"? Why would you worship or reverence such an entity?

I think this leads to an even worse conclusion than what atheism provides. To say there is someone behind the suffering of creation, and that same entity is god, just gives us a cruel creator. How exactly is that "spiritually satisfying"?

That the whole process of placing life in every possible place on the planet could only be justly implemented by herbivorous creature who gently pass from this life painlessly and in their sleep? - Sulla

Why even have them pass? What exactly forbids their eternity? Also, why not?

Maybe it is better to start at a different point. Seeing all this suffering, couldn't one conclude that God is very much like Ares, who actually likes suffering and pain? It seems to me that the answer is yes. - Sulla

How exactly does that fit the Christian paradigm again? I have heard it argued that god needed to create or allow evil in order to be complete, in order to be able to show justice, mercy, and other such qualities. Even with this argument there are problems, namely, a perfect god cannot be perfect and incomplete at the same time.

BTW cofty, thanks for this thread. Interesting, and good dialogue going on. I was particularly interested in Sulla's and BTS's arguments, and while I still find them lacking and unconvincing, I appreciate them none the less.

botchtowersociety

Evolution is a massively wasteful process. Over 95% of life forms that have ever lived have gone extinct, they got thrown on the scrapheap of failed designs.

I have to say, I don't know if we are looking at this the right way. We are assigning a value, as if we are trying to develop a finished product as quick as possible. What is a finished product supposed to look like? And then there is the question of waste. What is waste in this scenario? We aren't blind watchmakers, but even our own designs, worked on intelligently, evolve. Maybe 95% of the watches that have ever been made have gone to the landfill.

What a waste of timepieces.

I don't know. When I see evolution, especially as described by a great science writer like Dawkins, I feel a sense of awe.

NewChapter

There really is no finished product. All species are not on a march toward humaness. Modern humans aren't necessarily the end of the line with that branch. Simple culuture has certainly flattened things out a bit, but if we destroy our climate or an epic disaster hits, we could start along a new path and evolve.

Will that bring new types of religion? Weird to think about---not expecting answers.

Theistic Evolution

Share this