Reconciling Christian beliefs with the THEORY of evolution

[George00]

And so there is no confusion, I am referring to the theory of evolution, not common ancestry. The purpose of this thread is not to debate about whether humans had an ape like ancestor etc; it is about how evolution happens.

If one were to accept the theory of evolution, you are not only accepting that all life on the planet evolved from a common ancestor, you are accepting that human beings aren't a necessary product of evolution.

"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of life processes superfluous"- Douglas Futuyama

"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind"-George Gaylord Simpson

Additionally, if the theory of evolution is taken as truth, human beings might not exist today had an asteroid not killed off the dinosaurs. Meaning life on earth was headed in a different direction before the asteroid hit.

"Researchers have thought for more than a decade, and with growing certainty, that an impact played a critical role in the ultimate death of dinosaurs. Other species perished, too, in an event that allowed mammals to prosper in a world where there were fewer large creatures to step on them or swallow them whole."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 516-1.html

Furthermore, if one accepts the theory of evolution, you are also accepting that human beings continue to evolve even today; they aren't a final product of the process.

So my questions is.... how do Christians who accept the theory of evolution reconcile their beliefs with the science?

[QED]

Good question George! I've often wondered about this myself, as we have many eloquent and thoughtful Christians here who seem thoroughly satisfied with evolution by natural selection being the mechanism responsible for natural (apparent) design -- so it seems it must be reconcilable. I wonder if I have the answer...

If I strain my imagination to it's limits, I can just about see some cosmic engineer deliberately setting up a physical domain like our universe in such a way that the periodic table supplies a set of raw ingredients that, when obeying a set of immutable physical laws, can't help but assemble themselves into self-replicating structures that persist in the various environments that can support them. I don't happen to think that this is how it went, as there are many natural ways to arrive at this particular point without invoking a sentient designer, however...

Still trying to accommodate the cosmic designer, these products of the process set in motion at the inception of our space-time can be expected to evolve (crudely at first) on planetary Oasis like ours along the lines we have observed -- with a great variety of predator/prey relationships mapping out an ever changing food web. In this arms-race change is met by change and perfect stasis is never feasible, until...

There could come a time when intelligence evolves in one or more species (there really has to be a first at some point -- so maybe it's us!) to the point where the process of evolution becomes understood for what it is. At this interesting point it all gets a bit speculative but, conscious decision may be able to override the blind forces of evolution and take direct control over the "raw ingredients" fashioning them directly for the sustenance of consciousness. Of course this could all get very messy with vestigial leftovers from our evolutionary past, but...

From the periodic table and immutable physical laws alone then, we could predict this sort of thing that we might be -- and maybe the Christian mind is content that this is what God wanted -- something like us, if not exactly us.

But if this is the case then I think we must be prepared to accept that we may not be the final product. This process might already have been running long enough to evolve a more fitting species elsewhere! Or indeed humanity might yet have some evolving to do, or may come to stand aside due to some cataclysm that propels a different species into this exalted position. This highlights a grave difficulty that I always have with the certainties of those bringing forth such religious arguments, many other scenarios seem possible which destroy all the certainties.

[achilles12604]

Good question George! I've often wondered about this myself, as we have many eloquent and thoughtful Christians here who seem thoroughly satisfied with evolution by natural selection being the mechanism responsible for natural (apparent) design -- so it seems it must be reconcilable. I wonder if I have the answer...

If I strain my imagination to it's limits, I can just about see some cosmic engineer deliberately setting up a physical domain like our universe in such a way that the periodic table supplies a set of raw ingredients that, when obeying a set of immutable physical laws, can't help but assemble themselves into self-replicating structures that persist in the various environments that can support them. I don't happen to think that this is how it went, as there are many natural ways to arrive at this particular point without invoking a sentient designer, however...

Still trying to accommodate the cosmic designer, these products of the process set in motion at the inception of our space-time can be expected to evolve (crudely at first) on planetary Oasis like ours along the lines we have observed -- with a great variety of predator/prey relationships mapping out an ever changing food web. In this arms-race change is met by change and perfect stasis is never feasible, until...

There could come a time when intelligence evolves in one or more species (there really has to be a first at some point -- so maybe it's us!) to the point where the process of evolution becomes understood for what it is. At this interesting point it all gets a bit speculative but, conscious decision may be able to override the blind forces of evolution and take direct control over the "raw ingredients" fashioning them directly for the sustenance of consciousness. Of course this could all get very messy with vestigial leftovers from our evolutionary past, but...

From the periodic table and immutable physical laws alone then, we could predict this sort of thing that we might be -- and maybe the Christian mind is content that this is what God wanted -- something like us, if not exactly us.

But if this is the case then I think we must be prepared to accept that we may not be the final product. This process might already have been running long enough to evolve a more fitting species elsewhere! Or indeed humanity might yet have some evolving to do, or may come to stand aside due to some cataclysm that propels a different species into this exalted position. This highlights a grave difficulty that I always have with the certainties of those bringing forth such religious arguments, many other scenarios seem possible which destroy all the certainties.

I am impressed. This a great example of a non-theist really LISTENING (or in this case reading) and honestly attempting to understand the theists perspective, dispite disagreeing with the end conclusion.

Bravo. 50 points for you.

[George00]

Good question George! I've often wondered about this myself, as we have many eloquent and thoughtful Christians here who seem thoroughly satisfied with evolution by natural selection being the mechanism responsible for natural (apparent) design -- so it seems it must be reconcilable. I wonder if I have the answer...

Interesting and well written response, but I don't think it solved the problem.

If I strain my imagination to it's limits, I can just about see some cosmic engineer deliberately setting up a physical domain like our universe in such a way that the periodic table supplies a set of raw ingredients that, when obeying a set of immutable physical laws, can't help but assemble themselves into self-replicating structures that persist in the various environments that can support them. I don't happen to think that this is how it went, as there are many natural ways to arrive at this particular point without invoking a sentient designer, however...

Ok, I don't see any major problems with the above section of your reply.

Still trying to accommodate the cosmic designer, these products of the process set in motion at the inception of our space-time can be expected to evolve (crudely at first) on planetary Oasis like ours along the lines we have observed -- with a great variety of predator/prey relationships mapping out an ever changing food web. In this arms-race change is met by change and perfect stasis is never feasible, until...

There could come a time when intelligence evolves in one or more species (there really has to be a first at some point -- so maybe it's us!) to the point where the process of evolution becomes understood for what it is. At this interesting point it all gets a bit speculative but, conscious decision may be able to override the blind forces of evolution and take direct control over the "raw ingredients" fashioning them directly for the sustenance of consciousness. Of course this could all get very messy with vestigial leftovers from our evolutionary past, but...

From the periodic table and immutable physical laws alone then, we could predict this sort of thing that we might be -- and maybe the Christian mind is content that this is what God wanted -- something like us, if not exactly us.

So, in essence, you are saying that while humans aren't a necessary goal, an intelligent "self aware" species was an inevitable product of evolution? While that seems like an interesting way to give God a "broader target" for his creation, it is still a target nonetheless. Does evolutionary science actually support the idea that the type of life you speak of is inevitable? If so, please provide some supporting evidence for that. If not, your proposed argument is nothing more than a version of creationism where God guides evolution in "hidden and mysterious ways" that are unknown to scientific inquiry. It's an interesting concept, but not something that would be consistent with the theory of evolution.

Additionally, even if looked at as metaphor, is there anything in the Bible that even hints at the idea that God didn't intend on creating humans?

But if this is the case then I think we must be prepared to accept that we may not be the final product. This process might already have been running long enough to evolve a more fitting species elsewhere! Or indeed humanity might yet have some evolving to do, or may come to stand aside due to some cataclysm that propels a different species into this exalted position. This highlights a grave difficulty that I always have with the certainties of those bringing forth such religious arguments, many other scenarios seem possible which destroy all the certainties.

And again, barring the concept of a new spiritual existence after death, which would be irrelevant to the matter at hand in my opinion, is there anything in the Bible that even hints at the idea that Human beings weren't meant to be a final product of God's creation? And remember, the point of this thread is to reconcile Christianity with evolution; I am well aware that some of the issues I raised wouldn't be a problem at all for some other religions or for Deists etc.

[QED]

I wonder if I have the answer...

Interesting and well written response, but I don't think it solved the problem.

I take it you mean the Problem for the Christian view (i.e. man created in God's image)?

From the periodic table and immutable physical laws alone then, we could predict this sort of thing that we might be -- and maybe the Christian mind is content that this is what God wanted -- something like us, if not exactly us.

So, in essence, you are saying that while humans aren't a necessary goal, an intelligent "self aware" species was an inevitable product of evolution? While that seems like an interesting way to give God a "broader target" for his creation, it is still a target nonetheless. Does evolutionary science actually support the idea that the type of life you speak of is inevitable? If so, please provide some supporting evidence for that. If not, your proposed argument is nothing more than a version of creationism where God guides evolution in "hidden and mysterious ways" that are unknown to scientific inquiry. It's an interesting concept, but not something that would be consistent with the theory of evolution.

Well, bigger jaws with sharper teeth are consistent with the theory of evolution (even though they may well teeter on the brink of sustainability) and I don't think we would we see them as mysterious at all. Why should we treat intelligent, conscious awareness any differently?

The terms are all pretty vague but I think it's currently reasonable to conclude that the property of conscious self-awareness is not unique among humans. We could debate that premise elsewhere if you are unhappy with. This would suggest to me that, as an evolved property, it confers a ubiquitous selection advantage that is readily accessible and practical to organisms. The theory of evolution allows organisms to capitalize on any natural phenomena so long as the benefits outweigh the costs and there is an accessible route for natural selection to make the discovery. No doubt high-explosives and over-the-horizon RADAR would be beneficial to organisms but these solutions clearly fail on both counts. I personally see intelligence as an accessible and practically evolvable property.

Additionally, even if looked at as metaphor, is there anything in the Bible that even hints at the idea that God didn't intend on creating humans?

Heck, I'd be amazed if there wasn't! I have a standard 52 card Tarot deck that amazes people with "the things it can tell them" despite its brevity.

This highlights a grave difficulty that I always have with the certainties of those bringing forth such religious arguments, many other scenarios seem possible which destroy all the certainties.

And again, barring the concept of a new spiritual existence after death, which would be irrelevant to the matter at hand in my opinion, is there anything in the Bible that even hints at the idea that Human beings weren't meant to be a final product of God's creation? And remember, the point of this thread is to reconcile Christianity with evolution; I am well aware that some of the issues I raised wouldn't be a problem at all for some other religions or for Deists etc.

Well, it's always very slippery. For example Christians often talk about man being made in God's image or likeness. I suspect an awful lot of people (but not so many reading here) think this literally means that God has a 3-D form similar to our own with Bilateral Symmetry (pairs of hands, arms, legs, eyes, ears etc.). I would class this as an obvious nonsense as our form is intimately tied to our particular environment. Everything from our stance to our dental arrangement is tied to the sort of territory and type of foods we consume. Even if God has such powers as to be unconstrained by any environment, we do not. This would mean that God's form came about as an anticipation of his eventual creation of Earth-like planets and the sort of living forms that would be practical upon them.

But the words "image" and "likeness" are imprecise (just like the Tarot readings) so they supply sufficient ambiguity to let them pass. This, I suspect, is why the Old Testament is subject to depreciation as it presents too many literal nonsenses (e.g. Moses looking at God's back). So long as the Christian sticks to the most general of definitions like these it's difficult to find a standout inconsistency in what they say. That's one reason why they've been saying this stuff for so long. There may or may not be other reasons.

[George00]

I take it you mean the Problem for the Christian view (i.e. man created in God's image)?

My point wasn't that humans needed to be creating in God's image for evolution to be consistent with the bible. The problem I see has to do with intentionality in the creation process.

Well, bigger jaws with sharper teeth are consistent with the theory of evolution (even though they may well teeter on the brink of sustainability) and I don't think we would we see them as mysterious at all. Why should we treat intelligent, conscious awareness any differently?

The terms are all pretty vague but I think it's currently reasonable to conclude that the property of conscious self-awareness is not unique among humans. We could debate that premise elsewhere if you are unhappy with. This would suggest to me that, as an evolved property, it confers a ubiquitous selection advantage that is readily accessible and practical to organisms. The theory of evolution allows organisms to capitalize on any natural phenomena so long as the benefits outweigh the costs and there is an accessible route for natural selection to make the discovery. No doubt high-explosives and over-the-horizon RADAR would be beneficial to organisms but these solutions clearly fail on both counts. I personally see intelligence as an accessible and practically evolvable property.

For the sake of argument, I will accept your premise that "the property of conscious self-awareness is not unique among humans." I dont think your premise changes the point I am making. It's not that evolution can't explain intelligence or consciousness etc. The problem is that the theory of evolution, as I understand it, doesn't require any of the species on this planet to evolve to the point where they have the type of intelligence humans or other species have. Conscious self-awareness, even if it is a property of numerous species on our planet and provides a selection advantage, wasnt a necessary target or goal of the evolutionary process.

Therefore, if you fully accept the theory of evolution as a Christian, you are saying that God created evolution but didnt know for sure that the property of conscious self-awareness would arise in life. This seems to be in direct contradiction with the Bible, even if looked at metaphorically.

Some theistic evolutionists try to get around this problem by saying that God actually guided evolution (often a front loaded scenario) but that he works in mysterious ways that are undetectable by science. It seems to me that this view isn't much different than what many intelligent design proponents (that often get labeled "creationist") accept.

Heck, I'd be amazed if there wasn't! I have a standard 52 card Tarot deck that amazes people with "the things it can tell them" despite its brevity. This highlights a grave difficulty that I always have with the certainties of those bringing forth such religious arguments, many other scenarios seem possible which destroy all the certainties.

Even if what you say is true, I rarely see those who accept theistic evolution address the problem of intentionality that I am referring to in this post. If this type of evolution were compatible with the scripture, you would think they would spend more time quoting the relevant passages out of the bible.

[QED]

My point wasn't that humans needed to be creating in God's image for evolution to be consistent with the bible. The problem I see has to do with intentionality in the creation process.

While it does seem necessary to argue that evolution is undirected (as we can easily see from the logical working out of the principle) I have to allow that we can still consider the general selection criteria as some sort of attractor. I think we should also bear in mind the restrictions imposed by the physical properties of the elemental building blocks that things are evolving out of.

I think that there's a tendency for people to overestimate the role that natural selection plays in defining the forms of living things. Considerable constraints are imposed by the physical constants of nature such that the size and shape of everything from entire galaxies down to microbes are prescribed by something as simple as the relative strengths of the electric and gravitational forces.

For the sake of argument, I will accept your premise that "the property of conscious self-awareness is not unique among humans." I dont think your premise changes the point I am making. It's not that evolution can't explain intelligence or consciousness etc. The problem is that the theory of evolution, as I understand it, doesn't require any of the species on this planet to evolve to the point where they have the type of intelligence humans or other species have. Conscious self-awareness, even if it is a property of numerous species on our planet and provides a selection advantage, wasnt a necessary target or goal of the evolutionary process.

Obviously we're floundering for want of a better overall data-set, but the point I've been trying to make is that living things wherever they are, will be constrained by the physics that we know to be widespread. This is, in my mind, undoubtedly going to "shape" things to a degree.

We can play a little game imagining what artifacts might be common to Alien civilizations on distant worlds: Biological features may be highly varied as they are here on our own planet, although if we ignore the extreme ends of the distribution then there are only a few orders of magnitude in size differences among living organisms due to the constraints imposed by their host planet's size. I find it interesting to think about the similarities to be expected in the technological artifacts which would be based on a far more restricted range of "basics". Wheels, cogs, resistors and capacitors should be as widespread as rocks.

Therefore, if you fully accept the theory of evolution as a Christian, you are saying that God created evolution but didnt know for sure that the property of conscious self-awareness would arise in life. This seems to be in direct contradiction with the Bible, even if looked at metaphorically.

Well I'm not so sure that what we term "conscious self-awareness" is quite so easy to pin down as a "thing" that emerges at some point in the evolution of life. I've yet to understand how we can categorically identify it in one thing versus another. But without even going down this very difficult path I'm inclined to think that once the big symmetries split and we got the lightest elements and forces, the galaxies and hence our periodic table, were inevitable and from the heavier elements the immutable tendency of those particular structures that could persist to persist is something that anyone could, in principle, have forecasted would lead to forms of life capable of looking back on it all with a degree of understanding at some point before it all dissipated too much.

But there is a clear ambiguity even here, as nothing about our position at one point in this chain tells us if it was premeditated or not.

Some theistic evolutionists try to get around this problem by saying that God actually guided evolution (often a front loaded scenario) but that he works in mysterious ways that are undetectable by science. It seems to me that this view isn't much different than what many intelligent design proponents (that often get labeled "creationist") accept.

Well that's a total non-stater. All of human experience has shown that the mystery of anything "that works at all" is open to scientific investigation and hence eventual explanation. I'm not sure what you were saying about front-loaded scenarios though, I hope I've explained why I see this as an ambiguous possibility.

For me there are simply too many realistic possibilities that disambiguate our situation from one in which our existence is in some way premeditated. When so many other possibilities exist it looks like nothing more than an act of the utmost wishfulness to imagine that we were planned. This disambiguation necessarily takes into consideration the emergence of our own universe from some greater state-space as is consistent with Cosmology to-date.

Even if what you say is true, I rarely see those who accept theistic evolution address the problem of intentionality that I am referring to in this post. If this type of evolution were compatible with the scripture, you would think they would spend more time quoting the relevant passages out of the bible.

The bible has a simple premise that humans are the intentional children of God and not the bastards of some freak accident. This is a perfectly understandable thing to hope against, but given that it's so clearly true for so much else in the universe it just seems to go against common sense. But all sorts of things that were once "common sense" back in mythological days are now understood as being only fantasies that helped sooth restless minds. Clearly the world itself has no great concern for our sanity.