Can theists really reconcile evolution with their beliefs?

[robtex]

Can a theist really accept evoution as propsed by the science community? Or do they pick and choose the parts they accept and not recognize the rest: To start with:

The Soul. There are two theories proposed in theism that believes in a soul.

1) only man has a soul
2) other animals have souls
if,
1a) Only man has a soul, what did it evolve from what is it dna composure
2a) other animals have souls how is it different from man's or is it the same? what is its dna composure?

In the evoultionary model nothing exists that is living outside of the model and it would seem if the proposition of a soul were to be "fitted" into the model the above points would need to be reconciled.

Afterlife
1) place of bliss (body considered dead in biology) the notion of an afterlife is not acknowledge by evolutionary biology or genetics
2) reincarnation is at odds as biology proposes when the brain dies life ceases to exist for that person or animal. Decomposition is not seen as a rebirth in biolgy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/decomposition
http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/winter98/biology_consciousness.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4078859&dopt=Abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

Man is zenith of god's creation

1) Man not seen as an "end product of evolution in biology. He is seen as an evolved species from other species but not a species that can't evolve into something else and not the "end product" of evolution.


Random mutation vs divine intervention

1) genetic drift suggests a random process of species formation
2) random mutation is in definition a direct conflict to guided mutation which is the premise of theism. A personal God that created man and the animals. Something cannot be random and guided at the same time. If you believe God created you with a personal relationship in mind than you cannot also believe God created "randomly". The thoughts are mutually exclusive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/genetic_drift.html
http://www.randommutation.com/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/randommuts.shtml

Biology and genetics accpet the notion of DNA being the building blocks of living species. Within this notion is the notion that RNA becomes DNA and thus life is formed. This is called abiogensis. In evolutionary biology it is self-substaining and self operating with no proposed outside force. If you believe in God and feel he made living things what you are proposing is in direct conflict with RNA becomeing DNA as a self operating system
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
You really don't need to read the links to get the gist but I figure someone is going to ask me to show them where it says (fill in the blank) so I posted the links. But in summary I am proposing that no theist accpets evolution as it is proposed by biology or genetics but rather they pick and choose which parts fit into the belief paradigm.

general footnotes:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm

counter point footnote
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html

 

[linwood]

Can a theist really accept evoution as propsed by the science community? Or do they pick and choose the parts they accept and not recognize the rest:

I don`t think they can if truly understanding evolutionary theory.
I`m not sure I`d call it picking and choosing, it`s more a position of ignorance of evoutionary theory whether self induced or happenstance.

Nice premises to expound on in this post by the way.

The Soul. There are two theories proposed in theism that believes in a soul.

1) only man has a soul
2) other animals have souls
if,
1a) Only man has a soul, what did it evolve from what is it dna composure
2a) other animals have souls how is it different from man's or is it the same? what is its dna composure?

I think it would be a rare thing to find an evolutionist theist who denies an animalistic soul.
Thats just a guess but it seems to fit my experience.
Don`t expect too much interest in answering that last question about the physical composition of a soul.

Man is zenith of god's creation

1) Man not seen as an "end product of evolution in biology. He is seen as an evolved species from other species but not a species that can't evolve into something else and not the "end product" of evolution.

I could theistically rationalise this by simply stating that god is still tweaking humanity or that god allows changes to humanities make-up in order for them to survive in their environment.

The rest of your premises I would have a hard time rationalizing while maintaining even a semblance of intellectual integrity.

Very nice thread.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hmm... I think I may have misunderstood the thread, so I will happily adjust my answer if it is not being asked for.

I think that there are a number of theists that don't believe that existence came into being with the aid of any form of diety, and there are some (like me) that don't believe that there were such things as gods or spirits before existence came into being. (Or, I should say, such a thing as a diety or even an idea of a diety did not exist until those life forms evolving began to consider such a thing, which, depending on how one looks at it, could have simply been a biological side-effect of the brain's two halves starting to work together.)

 

[robtex]

Meggie in your understanding of what you call God is there specifically :

1) a soul
2) an afterlife
3) is man the zenith of creation
4) was the universe or the living things in it created by God

If the answer is yes to any of those I would propose that your belief system is actually at odds with theory of evolution as proposed by evolutionary biologists.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hmm... I believe in 1 and 2, in my own little way, so I guess I'm at odds.

Ah, well. I'd thought my belief system was fairly supportive of evolution. I was mistaken, I guess.

 

[robtex]

H

Ah, well. I'd thought my belief system was fairly supportive of evolution. I was mistaken, I guess.

Its a debate you can argue with me. I promise I will still think of you as a great friend.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hehee, thanks! You just brightened my day! *huge hugs*

I'll have to do some research, I think. I suppose that if the theory of evolutionary biologists says that I'm at odds with its own theory, though, I'm not sure if I'm able to argue with that. I'm still trying to pin down my own beliefs, let alone try to reconcile them in their context as compared to others', hehee!

 

[jeffrey]

Not to me. God created the laws of science. Allowed things to 'evolve'. Whether it was the big bang or something else, God was behind it. Things still evolve now, and always have, unlike how the bible states things happened.

 

[michel]

My beliefs, as i am sure you know by now, are 'odd' Rob.

I believe in reincarnation (the more I see, the more I read and learn, the more I believe in it). Basically, I 'see' God as being a form of energy, a massive 'Soul' (if that makes sense ).

We (humans here and now) are merely souls temporarily attached to our physical bodies for this one lifetime. We are here for a particular lessons /lessons. When we die, the soul returns to God, who, like a headmaster at school would, decides if we are fit for the next lesson, or have to do a re-take. This goes on, until we are God - like, and we are then reuinited with hiim, as 'part of the whole'.

Evolution doesn't comer into it. Evolution is merely the transformation of living cells, adapting, changing over time, to suit the environment, the world.

Souls that need a 'body' in which to incarnate can either be allocated one (or perhaps choose which body they will 'use') for that particular lifetime. I see absolutely no 'problems' between the two being concurrent. If you can, pose me a question.

 

[Popeyesays]

I have no trouble reconciling the two.
Evolution models a physical process. Evolution is - in my opinon - part of the natural law.
It does not preclude God having created the multiverses. God created all the building blocks that nature uses to obey its natural law. Neither evolution nor creation precludes the existence of the other.

Regards,
Scott

 

[robtex]

I have no trouble reconciling the two.
Evolution models a physical process. Evolution is - in my opinon - part of the natural law.
It does not preclude God having created the multiverses. God created all the building blocks that nature uses to obey its natural law. Neither evolution nor creation precludes the existence of the other.

Regards,
Scott

Evolutionary biology does not suggest that the process of evolution is co-dependant or a sister system to a system of divine intervtion. It is all inclusive in its postulation.

If you believe there is a soul, afterlife, that man is the zenith of evolution or that a higher power guides life on earth in a non-random manner you are at odds with evolution as it is proposed in biology and genetics.

 

[linwood]

But how does a theist who believes in either an afterlife or reincarnation reconcile this premise with their belief?

Afterlife
1) place of bliss (body considered dead in biology) the notion of an afterlife is not acknowledge by evolutionary biology or genetics
2) reincarnation is at odds as biology proposes when the brain dies life ceases to exist for that person or animal. Decomposition is not seen as a rebirth in biolgy.

Biology and more specifically neuroscience shows that what we call our "soul" is the various functions of the brain.
Love itself can be measured by the chemical properties of the brain.
When certain portions of the brain are damaged people often immediately change their beliefs, mannersim and personality.
Once the brain is dead these functions also cease.
How is this carried over into an afterlife or reincarnated form?

 

[jewscout]

i have thoughts on this which, in my mind, reconcile evolution w/ my belief in HaShem...

but i will say what i have always said, i don't talk about G-d in science class, why would i talk about Darwin in a D'var Torah?

 

[robtex]

i have thoughts on this which, in my mind, reconcile evolution w/ my belief in HaShem...

but i will say what i have always said, i don't talk about G-d in science class, why would i talk about Darwin in a D'var Torah?

Post your thoughts. It is not about talking about one in the other..it is about holding beliefs on the key issues in post # 1 and either being able to reconcile them or not being able to and recognizing that you do not accept evolution as proposed by biology. Many theists actually morph it into something that is reconcilable with their beliefs by either pick and choosing which parts they accept or, by not having a clear undestanding of key componets like "genetic drift" which is compeletly unreconciable with the notion of divine intervention.

 

[robtex]

Somebody address post 12 please......afterlife and evolution = contradictory belief.

 

[robtex]

Not to me. God created the laws of science. Allowed things to 'evolve'. Whether it was the big bang or something else, God was behind it. Things still evolve now, and always have, unlike how the bible states things happened.

Did he allow them to evolve randomly as proposed by evolutionary biologists? Or did he shape the evoutionary pattern which is in direct conflict the the notion of genetic drift?

Also if God created the laws of science wouldn't the implimation of a process be a "hands off" approach that is more consistant with deism than theism?

Is man the zenith of God's creation and if so do you realize you are rejection evolution which does not recognize man as such?

somwwhat off topic but still tangent is the notion of if the bible is incorrect with the theory of creationism prehaps it is just as wrong with the theory of the resurrection of christ which incidently is not possible in evolutionary theory.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no inherent contradiction between Deism and evolution, nor is there an issue with Process Theology or Panentheism/Transnaturalism.

 

[robtex]

There is no inherent contradiction between Deism and evolution, nor is there an issue with Process Theology or Panentheism/Transnaturalism.

I am thinking that is true. I was more looking at theistic inclinded belief systems as opposed to the ones you listed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am thinking that is true. I was more looking at theistic inclinded belief systems as opposed to the ones you listed.

In other words, you want to know if there's a contradiction in those cases where there is a contradiction. Interesting ...

 

[robtex]

In other words, you want to know if there's a contradiction in those cases where there is a contradiction. Interesting ...

Exactly. The contradiction exists on the 6 ideas presented. A person who is a theist either (a) has a way to reconcile the ones they subscribe too while at the same time acknowledging the validity of evolution or (b) does not and acknowledges they have created a hybrid of the two and do not accept evolution as it is proposed by biology and genetics.