Difference between "atheistic evolution" and "christian evolution?"

[Hubriss]

I asked this in another post, but I think it deserves a new thread.

What are the specific differences between “atheistic evolution” and “Christian evolutioin?” I think one would be Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. That there is no guiding design, that there are random changes to DNA, and that the species unfit for their environment just die off. And so what are some other main differences? Do Christians provide any alternative explanations for how change is introduced in generations? And is there any actual evidense for rejecting Darwinian Evolution other than the reason that it is just incompatable with the faith?

Thanks.

 

[Della]

Darwin (and others since him) have never produced any “evidence” of evolution. They’ve only produced a theory (or theories) they believe fits what they’ve seen in nature. Now, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have some things right, but it also doesn’t mean that they’ve hit the nail on the head, either.

The idea that humanity arose, body and soul, strictly from natural means is what is completely incompatible with the faith. Nor does evolution have satisfactory answers for the complexity of the human mind and spirit–why we are more different from the rest of the natural world that we are alike.

I cannot speak for the Church, but as for myself, I believe that God created the matter which he formed into DNA and other such things, that make us who and what we are. This process may have taken billions of years or not, but God was at the back of it and continues to create as he sees fit. I cannot believe that complex structures that are so dependent on one another just fell into place at random. It makes no sense, nor is there any real evidence for it.

 

[Hubriss]

So, it’s just what you and the Church thinks? Evolution has tons of evidense supporting it, we can even observe it happening. Also, evolution does not deal with the soul, it is not a necessary part. We are more similar to the natural world than most people think. So no evidense? Just that it’s incompatable?

 

[Mersenne]

There is more evidence for evolution probably then any other single idea in science. Not only, as you said, does it elegently fit all available evidence, which is part of what makes a scientific idea a good one, but it’s been good at predicting future discoveries as well. For example, common decent predicts a so called ‘tree of life’ which we see confirmed from a variety a angles; morphological (appearence and structure of animals), biochemical, genetic, geographic; all which indicate the same tree of life. For example, almost all the marsupials are limited to Australia.

We have also found transition fossils, and animals also sometimes have vestigial characteristics, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight. Also atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism’s immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms’ evolutionary histories.

The list goes on and on, and all of this data is confirmed acrossed many different fields of science.

 

[Nullasalus]

‘Theistic evolution’ is the general term for it, not christian evolution.

And while biological evolution has certainly been demonstrated, ‘how’ many things evolved is still an open question, not to mention how the starting point of evolution came into being (abiogenesis, etc, which is not specifically a question of evolution itself.)

 

[PhilVaz]

I don’t know why Christians or Catholics feel they must insist there is no evidence. Even the Church says the evidence is strong (statements quoted in the past from International Theological Commission, JPII, Benedict, Schonborn, etc)

Evidence for Macroevolution (long version)
Evidence for Macroevolution (short version)

Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (no relation)
Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk

These give you all the evidence you need, and more.

There is no difference in the science between atheists and Christians in my opinion. The scientific method is methodological naturalism which works by seeking natural causes, and has been defined by Keith Miller this way:

“Methodological naturalism is simply a recognition that scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause and effect and confines itself to the investigation of natural entities and forces. Science does not ‘assume away’ a creator – it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Methodological naturalism places boundaries around what science can and cannot say, or what explanations or descriptions can be accepted as part of the scientific enterprise. Science is self-limiting, and that is its strength and power as a methodology. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the nature of reality, while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of science.” (Keith Miller, Evangelical geologist from Kansas State, in “Design and Purpose Within an Evolving Creation,” page 112-113, from Darwinism Defeated?)

There is no problem with saying God is behind all of life and can work miracles. But such aren’t detectable or testable by science.

Michael Behe himself (Intelligent Design guy) has said there is no problem with a Catholic accepting natural selection (see Uncommon Dissent edited by Dembski, chapter by Behe), he also has no problems theologically with evolution (see Darwin’s Nemesis edited by Dembski, chapter by Behe).

“The point I’m trying to drive home here by discussing my own work as well as the work of [Kenneth] Miller and [John] Haught, is that a very wide range of views about the mechanism of evolution is consistent with Catholic teaching, from the natural selection defended by Miller, to the intelligent design I have proposed, to the animated, information-suffused universe that John Haught sees. Those mechanisms are all proposed by persons who attach the same bottom-line philosophy to their ideas that Pope John Paul described: that ‘it is the God of Israel who acts’ and that ‘it is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Indeed, the range of possibilities that are available under a Catholic viewpoint is much wider than under a materialistic viewpoint.” (Michael Behe, from “A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism” in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing edited by William Dembski [2004], page 143-144)

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Della << Darwin (and others since him) have never produced any “evidence” of evolution. They’ve only produced a theory (or theories) they believe fits what they’ve seen in nature. >>

BTW, it is impossible to get a theory without strong evidence. A theory explains the facts and evidence.

“In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a ‘guess’ or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested.” (from Wikipedia and PhilVaz vs. Sungenis page)

A common misconception about theory in science cleared up. You’re welcome.

Phil P

 

[Rolltide]

Well, Christian Evolution, or Theistic Evolution, as it’s often called, is basically evolution with God in the picture. From what I understand, you still need to accept certain preconditions (and there may be more than these, this is just what I remember). One, God created the original spark of life. It was not the result of some random natural act. Two, although evolution could involve some form of natural selection, this occurs in the same way in which God can be omnipotent and yet give us free will. In other words, they may have indeed evolved, but this was part of God’s original plan and he knew what the ultimate result would be. (See my elaboration on this below.) Note that this is NOT the same as the Intelligent Design theory, in which the belief is that certain structures are so complex that they could only have been “designed” by a creator and they could not have evolved. Three, we must believe that the first humans were an actual pair called Adam and Eve. This does not preclude the possibility that there may have been hominids before this pair, but it does mean that this pair was the first to be endowed with immortal souls in the same way that all humans are. They would be the first creatures to have free will, as opposed to running on instinct.

Ok… now to elaborate on point two. How can God know everything in the universe, and yet give us free will? If he knows all that will happen, then he knows are actions. Isn’t that predestination? Well… no. Imagine you’re watching the ESPN season highlight show just after the Super Bowl. You see clips of every great play that occured in every game during the season, and of course, you know all the winners. Does that preclude the fact that the players had the free will to play the game any way they wanted at the time? No. Likewise, Theistic Evolution works in a similar way. Creatures are free to evolve, but God knew that they would evolve, and had that in mind as the way they would be created from the very moment of creation of the universe. Creatures could evolve from natural selection and still be perfectly part of God’s overall plan for the universe.

Several things to remember about Theistic Evolution. God CANNOT be taken out of the equation. He created life on Earth, and he knew from the very moment of creation the path that it would take. Also, this theory is different than Intelligent Design. Now, on this point I’m not certain, but I seem to remember seeing somewhere that either a high church official or the pope had a definite preference for Theistic Evolution over Intelligent Design (if one has to choose between the two theories), as it was better at incorportating modern scientific scholarship. And finally, Catholics are free to believe in either Theistic Evolution or Creationism at this point, as there has been no official pronoucement from the Vatican on how to interpret Genesis.

 

[PhilVaz]

Rolltide << but I seem to remember seeing somewhere that either a high church official or the pope had a definite preference for Theistic Evolution over Intelligent Design >>

Yes, that document is the International Theological Commission statement (see especially paragraphs 68-69) endorsed by Ratzinger in 2004. However, the Holy Father can be seen supporting both evolution and intelligent design depending how you interpret him. There is intelligent design lower-case (God is behind all of life), and Intelligent Design upper-case (the supposed “scientific” and political program of the Discovery Institute).

Intelligent Design and the Church: An Exchange is a short debate I had with someone at Dembski’s blog. It cites all the relevant material from the Pope and others, and I give the pro-ID guy the last word.

BTW, this supports intelligent design (lower case) and did so 100+ years before the Discovery Institute:

“The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason….” (cf. Romans 1:19-20; also Wisdom chapter 13). ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

Phil P

 

[Steadfast_love]

What are the specific differences between “atheistic evolution” and “Christian evolutioin?”

Atheist evolution scientificaly “proves” that there is no God. Int. Design scientificaly “proves” that there is a God. Both are wrong because evolution is not science nor can it make scientific claims. Evolution is only history, so it can only make historical claims to truth.

Science is science if and only if you can repeat experiments on it. But by definition history only happens once. History is not science. Pretending otherwise is nothing more than retrodiction.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[simbagizmo]

Evolution is still just theory, atheistic, christian or otherwise. Though thousands of the most brilliant minds try to disprove creationism, they continue to fall short. The whole goal of evolutionary theory is the removal of God. The danger in “christian” evolution is great. It has people who call themselves Christians saying to the rest of the world that the Bible, God’s Word, is false. It is stating that even though God says in Genesis 1 he created the world in 6 days, he really didn’t.

This effectively then has “Christians” throwing out Genesis 1. Then Adam fails to exist since God never really created man, he evolved with many other men. Then the “fall of man” never really happened. The Global flood was really a local flood. The animals in the Ark was not really all the animals. The Red Sea becomes the Reed Sea. Jesus was just a charismatic man with good ideas about living. Revelations is just a story about Nero. These things are out there. I have heard them all and others. I am sure most of you have heard them too.

For Christians to give up Genesis 1 account of creation, God’s Word, to man made theories, would in my opinion give up God.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

 

[PhilVaz]

simbag << Evolution is still just theory, atheistic, christian or otherwise >>

Stop saying that, stop saying that, stop saying that.

PhilVaz takes Simbag’s Bible, and hits him over the head with it, about 10 times.

simbag << For Christians to give up Genesis 1 account of creation, God’s Word, to man made theories, would in my opinion give up God. >>

PhilVaz picks up Simbag off the floor, takes his Bible again, and hits him over the head with it another 50 times.

Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict on Genesis

International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1. Faith and science: “…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” [Vatican II GS 36:1]
2. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
3. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin…

Phil P

 

[Rolltide]

Evolution is still just theory, atheistic, christian or otherwise. Though thousands of the most brilliant minds try to disprove creationism, they continue to fall short. The whole goal of evolutionary theory is the removal of God. The danger in “christian” evolution is great. It has people who call themselves Christians saying to the rest of the world that the Bible, God’s Word, is false. It is stating that even though God says in Genesis 1 he created the world in 6 days, he really didn’t.

This effectively then has “Christians” throwing out Genesis 1. Then Adam fails to exist since God never really created man, he evolved with many other men. Then the “fall of man” never really happened. The Global flood was really a local flood. The animals in the Ark was not really all the animals. The Red Sea becomes the Reed Sea. Jesus was just a charismatic man with good ideas about living. Revelations is just a story about Nero. These things are out there. I have heard them all and others. I am sure most of you have heard them too.

For Christians to give up Genesis 1 account of creation, God’s Word, to man made theories, would in my opinion give up God.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

First, you are mixing two theories now - evolution, and the origin of the universe. It is the Big Bang Theory (along with geological theory) that basically asserts that the universe is millions of years old. And that theory doesn’t rule out God either. After all, what caused the Big Bang? How could a universe be created out of nothing?

Second, the New Testament is full of parables. It was one of the preferred methods of teaching of Jesus. What makes us think that some of the stories of the Old Testament aren’t parables?

Third, why doesn’t God create man through evolution? He began creation. Maybe this was the method he chose to create man. The idea is not incompatible.

Four, beyond everything, the importance of the story of the flood is that even if God were to destroy all evil people on Earth, more would eventually arise because of free will. It is an important lesson for all mankind. Still, we are free to interpret that how we wish too. That is, after all, the role of the Catholic Church. Catholicism is far more than Sola Scriptura.

Five, Jesus must be acknowledged as the Son of God because this is an infallible teaching of the Church. This point has actually been defined.

Six, if you were to explain the Big Bang and evolution to someone 4000 years ago, how would you do it?

This way?
“In the beginning, God created the universe. He said, “Let there be a hydrogen in-rush explosion of epic proportions, causing all type of nuclear reactions and the creation of quarks, atoms, molecules. From this, the galaxies, nebula, and other structures of the universe will be born.” He said, “Let there be light”, and there were photonic particles to illuminate his creation… and it was good!”

OR… would it be written the way it is in the Bible to relate such a complex idea in a simplistic manner?

 

[PhilVaz]

simbag << It has people who call themselves Christians saying to the rest of the world that the Bible, God’s Word, is false. It is stating that even though God says in Genesis 1 he created the world in 6 days, he really didn’t. >>

Oh I’m not done with you yet. I’m gonna sic Cardinal Schonborn on you. Not sure if you’re Catholic, maybe not, but here is what a leading Cardinal in the Catholic Church says on your brand of “creationism” :

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.”

Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005

So what do you think the Cardinal means?

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

Darwin (and others since him) have never produced any “evidence” of evolution. They’ve only produced a theory (or theories) they believe fits what they’ve seen in nature. Now, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have some things right, but it also doesn’t mean that they’ve hit the nail on the head, either.

No evidence? Surely you are kidding?

The idea that humanity arose, body and soul, strictly from natural means is what is completely incompatible with the faith. Nor does evolution have satisfactory answers for the complexity of the human mind and spirit–why we are more different from the rest of the natural world that we are alike.

Science can’t explain the soul. Nor does it try to the best of my knowledge…

I cannot speak for the Church, but as for myself, I believe that God created the matter which he formed into DNA and other such things, that make us who and what we are. This process may have taken billions of years or not, but God was at the back of it and continues to create as he sees fit. I cannot believe that complex structures that are so dependent on one another just fell into place at random. It makes no sense, nor is there any real evidence for it.

Sounds like you accept theistic evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Evolution is still just theory, atheistic, christian or otherwise.

Please take just a brief moment to educate yourself as to what a scientific theory is.

Though thousands of the most brilliant minds try to disprove creationism, they continue to fall short.

Actually, creationism is very easily shown to be false. Why do you say otherwise?

The whole goal of evolutionary theory is the removal of God. The danger in “christian” evolution is great. It has people who call themselves Christians saying to the rest of the world that the Bible, God’s Word, is false. It is stating that even though God says in Genesis 1 he created the world in 6 days, he really didn’t.

Spoken as one who doesn’t have a clue about either science or theology.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Atheist evolution scientificaly “proves” that there is no God.

No, it doesn’t. “Athiestic” evolution, what ever that is, doesn’t deal with God at all.

Int. Design scientificaly “proves” that there is a God. Both are wrong because evolution is not science nor can it make scientific claims.

Intelligent design only proves that some people will go to any length to get creationism into the classroom.

Science is science if and only if you can repeat experiments on it. But by definition history only happens once. History is not science. Pretending otherwise is nothing more than retrodiction.

Not true at all.

Peace

Tim

 

[Nullasalus]

No, it doesn’t. “Athiestic” evolution, what ever that is, doesn’t deal with God at all.

But you have to admit, there are many atheists who use evolution as an argument against theism. Dawkins, etc.

Intelligent design only proves that some people will go to any length to get creationism into the classroom.

Let’s be fair here. I’m skeptical of ID as well, and there ARE ID creationists. But there are plenty - and I mean plenty - of people who subscribe to the general concept of ID and who believe evolution occured, while differing on specifics. Just as there are people who believe in evolution, but don’t believe in ‘nothing but gradualism’.

 

[ribozyme]

After all, what caused the Big Bang? How could a universe be created out of nothing?

Hmmm… perhaps the universe always existed. You should look up “cyclic model” on wikipedia for some background.

 

[Liberian]

Hubriss,

Scientifically speaking, there aren’t any differences. The differences are philosophical: atheistic evolution states that these changes happened (and happen) by themselves while Christian evolution teaches that God guides the changes as He sees fit.

If you will permit me a little math, there are about 20 different amino acids that are used in proteins. The number of different proteins that are 100 amino acid “units” long is 20 to the 100 power (which I will abbreviate 20^100), or about 10^130. The chance of creating a specific chain of amino acids 100 units long is therefore about one in 10^130. I do not know how many individual proteins can self-replicate but I doubt that the number is very big.

The mass of the known universe (from a quick Google search) is about 3 times 10^55 grams, which translates into the equivalent of 2 times 10^79 proton weights. The universe is about 14 billion years old, which translates roughly into 4 times 10^17 seconds old. If a process were to create a different protein at random once every nanosecond for every proton in the universe, it would still have created only about 8 times 10^105 different proteins–in other words, only about one in every 10^24 of the possibilities.

Even if there are literally billions of self-replicating proteins, there hasn’t been enough time and space in the lifetime of the universe for one to have come together by itself. That is my first reason for rejecting atheistic evolution: it is hopelessly unlikely.

• Liberian