Question on Theistic Evolution

[Minimalist]

Evolution does not need your stupid, fucking, god, dripshit.

And neither do I.

[Brian37]

This is something I've been curious about for a while based on how some theists have described evolution in the past.

From Wikipedia:

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

Bolded mine. What does that mean exactly? Does natural selection still play a role in theistic evolution? Did God, according to theistic evolution, only cause life to emerge and then let the natural processes of evolution do their thing? Or does he continually do the selecting as opposed to nature?

"Theistic evolution" is an argument made by neutral or liberal theists who simply are not as stuck far back in time, but are still clinging to the past and looking to retrofit science to their old mythology. 

But please do not think Christians are the only to have liberals whom accept evolution but still cling to old mythology. There are people worldwide of every religion whom accept evolution, but don't want to give up on their traditions.

[Simon Moon]

This is something I've been curious about for a while based on how some theists have described evolution in the past.

From Wikipedia:

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

Bolded mine. What does that mean exactly? Does natural selection still play a role in theistic evolution? Did God, according to theistic evolution, only cause life to emerge and then let the natural processes of evolution do their thing? Or does he continually do the selecting as opposed to nature?

It's just a last ditch effort to keep their god on life support, in order to continue to believe he/she/it/they has some effect on the natural world.

Sorry theists, but there is just no need to insert a god in the evolutionary process. There is no missing piece that requires magic.

---

In essence God knowing how to manipulate nature for things to evolve into a finished or final product, god plants the first dna seed or God places two chemicals in the right condition at the right time, and protects and fosters growth much like you would in a green house or garden.

There are no 'finished or final products' in evolution. Every organism is on an evolutionary continuum.

Evolution does not lead to some pinnacle organism. There is no end goal. Only survival and reproductive success.

[Aliza]

This is something I've been curious about for a while based on how some theists have described evolution in the past.

From Wikipedia:

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

Bolded mine. What does that mean exactly? Does natural selection still play a role in theistic evolution? Did God, according to theistic evolution, only cause life to emerge and then let the natural processes of evolution do their thing? Or does he continually do the selecting as opposed to nature?

If someone wants to believe in their religion and also accept the current interpretations of where our best understanding of science is pointing us, then all they have to say is that evolution happened as G-d intended; randomly and with the only purpose being to continuously adapt to their environment. When a theist steps into a science environment, such a science classroom, they just turn off the religious component of their brains, and when they step out of that environment, they can sit back and marvel over how they see G-d's hand in it all.

No matter what the atheist or theist claims, there is no test to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the other side whether G-d does or doesn't exist. You cannot prove the theist wrong, and the thesit cannot prove you wrong. And since that's the case, focus on what can be demonstrated scientifically and mutually agreed upon, and agree to disagree on the rest.

[Simon Moon]

If someone wants to believe in their religion and also accept the current interpretations of where our best understanding of science is pointing us, then all they have to say is that evolution happened as G-d intended; randomly and with the only purpose being to continuously adapt to their environment. When a theist steps into a science environment, such a science classroom, they just turn off the religious component of their brains, and when they step out of that environment, they can sit back and marvel over how they see G-d's hand in it all.

Problem is, saying that evolution 'happened as G-d intended' has zero explanatory power. It adds nothing to human knowledge.

How is saying that evolution 'happened as G-d intended', any different than saying 'evolution happened as evolution causing pixies intended'?

Neither choice has any more evidence than the other. They both require something not in evidence. Natural explanations for evolution are entirely supported by evidence.

You are making a false equivalency here.

No matter what the atheist or theist claims, there is no test to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the other side whether G-d does or doesn't exist. You cannot prove the theist wrong, and the thesit cannot prove you wrong. And since that's the case, focus on what can be demonstrated scientifically and mutually agreed upon, and agree to disagree on the rest.

Wait a minute here...

You've been posting here for quite a while, and you still don't understand the atheist position? What gives?

Most atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. For most, the atheist position is that theists have met their burden of proof to support their claim that a god does exist. Until theists meet their burden of proof, I have no warrant to believe their claim.

I have zero burden of proof, to prove that your god does not exist. None.

I am just waiting for theists to prove they are right. Until then, my lack of belief is 100% justified.

---

[Aliza]

If someone wants to believe in their religion and also accept the current interpretations of where our best understanding of science is pointing us, then all they have to say is that evolution happened as G-d intended; randomly and with the only purpose being to continuously adapt to their environment. When a theist steps into a science environment, such a science classroom, they just turn off the religious component of their brains, and when they step out of that environment, they can sit back and marvel over how they see G-d's hand in it all.

Problem is, saying that evolution 'happened as G-d intended' has zero explanatory power. It adds nothing to human knowledge.

How is saying that evolution 'happened as G-d intended', any different than saying 'evolution happened as evolution causing pixies intended'?

Neither choice has any more evidence than the other. They both require something not in evidence. Natural explanations for evolution are entirely supported by evidence.

You are making a false equivalency here.

No matter what the atheist or theist claims, there is no test to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the other side whether G-d does or doesn't exist. You cannot prove the theist wrong, and the thesit cannot prove you wrong. And since that's the case, focus on what can be demonstrated scientifically and mutually agreed upon, and agree to disagree on the rest.

Wait a minute here...

You've been posting here for quite a while, and you still don't understand the atheist position? What gives?

Most atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. For most, the atheist position is that theists have met their burden of proof to support their claim that a god does exist. Until theists meet their burden of proof, I have no warrant to believe their claim.

I have zero burden of proof that your god does not exist. None.

I am just waiting for theists to prove they are right. Until then, my lack of belief is 100% justified.

---

Your lack of belief is 100% justified, but I also have zero burden of proof because I'm not asking you to change your position. It doesn't matter what anyone believes; those are just thoughts we have in our heads. They have no bearing on the world, and thinking G-d is or isn't real doesn't make it so. Regardless of how you think the world got here, the world is here, and we should deal with that first and foremost. How it got here is nowhere near as important as what we should do with it now that it is here.

And an atheist can claim to know something with absolute certainty, and that's fine. But that certainty doesn't transfer to me and to date, no atheist has been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that G-d doesn't exist.

And they shouldn't have to. I just don't think that should be the point.

[vulcanlogician]

In fairness to the theists, if their omnipotent God does in fact exist, there is nothing stopping him from letting evolution happen on its own, interfering occasionally to ensure the process reaches his intended outcome.

As Simon points out, this has zero explanatory power. And as Jor points out, we have a pretty good idea of how this process happened without divine intervention. Therefore, to us atheists, there is no need for us to speculate on any such intervention.

I don't really mind theists who try to reconcile their faith with evolution. "A step away from creationism is a step in the right direction." That's my opinion on things. There's a big difference between someone who imagines that God was making adjustments at certain points during the evolutionary process and someone who thinks Genesis should be taught in biology classrooms. The former can carry on a conversation with an evolutionary biologist without missing a beat. The latter... well, the latter cannot.

[GrandizerII]

Fair enough, I had an initial misunderstanding of what theistic evolution meant, in that I thought it wasn't an alternative to natural selection but rather God set the motion or flow of evolution into action (i.e., God triggered the emergence of life and the task of biodiversity was left up to nature). Still heaps better than standard creationism, as it doesn't reinterpret the evidence for evolution in light of stubborn literalist readings of the scriptures, so all good.

[brewer]

Just another crowbar and shim to prop up their collapsing house of cards. 



Doesn't theistic evolution make "original sin" another difficult concept?

[Simon Moon]

Problem is, saying that evolution 'happened as G-d intended' has zero explanatory power. It adds nothing to human knowledge.

How is saying that evolution 'happened as G-d intended', any different than saying 'evolution happened as evolution causing pixies intended'?

Neither choice has any more evidence than the other. They both require something not in evidence. Natural explanations for evolution are entirely supported by evidence.

You are making a false equivalency here.


Wait a minute here...

You've been posting here for quite a while, and you still don't understand the atheist position? What gives?

Most atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. For most, the atheist position is that theists have met their burden of proof to support their claim that a god does exist. Until theists meet their burden of proof, I have no warrant to believe their claim.

I have zero burden of proof that your god does not exist. None.

I am just waiting for theists to prove they are right. Until then, my lack of belief is 100% justified.

---

Your lack of belief is 100% justified, but I also have zero burden of proof because I'm not asking you to change your position.

Correct. If you are not trying to convince anyone, then you do not have a burden of proof.

But most theists here are trying to convince me that they are right.

You are a pleasant exception to most theists I encounter.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes; those are just thoughts we have in our heads. They have no bearing on the world, and thinking G-d is or isn't real doesn't make it so. Regardless of how you think the world got here, the world is here, and we should deal with that first and foremost. How it got here is nowhere near as important as what we should do with it now that it is here.

I do not agree.

What one believes does have bearing on the world. One's beliefs do not live in a vacuum, they inform one's actions.

The persecution of homosexuals is directly a result of beliefs that live in people's heads. Honor killings in the Muslim world, the Westboro Baptist church protesting at funerals, the Caste system in India, Christians that let their children die because they feel 'god' is going to heal them, etc, etc, etc, are all caused by thoughts in people's heads that they believe are true.

And an atheist can claim to know something with absolute certainty, and that's fine. But that certainty doesn't transfer to me and to date, no atheist has been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that G-d doesn't exist.

I never said that an atheist can't claim to know something with absolute certainty. I claim to know I exist.

But that certainty doesn't transfer to me and to date, no atheist has been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that G-d doesn't exist.

Again, you have that completely backwards. A rational person should not hold a belief until it is proven wrong, they should withhold belief until it is proven right (supported by evidence).

If one continues believes an existential claim, until it is proven wrong, this is a sign that that person does not care if their beliefs are true or not. They are ignoring the best tools humans have developed to tell if a claim is true, or likely true.