The Problem of Evolution

[mike182d]

I am assuming for the present moment that evolution is true. Here are the following theological issues that ensue:

Does evolution stop? If not, it stands to reason that human beings, as the species *homo sapiens, *will evolve into another species after several million (or billion) years. I don’t believe any evolutionist would claim that a species has lived forever as the presence of such a creature would be contrary to the evolutionary model.

Do members of this new, evolved species, seperate from human beings, have souls? Are they bound by the Law of God and the New Covenant? If so, when the unalterable Word of God speaks of “mankind” is this now to be altered to refer not just to human beings but this new species as well? Will the Lord’s incarnation into a now defunct species still be valid for this new species? Will the Lord have to become incarnate again as this new species in order to justify them and save them? If so, does the image of the Trinity adjust to reflect the image of Jesus Christ as Himself having two natures - man and the new species?

This is all conjecture mind you, but its a legitimate hypothetical situation to ponder if the theory of evolution holds true.

The logical consequences of evolution are not solely concerned with explaining the past but also affect the future. I’m curious as to what some of you theologians think…

 

[JimG]

If I recall, it seems the position of most of the Church’s theolgians who accepted evolution was this: Evolution may have accounted for the ultimate form of the human body. The human soul, however, does not evolve. So, at that point when God created the human species by giving them souls, human evolution stopped, and humanity will not evolve further.

However, it could be suggested that, even if the human body should evolve further, our souls would remain the same, and hence, we would not be an entirely new species in any case.

 

[mike182d]

JimG:

If I recall, it seems the position of most of the Church’s theolgians who accepted evolution was this: Evolution may have accounted for the ultimate form of the human body. The human soul, however, does not evolve. So, at that point when God created the human species by giving them souls, human evolution stopped, and humanity will not evolve further.

However, it could be suggested that, even if the human body should evolve further, our souls would remain the same, and hence, we would not be an entirely new species in any case.

Interesting, but this would seem contrary to the Theology of the Body. Our souls are not seperate from our bodies; our person is in fact a body-soul, so to speak. If the body is no longer that of a man (human) then it would seem that the soul cannot be the same.

 

[mike182d]

JimG:

If I recall, it seems the position of most of the Church’s theolgians who accepted evolution was this: Evolution may have accounted for the ultimate form of the human body. The human soul, however, does not evolve. So, at that point when God created the human species by giving them souls, human evolution stopped, and humanity will not evolve further.

Ah, another interesting point. If evolution can stop, who stops it? God? If evolution is a process controlled by the hand of God, how is that any different than what is being proposed by Intelligent Design Theory?

 

[JimG]

Well, I agree that human beings are a unity, not a duality. A human person is a body-soul composite. Nevertheless, it is true that the soul is non-material and each human soul must be created by God.

So when we speak of evolution as it relates to the human species, from a theological point of view, no matter how our bodies came to be, we are not “human” until we have a soul.

I personally believe that evolution of the human body , if it occurred, has stopped.
But even if bodily evolution continued, how much change would one expect before we could call it a new species? The fact that we do have immaterial souls makes us different in kind from every other species.

The other thing is, that humanity could have reached the point where it could in theory control its own evolution as well as the evolution of other species. A species that has intelligence and free will is not quite so subject to random change as a non-intelligent species.

I have to confess that I am not familiar with Intelligent Design theory as it is currently proposed. What I have heard makes it seem to be only an extension of Aquinas’ Argument From Design, which is a philosophical, not a scientific, argument for the existence of God.

 

[mike182d]

JimG:

Well, I agree that human beings are a unity, not a duality. A human person is a body-soul composite. Nevertheless, it is true that the soul is non-material and each human soul must be created by God.

Agreed. However, the soul finds it expression in human faculties and this, in turn, affects the state of the soul. Its like a TV and the video feed running through the cable. There are many different types of standard televisions, all of which can accurately display the data contained in the “immaterial” video feed. However, if I were to use a different type of television altogether, like a widescreen TV and try to connect the same cable, the image will appear distorted - stretched out and elongated. If the human species evolved into a different species and if the soul was the same, its expressions would not be. It would seem that if there is going to exist another species with an eternal soul, the soul itself would need to be different in form in order to have its fullest expression in the capabilities of this new species.

So when we speak of evolution as it relates to the human species, from a theological point of view, no matter how our bodies came to be, we are not “human” until we have a soul.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, anything animate possesses a soul, by definition. Of course, he was working off an Aristotalian model, but what makes human beings different from animals is not the fact that we have a soul per se but rather that our soul is substantially different in form and its faculties.

I personally believe that evolution of the human body , if it occurred, has stopped.
But even if bodily evolution continued, how much change would one expect before we could call it a new species? The fact that we do have immaterial souls makes us different in kind from every other species.

That’s a very good question. How much change is required of a species before it becomes another? When does micro-evolution translate into macro-evolution? I’m really not sure.

The other thing is, that humanity could have reached the point where it could in theory control its own evolution as well as the evolution of other species. A species that has intelligence and free will is not quite so subject to random change as a non-intelligent species.

This is an interesting postulation. I would imagine, though, that in order for the theory of evolution to hold true, that it cannot be a controlled process. Such control by intelligent beings is no longer a random process but a product of design - intelligent design, as it were.

I have to confess that I am not familiar with Intelligent Design theory as it is currently proposed. What I have heard makes it seem to be only an extension of Aquinas’ Argument From Design, which is a philosophical, not a scientific, argument for the existence of God.

It is my opinion that evolution is more philosophy than science too, but if evolution is to be a legitimate scientific theory it must necessarily be falsifiable - it must be theoretically possible for the theory to be false. Evolution posits the creation of various species as a product of randomness and “natural” processes. Ergo, the only manner in which such a theory could be disproven is if the processes that controlled the creation and speciation were not random or natural, but intentionally guided by an “intelligent” mechanism. This is what Intelligent Design attempts to do. The theory demonstrates by way of the irreducible complexity of organisms that their existence and development cannot be explained by mere random chance.

 

[SamCA]

mike182d:

This is an interesting postulation. I would imagine, though, that in order for the theory of evolution to hold true, that it cannot be a controlled process. Such control by intelligent beings is no longer a random process but a product of design - intelligent design, as it were.

Evolution does not require a lack of intelligence. Evolution refers simply to the change in species over time. Most specific theories of how evolution occured do not include any intelligent design or guidance, but such is not inherent to the idea of evolution; the process described in Intelligent Design theory is still evolution.

Further, there is a distinction to be made between external and internal intelligence. It is one thing to suggest that the whole process has been governed or guided by an outside intellect; it is something else to suggest that a species which has evolved naturally might achieve the intellectual capacity necessary to begin altering itself at the species level. The latter could be seen as simply a new survival characteristic manifesting itself – the ability to vastly increase the speed of evolutionary adaptability through intentional technological modification of the species.

And whether it is technically defined as evolution or not, the idea of humans altering their own species and creating new species of post-humans is one that, I would think, is quite pertinent to your question. Especially because it speeds up the timeline considerably. There’s more than a few scientists who strongly suspect that, thanks to the ever-accelerating advances in genetic and cybernetic technology, we may see new post-human species arise perhaps as soon as the next century.

Would a genetically engineered race of beings that, say, has as much genetic difference from homo sapiens as homo sapiens has from chimpanzees, but which retains all our basic intelligence, self-awareness, and so forth (in fact, in all likelihood such a species would be engineered to be quite a bit smarter than baseline humanity) still qualify as people in the eyes of your religion?

What of machine-human integration? It’s already progressed to such an astonishing degree that there are quadrapalegics who can control robotic limbs and household appliances by thought. They’ve also successfully replaced parts of the brains of the brains of living creatures with microchips capable of performing the same function; they hope to be able to help people with severe memory disorders soon by replacing the faulty parts of their brain with computerized prosthetics. Suppose we one day find ourselves with a group of people who were once human, but whose entire bodies, including their brains, have been entirely replaced with machinery. Are they still people?

 

[johnshelby]

doesn’t evolution depend on the ‘need to evolve’?

just as a blind person’s other senses are heightened,
isn’t that a minimal type of evolution?? but, the soul
doesn’t change…

i realize that you are speaking of a ‘new species’…
but, what kind of ‘need’ would be required for that to
happen??

this is all a little to … deep… for me anyway… lol

 

[mike182d]

johnshelby:

doesn’t evolution depend on the ‘need to evolve’?

just as a blind person’s other senses are heightened,
isn’t that a minimal type of evolution?? but, the soul
doesn’t change…

i realize that you are speaking of a ‘new species’…
but, what kind of ‘need’ would be required for that to
happen??

this is all a little to … deep… for me anyway… lol

Well, evolution is aparently a factual, data-based science. They should be able to guage a current rate of evolution and provide us with some predictions of the future, no?

 

[johnshelby]

it’s a science… but, the ability to study and observe, is
sorely limited, due to the length of time it takes to make
any truly appreciable change, and the short time it has
been studied…

we can see fish, for example, whose eyes have become
vestigial due to the fact they have lived in caves for generation
after generation… but… they are still the same species of
fish… just changed… how long would a species change
take…

and, since i believe God guides all evolution, i guess i
believe we have probably hit a ‘glass ceiling’ as far as our
own ‘evolution’ is concerned… we are, afterall, in God’s
image…

 

[buffalo]

mike182d:

Well, evolution is aparently a factual, data-based science. They should be able to guage a current rate of evolution and provide us with some predictions of the future, no?

and duplicate events of the past

 

[johnshelby]

well, sometimes, it seems to me like evolution
requires more faith than creationism… lol

 

[buffalo]

johnshelby:

well, sometimes, it seems to me like evolution
requires more faith than creationism… lol

It is the faith of atheists. And we are disparaged for our Faith. :tsktsk:

 

[SamCA]

johnshelby:

we can see fish, for example, whose eyes have become
vestigial due to the fact they have lived in caves for generation
after generation… but… they are still the same species of
fish… just changed… how long would a species change
take…

Keep in mind that the process is faster in creatures with much shorter life cycles; speciation through evolution has actually been observed in several species of plants, microbes, and the like.

(That is, we’re not just talking changes within a species, but new strains which are actually incapable of breeding with the parent strain.)

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

It is the faith of atheists. And we are disparaged for our Faith. :tsktsk:

So, you consider me an athiest? Are you holier than me because you don’t accept evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

So, you consider me an athiest? Are you holier than me because you don’t accept evolution?

Peace

Tim

I can’t remember if you declared your support for Darwinian evolution or not? But in any case, I am not going to bite. You know the dogmas, you know what you believe, you reconcile it and decide yourself.

By me stating it is the faith of atheists means that atheists have faith in Darwinism. It is the main presupposition behind Darwinism - there is no God.

 

[johnshelby]

i believe life forms change… evolve…

i believe God created all …

i believe anyone who thinks life on this planet
was an accident is deluding themselves…

by the same token…

i believe anyone who thinks they understand the way
God created anything at all, is deluding themselves…

 

[SamCA]

I would be interested in hearing any further thoughts on the whole question of post-human species. Whether evolution occured with or without intelligent guidance up to now, it will almost certainly be guided by intelligences in the future – our own. And from that point on, it’s pretty likely that you’ll see new species of intelligent beings arise.

I’d be interested in hearing a Christian response to that.

 

[mike182d]

SamCA:

Evolution does not require a lack of intelligence. Evolution refers simply to the change in species over time. Most specific theories of how evolution occured do not include any intelligent design or guidance, but such is not inherent to the idea of evolution; the process described in Intelligent Design theory is still evolution.

But, evolution is not synonymous with the word “change.” No one in the history of the world ever argued that things don’t change. But they have argued, and quite fiercely today, that things don’t evolve. The reason being is that in evolution the cause of the change is attributed to nature. If God were to alter a species at the sub-atomic level to bring about another species, it would not be what is commonly referred to as “evolution” anymore than a man building an '05 Mustang out of the parts of a '64 Mustang would be “evolution.” Granted, one could describe this process as the “evolution of the Mustang” but such a characterization is intended to be metaphorical and not a specific description of what actually took place.

Further, there is a distinction to be made between external and internal intelligence. It is one thing to suggest that the whole process has been governed or guided by an outside intellect; it is something else to suggest that a species which has evolved naturally might achieve the intellectual capacity necessary to begin altering itself at the species level. The latter could be seen as simply a new survival characteristic manifesting itself – the ability to vastly increase the speed of evolutionary adaptability through intentional technological modification of the species.

The intelligence of parts of a system can only affect the system if it is built by an intelligence to begin with. For example, take two random things: a computer program that can generate a random number and the movement of an quantum particle. The quantum particle moves as such not becuase of any alleged intelligence guiding it, but rather its movement is purely random and no amount of intelligence on the part of the scientist could control it. With a computer program that spits out random numbers, intelligence *could *affect the outcome - ajustments could be made to the program - but that is only because the program itself is a product of intelligence.

If evolution is an “intelligent” process, it is necessarily follows that it is not “natural” nor “random.” Such a proposition is contrary to the current theory of evolution.

And whether it is technically defined as evolution or not, the idea of humans altering their own species and creating new species of post-humans is one that, I would think, is quite pertinent to your question. Especially because it speeds up the timeline considerably. There’s more than a few scientists who strongly suspect that, thanks to the ever-accelerating advances in genetic and cybernetic technology, we may see new post-human species arise perhaps as soon as the next century.

Would a genetically engineered race of beings that, say, has as much genetic difference from homo sapiens as homo sapiens has from chimpanzees, but which retains all our basic intelligence, self-awareness, and so forth (in fact, in all likelihood such a species would be engineered to be quite a bit smarter than baseline humanity) still qualify as people in the eyes of your religion?

What of machine-human integration? It’s already progressed to such an astonishing degree that there are quadrapalegics who can control robotic limbs and household appliances by thought. They’ve also successfully replaced parts of the brains of the brains of living creatures with microchips capable of performing the same function; they hope to be able to help people with severe memory disorders soon by replacing the faulty parts of their brain with computerized prosthetics. Suppose we one day find ourselves with a group of people who were once human, but whose entire bodies, including their brains, have been entirely replaced with machinery. Are they still people?

Great stuff! Once I get off work, I’ll probably spend the rest of the night dwelling on this thought experiment.

 

[johnshelby]

well, from my previous posts, i think it’s obvious i don’t believe
in accidental creation… there are way too many variables that
were met perfectly, for creation to have been an accident…

from the moon’s relationship to our home, to our being oxygen
breathing… from our ability to understand the innermost workings
of a star, billions of miles away, to our inability to understand the
very basic working of our own brains…

evolution is different tho…

so as to future evolution, i believe that life forms of all types will
continue to change, and adapt to changes in the world and
be adapted for various things by science…

as for creating new species… i’m not sure about that,
i’m not up to snuff on the newest stuff… but, i believe that
humans will be essentially the same, until the end of the
world… and undoubtedly for the foreseeable future…

but, i am willing to learn… lol