A difficulty of theistic evolution

[cazayoux]

Evolution teaches that every organism to ever live had parents (or one parent in the case of asexual species), with the first single celled organism being the ancestor of all living things and the only organism without parents.

Even the most atheistic evolutionists admit that they have no answer to how that first single-celled organism came into being. A cell is TOO complex for ‘chance’ to have kick-started it all.

The best the atheistic evolutionist can come up with is that life on this planet was seeded from an extra-terrestrial life. Okay … so what about that extra-terrestrial life. At some point we get as far back as the first ever cell.

This cell is animated, alive.
This animation comes from God.

If we can see that God is the only rational explanation for the creation of life at point of initial cellular life, but why would I see his creation of a human with a soul any differently?

You ask a chicken/egg question about the first human with a soul and what the biological parents are, yet you are unable to ask the same question of the first cell.

I’m glad you asked the question though, I enjoy the process.

michel

 

[Marocchino]

You ask a chicken/egg question about the first human with a soul and what the biological parents are, yet you are unable to ask the same question of the first cell.
I’m glad you asked the question though, I enjoy the process.

I do ask the same question about the first cell. I agree with you here:

A cell is TOO complex for ‘chance’ to have kick-started it all.

As a side note: mainstream scientists deride the intelligent design theory as unscientific. But, I ask, isn’t the assertion that evolution is left to chance just as philosophical as the notion that nature has been designed?

 

[VociMike]

As a side note: mainstream scientists deride the intelligent design theory as unscientific. But, I ask, isn’t the assertion that evolution is left to chance just as philosophical as the notion that nature has been designed?

The two only seem mutually exclusive. To the Christian God there is no such thing as chance or random, so there is no conflict. It is quite possible that God set the initial conditions of the universe to guarantee the precise number of hairs on your head. Or that he manipulates each “random” event in the universe to the same end.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That was the only term I could think of to express my idea. I do admit – it is not a very elegant term.

Okay, so let’s zoom in on this moment in theistic evolution when there was an ontological gap between the first humans and their parents. Did the parents’ souls only lack immortality, or did they also lack the faculties of rationality and free will, and the accompanying moral responsibility? In other words, did brutes give birth to humans?

**Try “superadded” instead - that’s much more elegant. **​

As to the question - it sounds a bit like asking what was “there” “before” creation: both AFAICS are questions about how one set of circumstances, changes to being an entirely different set of circumstances. The “stage” in between the two, that unites them, is the mystery.

**The body is not the soul - but it is ****teleologically related to it; & both (in man) are ordered to being united as a third thing, IOW, a human person: a metaphysical approach to the problem may be more promising… **

 

[Nita]

The problem that I see is with irrational and amoral pre-humans rearing rational humans.

This **was **also an issue I had. Not just the rearing, but the idea that God would have a human gestating inside an animal womb. (Either that, or the destruction of the animal soul at some point and replaced with a human soul). Somehow or another, it seemed so demeaning that I couldn’t conceive of God doing such a thing. And then, just within the last few days, this thought came to my mind: **God—almighty God—put himself inside a human womb. He allowed humans to rear Him. ** Suddenly, I felt ashamed - as tho’ I had been prideful. And, I was, and still am, overwhelmed at the humility of God.

I am still not an “evolutionist” - but one of my major “psychological” (so to speak) oppositions against it has gone up in vapor!

Nita

 

[ConallCernach]

Nita, that is a very good point, though I still prefer the term “Theistic evolutionist” over “evolutionist”. But I’m going to have to remember what you said. =D

Pax

 

[vz71]

Before I can address any difficulty, I would like the term narrowed down a bit.

What exactly is being said when one says ‘theistic evolution’

My high school religion teacher often defined it as God continuing the process of creating new creatures, but using the previous creations as templates.

I liked the definition, but it seems some do not use it.
So how about it…what exactly is ‘theistic evolution’?

 

[ConallCernach]

Before I can address any difficulty, I would like the term narrowed down a bit.

What exactly is being said when one says ‘theistic evolution’

My high school religion teacher often defined it as God continuing the process of creating new creatures, but using the previous creations as templates.

I liked the definition, but it seems some do not use it.
So how about it…what exactly is ‘theistic evolution’?

Theistic evolution is different from Creationism in the way that it believes that creation was a gradual process. It is different from Intelligent Design because it doesn’t directly state that God had to manually do everything to guide creation. That’s an easy thing to get muddled up over, because it seems to push God away, but it’s trying to be clear of the “God of the Gaps”. TE believes that God allowed for evolution to be a possible mechanism, able to construct our bodies, so that He could eventually create our immortal souls to be born into our bodies at their conception.

So it’s not like God needed a template, He just made it so that life could propagate to pass on life, and it could increase in complexity.

I like to think of it as being similar to God fastening us to the earth with gravity. He still wills it, but uses it as a tool to further His own end.

 

[Marocchino]

It is different from Intelligent Design because it doesn’t directly state that God had to manually do everything to guide creation.

I thought ID was simply the position that the fine tuning of the universe implies the existence of a fine tuner (God) – versus the materialist assertion that all is the product of chance.

When I mentioned ID I didn’t have the God-of-the-gaps theory in mind.

 

[vz71]

Theistic evolution is different from Creationism in the way that it believes that creation was a gradual process. It is different from Intelligent Design because it doesn’t directly state that God had to manually do everything to guide creation. That’s an easy thing to get muddled up over, because it seems to push God away, but it’s trying to be clear of the “God of the Gaps”. TE believes that God allowed for evolution to be a possible mechanism, able to construct our bodies, so that He could eventually create our immortal souls to be born into our bodies at their conception.

OK, so there are specific things necessary for a true human to be. Somewhere along the timeline, God put these things together, and the first humans are. Adam, Eve, etc…

I am still uncertain that I see a difficulty listed in the original post.

you must concede that at some point in the evolutionary process of human beings there were parents who did not experience an afterlife after death, who produced children who did experience an afterlife after death.

Can any Catholic who holds the theistic evolution position escape this difficulty?

Concession that there was a beginning to the human species is not a difficulty.

Perhaps I am not reading the original post as it was intended, but I simply am not seeing a problem.

 

[vz71]

I thought ID was simply the position that the fine tuning of the universe implies the existence of a fine tuner (God) – versus the materialist assertion that all is the product of chance.

When I mentioned ID I didn’t have the God-of-the-gaps theory in mind.

Wait just a second here.
The OP mentions specificly theistic evolution not ID.
There is a significant difference.

 

[Marocchino]

I am the OP and that ID post was a response to someone. You are right – this forum is about TE.

Somewhere along the timeline, God put these things together, and the first humans are. Adam, Eve, etc…

This is one difficulty – an original couple could not have been produced by an evolutionary process.

The other problem I see is with the ontological gap between the first creatures with a human soul to experience an afterlife and their parents, which had animal souls that ceased to exist at the moment of physical death.

Were these non-human parents also irrational, amoral, and unable to exercise free will? Or did they act just like humans but did not experience an afterlife?

 

[vz71]

This is one difficulty – an original couple could not have been produced by an evolutionary process.

Well I guess I could see that. After all, evolution has not shown a species to species change yet. Only changes within a species.

But we are not talking about evolution, we are talking about theistic evolution. Given the God in control of things, what is the difficulty?

I see no more difficulty in Adam and Eve coming from some other species then God being born of man.

 

[vz71]

Were these non-human parents also irrational, amoral, and unable to exercise free will? Or did they act just like humans but did not experience an afterlife?

We are made in God’s image. What is this image? The capacity to freely choose.

So what is a creature without the capacity of free choice?

 

[rossum]

Well I guess I could see that. After all, evolution has not shown a species to species change yet. Only changes within a species.

You have been misinformed here. Species to species change has been observed. Even Answers in Genesis recognise this. See their articles Brisk Biters and Fast Mouse Evolution. To quote from the second of these:It may surprise uninformed evolutionists, but rapid diversification is an implicit prediction of the biblical Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model. This is because the kinds on board the Ark had to diversify, even speciate, fairly quickly afterwards (dog kind into wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc.; another kind into horses, zebras, asses, and so forth—see Speedy Species Surprise). Therefore, the faster such ‘downhill rearrangements’ can be seen to take place, the more neatly it fits the biblical model.

rossum

 

[vz71]

You have been misinformed here. Species to species change has been observed.

Really?
What new species?
What species did it come from?
When?
Who observed it?
Is it verified by more then one source?

I read through the articles you provided, but they did not provide this information.

 

[rossum]

Really?

Yes.

What new species?

Culex molestus.

What species did it come from?

Culex pipiens

When?

Between 1900 and 1940.

Who observed it?

London tube workers.

Is it verified by more then one source?

Have you any idea how many millions of people travel and work on the London Underground every day? I myself have been bitten down there - probably by C. molestus.

I read through the articles you provided, but they did not provide this information.

What part of: About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London Underground (the ‘Tube’). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available, human beings. During WW2, they attacked Londoners seeking refuge from Hitler’s bombs. Their plaguing of maintenance workers may be the reason the underground variety has been dubbed molestus.

British scientists have now found that it is almost impossible to mate those in the Tube with the ones still living above ground, thus suggesting that they have become a new species (or almost so).
did you find difficult?

Typing “Culex molestus” into Google scholar (scholar.google.com/) gives me about 1,500 hits, the first one was from 1947: “Sex linkage and sex determination in a mosquito, Culex molestus” BM Gilchrist, JBS Haldane - Hereditas, 1947.

If you know so little about the subject, why are you so certain that you are right about it?

rossum

 

[vz71]

Between 1900 and 1940.

Not likely. The research you gave may indicate so, but the google search you indicated had links to the species going back to 1775.

London tube workers.

When did these workers become scientists with a specialization in mosquito’s?
Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Have you any idea how many millions of people travel and work on the London Underground every day? I myself have been bitten down there - probably by C. molestus.

Yet again, the research provided falls flat.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that these ‘millions of people’ that travel the underground have any expertise whatsoever in the field, know what it is that may have bitten them, or have captured the insect for study.
In fact, you state yourself that you do not know.

What part of:About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London Underground (the ‘Tube’). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available, human beings. During WW2, they attacked Londoners seeking refuge from Hitler’s bombs. Their plaguing of maintenance workers may be the reason the underground variety has been dubbed molestus. British scientists have now found that it is almost impossible to mate those in the Tube with the ones still living above ground, thus suggesting that they have become a new species (or almost so).did you find difficult?

Nothing. Except the lack of other credible research to back it.
And the agenda the site listed clearly indicated.
From the look of the page, I expect a bias. So I want extra sources. What do you find difficult about providing them?

Typing “Culex molestus” into Google scholar (scholar.google.com/) gives me about 1,500 hits, the first one was from 1947: “Sex linkage and sex determination in a mosquito, Culex molestus” BM Gilchrist, JBS Haldane - Hereditas, 1947.

Sure it does.
Where did you come up with the search term?
The article makes no mention of “Culex molestus”
Clearly you do have extra sources, so how about it?

If you know so little about the subject, why are you so certain that you are right about it?

rossum

I’m not. That is why I asked questions.
But it does not bode well for your argument that such an attitude is given upon merely questioning your findings.

So I still do not buy it. The researsch given shows a bias and cannot be trusted completely for this bias. Other pages that reference your new species indicate that it can still interbreed with the above ground variety of the species. Now I have always been taught that the point at which a species is defined is when it can no longer interbreed with the original species.
This criteria is not met.
You will need to find some other example to show species to species change.

Further, this is going way beyond the scope of the OP.
I was hoping to determine the difficulties the original poster has with theistic evolution, not discuss the finer points of mosquito breeding.

 

[rossum]

Not likely. The research you gave may indicate so, but the google search you indicated had links to the species going back to 1775.

The 1775 reference seems to be a scientific mistake. An Australian species was so named in 1775; if that stands then the London species will have to be renamed to something else. Thanks for that, I have learned something new that I did not know this morning.

When did these workers become scientists with a specialization in mosquito’s? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

I am not a mind reader, I can only answer the questions you ask, not the questions you meant to ask but did not post. If you want the names of the scientists who observed Culex molestus then I have already given two: B M Gilchrist and JBS Haldane. For others just look at the names of the authors of the articles that a Google scholar search returns.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that these ‘millions of people’ that travel the underground have any expertise whatsoever in the field, know what it is that may have bitten them, or have captured the insect for study.

Again I am not a mind reader, you did not specify that you required only scientists. There are many universities in London, most of which have Departments of Biology. Many of those scientists will travel on London Underground at some point. I myself have a science degree, though I am not a working scientist.

And the agenda the site listed clearly indicated.

I will agree that Answers in Genesis has an agenda. It is a strongly Christian, Young Earth Creationist site - the reference to Noah’s Flood in the quote I gave from them was a good indicator of where they are coming from. AiG is certainly not part of any atheistic scientific anti-Christian conspiracy.

So I want extra sources. What do you find difficult about providing them?

There are about 1,500 of them on Google Scholar, you can do your own googling. The post size limit here prevents me posting all those papers.

The article makes no mention of “Culex molestus” Clearly you do have extra sources, so how about it?

You appear not to understand Linnaean binomial nomenclature, the name Culex molestus is not given directly. Carl Wieland’s piece mentions Culex pipiens and then says: “the underground variety has been dubbed molestus”. Since a genus name is not given it can be assumed that the new “molestus” is in the same genus, Culex, and so will have the binomial name Culex molestus. (At least until the clash with the Australian species is resolved.)

The first part of a binomial name covers the Genus - a group of similar species. For example the horse, donkey and zebra are all similar and are all in the Genus Equus. However because all three are different species they have a different species name: caballus, asinus and zebra respectively. A more complete list for the Genus Equus is:

Equus asinus | Donkey
Equus africanus | African Wild *** (A-s-s)
Equus caballus | Domestic Horse
Equus ferus | Wild Horse
Equus grevyi | Grevy’s Zebra
Equus hemionus | Onager
Equus kiang | Kiang
Equus quagga | Plains Zebra
Equus zebra | Mountain Zebra

My “extra source” was my background knowledge of biology. You need to learn more about biology if you are going to argue successfully in this area.

Now I have always been taught that the point at which a species is defined is when it can no longer interbreed with the original species. This criteria is not met.

Are horses and donkeys different species? They can interbreed to produce mules. Lions and Tigers can interbreed to produce Ligers and Tigons. The criterion is better phrased as “do not interbreed in the wild”.

You will need to find some other example to show species to species change.

Certainly, try Observed Instances of Speciation and More Observed Instances of Speciation.

rossum

 

[vz71]

You have been misinformed here. Species to species change has been observed.

Who observed it?

London tube workers.

When did these workers become scientists with a specialization in mosquito’s? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

I am not a mind reader, I can only answer the questions you ask, not the questions you meant to ask but did not post.

Nope. You now have a difficult task.
You see, you laid claim that the London tube workers observed a new species come about. They cannot have observed this without expertise in the field to determine the new species.

Two things remain. This is off-topic, and you are contradicting yourself.
Now if you have nothing more to provide towards theistic evolution, perhaps you should start your own thread.
As for myself, I’ll respond to the topic at hand.