Theistic Evolution

by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Twitch

  Evolution has no concept of 'inferior' or 'superior' - jamesmahon

  Agreed.

  It is clear that evolution is what it is. The question may be what is god with this in mind.
• 

  NOLAW

  My conclusion is that evolution was intelligently designed. Now how intelligently is another story.
• 

  binadub

  Cofty and NewChapter:

  I disagree that ID is Creationism. Some Creationists may have subscribed to ID in the past (I think), which has given it a bad name in some circles.

  I'm familiar with the Dover case and some others. I agree that ID should not be taught as science for the same reason it should not be taught as history or archeology--because it is not.

  But ID is not evangelical Genesis "young-earth" creationism and they do not subscribe to literal Genesis (unless they are total liars of what they are about). You're describing the Creationists. ID does not even discount the evolution hypothesis of common descent. They do debate with Dr. Francis Collins' view on his website, but the debates are over scientific theories, not anything close to young-Earth creationism.

  But that is not what your thread is about, so I apologize for getting off-topic. My bad. :-) Perhaps ID in another thread.
  I'm not as familiar with TE, but I think it probably makes less sense to my reasoning than deism, the kind that influenced Anthony Flew to change his mind.

  ~Binadub
• 

  King Solomon

  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.

  Being that the concept of existence of a "soul" is unscientific and unproven, without any basis for existence besides the LONG history of discussing it in philosophy/theology, I wouldn't hold my breath for it's identification: it's a romantic notion that is 4,000 yrs old, at least.

  The concept of soul is so entrenched in the minds of some men, it's practically impossible for some to consider it's non-existence, just like supernatural beings are an intrinsic part of many people's beliefs; to accept non-existence of God goes completely against their grain.

  There is no reason to suspect that consciousness is anything but an evolutionary cul-de-sac that will never be repeated.

  And the flip-side is there is no reason to suspect that it WON'T be repeated, or hasn't been repeated. In fact, the odds of it being a one-off event are MUCH LOWER than it's having happened before, even resulting in different flavors of consciousness.

  In fact, look at our World: there's MANY types of consciousness, possessed by many different animals, plants, micro-organisms, etc. We haven't begun to even scratch the surface of investigating these, yet it's funny that some are chomping at the bit to travel to other Planets and search for alien life there!

  BTW, evolution is largely a non-directed venture (excluding when man attempts to change it). Agreed on the objection against those who try to introduce value judgments or anthromorphisms into the discussion.

  Along those lines, evolution is NOT about "survival of the fittest", as much as it's about "survival of the sufficiently fit" for a given test, i.e. those who pass whatever test(s) they encounter. Sounds circular, but it boils down to those who survive, for what ever reason, are the ones that survive to pass along their genes.

  The difference is important to understand: "the fittest" implies that there are two competitors, and only one form survives, "the fittest" like in a WWF cage-match to the death. Nope, that's way too over-simplified. Instead, depending on how high or low the selection pressure bar is set, all, some, few, or even NONE may survive a given environmental condition they encounter. Selection "tests" may be relentless, periodic, or even non-existent at times.

  Another element to remember is that evolution does NOT affect traits found in individuals past reproductive age, eg cataract development is NOT a trait that is subject to evolution, since cataracts occur late in life (mid-60's generally); hence any genes that effect their development or afford protection are not subject to selection pressures that might effect their frequency in the gene pool. The exception is childhood cataracts; these ARE subject to evolutionary pressure, since effected children MAY be expected to experience selection pressure (at least, in the days before cataract surgery, or even still in countries where access to such services are unavailable).
• 

  pseudoxristos

  It seems that the Catholics have come up with a interesting solution to the problem of evolution and humans that have a soul.

  The following is taken from Wikipedia:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

  Catholic Church and evolution

  ...

  To reconcile general evolutionary theory with the origin of the human species, with a soul, the concept of " special transformism " was developed, according to which the first humans had evolved by Darwinist processes, up to the point where a soul was added by God to "pre-existent and living matter" (in the words of Pius XII 's Humani Generis ) to form the first fully human individuals; this would normally be considered to be at the point of conception. [20] Léroy's book endorsed this concept; what led to its rejection by the Congregation appears to have been his view that the human species was able to evolve without divine intervention to a fully human state, but lacking only a soul. The theologians felt that some immediate and particular divine intervention was also required to form the physical nature of humans, before the addition of a soul, even if this was worked on near-human hominids produced by evolutionary processes. [21]

  ...

  pseudo
• 

  jamesmahon

  Some really good posts here. simon17 - I think it is very interesting that we will be the first known organisms to with the ability to change our own genes to modify them for our environment. Still evolution - but evolution by conscious selection. Who knows how that will pan out.

  Agree with the comment about whether consciousness and self awareness are unique to humans. I am inclined to think not as it appears some animals exhibit behaviour that is very close to that exhibited by ourselves. But that is still an anthromoporhic view of the world. If what we call consciousness is a behaviour on a continuum rather than a discrete trait if it is beneficial for our environment we can expect to see this aspect of human nature becoming more developed and complex. What this means for human evolution I couldn't even begin to imagine any more than my pet dog can imagine what it is like to be a human (I am guessing - she seems to know a bit too much at times).

  Is it truly beneficial from an evolutionary stand point and will aid our long term survivial and will appear in other organsims? I guess it will entriely depend on the challenges presented by the environment in the future.

  King Soloman: BTW, evolution is largely a non-directed venture

  I agree but disagree. It is not directed in the sense that there is no master plan of any description trying to move an organism from A to B. However, direction is provided by selection pressures, whether from the environment through natural selection or through man. But given man is just part of the environment the selections we make on which genes to propigate in a particular species are really only natural selection anyway. I guess the problem is that the word 'direction' implies an agency controlling something, which is why we try to shy away from it when talking about evolution.

  To go back to the OP, I think that there is no need for the presence of a deity to drive evolution, and that if there was a deity controlling which genes are propigated he goes around things in a pretty disorganised way.
• 

  simon17

  guess the problem is that the word 'direction' implies an agency controlling something, which is why we try to shy away from it when talking about evolution.

  One could say it is controlled by the current environement. In that way evolution is always directed towards adaptation towards the current environement. The constant changes (in temperature, sea levels, oxygen levels, food available, predators around, amount of water, etc) are make evolution seem directionless. It has no 'goal' because its always being directed towards something different.

  I suppose you can say the end goal of evolution would be a species capable of, itself, adapating to any and all environments (including heat death of the sun).
• 

  NewChapter

  I disagree that ID is Creationism. Some Creationists may have subscribed to ID in the past (I think), which has given it a bad name in some circles.

  This is exactly what creationists want you to think. They could not get creationism into the public schools, so they developed ID as a pseudoscience to try and get past the boards and put creationism in the schools---disguised at science. I don't know what else to tell you on that. Certainly there are different interpretations of Genesis, and that may show in ID. Or perhaps other more scientifically minded people have hijacked it here and there, and so inject some idea of validity (agreeing we have a common ancestor with apes) and maybe that is a tricky way to misrepresent what it's original purpose was---which was to veil creationism so that it could slide into the schools.

  And ID has a bad name---regardless of who subscribes to it. It is pseudoscience.

  NC
• 

  binadub

  It was not my intention to hijack this thread for another topic.
  I happen to agree with Cofty that I see no rational logic between “theistic evolution” (neo-Darwinian evolution in disguise) and fundamentalist/evangelical “born-again” Christianity.

  I would like to make it clear that I’m not about arguing religion, or against atheism, or any other precept people choose to adopt.. It’s like refuting a Southern Baptist’s arguments to refute the Watchtower religion, you can’t take their definition of the WT, you have to refute the WT on the merits of what is true about it. Same with ID.

  NewChapter:

  You’re simply wrong. You cite no reference to back up your claims. If you can provide some credible references to refute the following, I’ll be glad to consider them. Creationism used to mean simply a belief in a Creator, as opposed to atheism, but no longer. Evangelical young-Earth creationists usurped the definition "creationism" and that is one reason why the term "intelligent design" was created to distinquish between people who simply believe in a Creator as opposed to atheism. "Creationism" has changed meaning in the past couple of decades, just as words like "gay" and "discrimination" have changed meaning. ID is not confined to Christian, young-Earth creationism, nor does it deny observable evolution theory. From their own definition:

  http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs

  From Discovery Institute Web site:

  http://www.discovery.org/about.php

  Questions about Science Education Policy

  1. Does Discovery Institute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks?

  No. Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.

  2. Is Discovery Institute trying to eliminate, reduce or censor the coverage of evolution in textbooks?

  No. Far from reducing the coverage of evolution, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The true censors are those who want to stop any discussion of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

  3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?

  No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

  ===================

  ~Binadub
• 

  NewChapter

  Actually I did offer support for what I said. I linked the information on how creationism was replaced with ID terms with no other edits. I also pointed out the Pennsylvania court case where the same information was brought out. I'm not sure what else you would need----but the courts have decided that I.D. is most definitely a smokescreen to get creationism in the classrooms. We will have to agree to disagree here. I do not challenge that latecomers may be trying to clean up that image now, but this is what it was all about.