creationism and human races (adam and eve question)

imported_guy

Hello, I was born a muslim, but i am pretty agnostic at best, and have a few questions about religion(s) and one of them is shared by all abrahmic religions and that is the origination of humans from Adam & Eve (or even noah/wife).

While i belive it is possible that humans originated from 2 original human beings which were created by a deity, i find it hard to comprehend that different races can originate from 2 humans with identical phenotype, i.e (we know 2 white pople cant have chineese babies, if their phenotypes were all identcal/white)

so without turning this into creationism vs athiesm thread, can someone just explain in simple terms how abrahamic religions/chirstianity explain this phenomenon.

Fanny Cradock

There is a massive thread on this already, but seems as this is coming from a slightly different angle it might provide some light. Let's see what happens! But please let's not turn this into yet another "creationism" thread.

Anyway, I would subscribe to the idea that Adam and Eve were either two people amongst a wider population, or are metophor to describe a wider population. In both cases I would think that the difference was a mater of being made, receiving or developing the "spiritual image of God". I admit, though, that the latter phrase is quite wishy-washy, and I'm sure it could be expanded upon.

See theistic evolution.

imported_guy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would subscribe to the idea that Adam and Eve were either two people amongst a wider population, or are metophor to describe a wider population.

ive skimmed through a bit of the wikipedia article and i see that this is supported by some christians like the roman catholics, but i had a debate about this with some evangelical fanatic from america who rejected this idea by saying something like "oh why would god want to change something slowly, he could have created the perfect form of humans from the start, and he did", and his arguments werent very constructive.

But yes, that certainly is a good point of view to put forward, but i want to know more so from point of view of a christian who explicitly believes in the biblical/abrhamic views of adam & eve and noah's family

wolfsbane

imported_guy wrote: »

Hello, I was born a muslim, but i am pretty agnostic at best, and have a few questions about religion(s) and one of them is shared by all abrahmic religions and that is the origination of humans from Adam & Eve (or even noah/wife).

While i belive it is possible that humans originated from 2 original human beings which were created by a deity, i find it hard to comprehend that different races can originate from 2 humans with identical phenotype, i.e (we know 2 white pople cant have chineese babies, if their phenotypes were all identcal/white)

so without turning this into creationism vs athiesm thread, can someone just explain in simple terms how abrahamic religions/chirstianity explain this phenomenon.

Hello, imported_guy. Good to have you with us.

The Bible assures us we are all from Adam and Eve, all of 'one blood'. After that our nearest common ancestors are Noah and his wife. So humankind had two bottlenecks; the origin, in Adam & Eve, and later Noah and the family on the ark. From the eight people on the ark, all humankind spread over the world.

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 7:23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

Genesis 8:18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

So how do we account for the different 'races'? No problem:
One race
http://creation.com/one-blood-chapter-4-one-race

Iwasfrozen

Surely Adam and Eve must have been Black, as we now know that all humans came from Africa ?

PDN

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Surely Adam and Eve must have been Black, as we now know that all humans came from Africa ?

While I have no problem if Adam & Eve were black, white or blue - I fail to see the logic of what you're saying.

Just because Africans are mainly black today it doesn't follow that the original ancestors of all races were also black.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

While I have no problem if Adam & Eve were black, white or blue - I fail to see the logic of what you're saying.

Just because Africans are mainly black today it doesn't follow that the original ancestors of all races were also black.

Indeed, but in a part of the world where the sun is far more intense then Ireland darker skin would probably be selected for over lighter skin much like how the indigenous people of Africa nowadays are predominantly dark skinned. That is of course if it confered an advantage in bringing an individual to a position where it could sucessfully procreate/replicate.

Fanny Cradock

imported_guy wrote: »

ive skimmed through a bit of the wikipedia article and i see that this is supported by some christians like the roman catholics, but i had a debate about this with some evangelical fanatic from america who rejected this idea by saying something like "oh why would god want to change something slowly, he could have created the perfect form of humans from the start, and he did", and his arguments werent very constructive.

But yes, that certainly is a good point of view to put forward, but i want to know more so from point of view of a christian who explicitly believes in the biblical/abrhamic views of adam & eve and noah's family

Yes, there are quite a few of the larger Christian denominations that woud accept this view. (Much to their credit the RCC is one such denomination.) Others denominations don't have an official opinion on the matter, and instead leave it to the individual to decide. And there exists denominations that actively oppose evolution and promote alternative theories like ID. I suspect that your American friend fell somewhere into the latter category.

If by "I want to know more so from point of view of a christian who explicitly believes in the biblical/abrhamic views of adam & eve and noah's family" you actually mean I want to hear for people who suscribe to a litteral reading of Genesis, then you should start at post one in the creationism thread and wourk your way through all 16,000+ posts. I hope that ges well for you! Alternatively, you could pop into the Resources sticky and follow the "creationism" links.

I've always wondered why people like Dawkins don't make some sort of unholy allience with theists who do believe in evolution. If I didn't know better I would suggest that it seems the focus on poo-pooing creationism, and by association theism in general, take persidence over getting evolution out there.

wolfsbane

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Surely Adam and Eve must have been Black, as we now know that all humans came from Africa ?

Not only does it not follow that originating in Africa means black (as PDN points out), it seems genetically neither black nor white can have been the original skin tone of mankind, as per the Punnett square in the section Skin color in the article I linked to.

Nor do we now know that all humans came from Africa. It is one current theory.

Biblically we know that Eden was located somewhere near the Euphrates. There is the home of mankind.

IRISH DAYWALKER

adam and eve were the first, god could have created other races after them, as the bible says adams son left the garden of eden and came back with a woman oh yeah!!!

Seaneh

wolfsbane wrote: »

Biblically we know that Eden was located somewhere near the Euphrates. There is the home of mankind.

A lot of jewish historians think that the Phison was either the Ganges or the Sefid and the Gihon to be Nile.

Many consider this area the birthplace of civilization (farming, written language etc) but very few would say that this would be the birthplace of humanity.

I myself see the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for the population and Genesis as a rough outline of how the world was formed, chronologically, Genesis is immaculate for the most part in how the world is formed, its the time frame that is off, which leads me to believe it to be a metaphor.

I myself am an advocate for theistic evolution. Yes God could have just created us but he moulded the world in such a way that we couldn't have just be ploped on here and left to our own devices, he knew we needed help so he started us with baby steps and as we advanced he expanded out capabilities as a race.

Sam Vimes

Seaneh wrote: »

I myself am an advocate for theistic evolution. Yes God could have just created us but he moulded the world in such a way that we couldn't have just be ploped on here and left to our own devices, he knew we needed help so he started us with baby steps and as we advanced he expanded out capabilities as a race.

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. There is evolution by natural selection which is a process involving random genetic mutations and could quite easily not have formed anything like humans, and then there is intelligent design. Evolution requires natural selection and your version of it doesn't have it, it has divine selection

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. There is evolution by natural selection which is a process involving random genetic mutations and could quite easily not have formed anything like humans, and then there is intelligent design. Evolution requires natural selection and your version of it doesn't have it, it has divine selection

Really? So there is no such thing as theistic evolution? And even if there was it would necessarily reject natural selection? Humm, you might want to tell that to all the theistic evolutionists who do accept natural selection.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Really? So there is no such thing as theistic evolution? And even if there was it would necessarily reject natural selection? Humm, you might want to tell that to all the theistic evolutionists who do accept natural selection.

Natural selection guided by whatever happens to be in the prevailing environment, not by God. If someone thinks that evolution was in any way guided to facilitate the formation of the human genome, what they believe in is not evolution

Sam Vimes

The point I'm making is this:

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

The concept of theistic evolution of course exists and there are people who believe in it. My point is that it is in no way part of the theory of evolution. It is a religious addition to the theory which has no evidential basis

Zombrex

Theistic Evolution tends to be one of these nonsense concepts that really just exists to fit God in some where. When you actually look at it it is hard to figure what the heck it is actually saying or what God is supposed to have done

Some Theistic Evolutionists for example believe that evolution is exactly as it is, it is random mutations that are selected by the environment. But some how God knew what he wanted to produce so set the universe up in just such a way that the "random" mutations would be selected and produce humans eventually.

The issue with this is that it isn't particularly theistic. Life functions and develops perfectly fine without God so why introduce him. He doesn't do anything that requires him to do it. Theistic evolution looks exactly like evolution.

Others seem to hold to evolution but believe that at certain point God actually interacted with evolution along the way to nudge it in the correct direction. This removes some of the random from it and is basically just one step away from Intelligent Design.

The problem with this is that it is n't particularly evolutionary. If God nudges the evolutionary process in places that it would not be possible to develop anyway then it isn't evolution, it is intelligent design.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Some Theistic Evolutionists for example believe that evolution is exactly as it is, it is random mutations that are selected by the environment. But some how God knew what he wanted to produce so set the universe up in just such a way that the "random" mutations would be selected and produce humans eventually.

The issue with this is that it isn't particularly theistic. Life functions and develops perfectly fine without God so why introduce him. He doesn't do anything that requires him to do it. Theistic evolution looks exactly like evolution.

This version of it pretty much demotes God to the manager who didn't do anything but who takes the credit for your work.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Theistic Evolution tends to be one of these nonsense concepts that really just exists to fit God in some where. When you actually look at it it is hard to figure what the heck it is actually saying or what God is supposed to have done

I imagine the place for Gods activity would have been to ensure that which could only otherwise have be left to chance. Naturalistic evolution wouldn't necessarily lead to 'us' and the fact we are here is lends no more support to chance than it does God. Chancedidit vs. Goddidit - which is more probable?

Some Theistic Evolutionists for example believe that evolution is exactly as it is, it is random mutations that are selected by the environment. But some how God knew what he wanted to produce so set the universe up in just such a way that the "random" mutations would be selected and produce humans eventually.

The issue with this is that it isn't particularly theistic. Life functions and develops perfectly fine without God so why introduce him.

Says who? We don't know whether chance did (although chance theoretically (it is said) could) produce us.

It need not be the case that 'us' is the only product of hands-off evolution that God could use to carry out his overall purpose. Perhaps any number of evolutionary pathways could have been suitable - meaning no need for intelligent design (in the sense that God would be free to sit on all possible pathways and utilse whatever his-hands-off evolution produces. 'Us' being it as it happens.

Not that I'm a theistic evolutionist it must be said..

darjeeling

Wicknight wrote: »

Theistic Evolution tends to be one of these nonsense concepts that really just exists to fit God in some where. When you actually look at it it is hard to figure what the heck it is actually saying or what God is supposed to have done

Some Theistic Evolutionists for example believe that evolution is exactly as it is, it is random mutations that are selected by the environment. But some how God knew what he wanted to produce so set the universe up in just such a way that the "random" mutations would be selected and produce humans eventually.

The issue with this is that it isn't particularly theistic. Life functions and develops perfectly fine without God so why introduce him. He doesn't do anything that requires him to do it. Theistic evolution looks exactly like evolution.

Others seem to hold to evolution but believe that at certain point God actually interacted with evolution along the way to nudge it in the correct direction. This removes some of the random from it and is basically just one step away from Intelligent Design.

The problem with this is that it is n't particularly evolutionary. If God nudges the evolutionary process in places that it would not be possible to develop anyway then it isn't evolution, it is intelligent design.

Deistic evolution would more accurately describe the belief of many Christians, including the spiritual leader of the Church of England, Rowan Williams:

Channel 4, The Genius of Darwin wrote:

Rowan Williams: Darwinism as a theory of how evolution works, a highly plausible, highly credible theory about biological history - I don't have a problem with that.

Richard Dawkins: Do you see god as having any role in the evolutionary process?

Williams: For me, God is the power or the intelligence that shapes the whole of that process, as Creator. God's act is the beginning of all creation.

Dawkins: By setting up the laws of physics in the first place in which context evolution takes place?

Williams: Things unfold within that.

Dawkins: What about intervening during the course of evolution?

Williams: I find that that rather suggests that God couldn't have made a very good job of making the laws of physics in the first place if He constantly needs to be adjusting the system, adjusting the works.

(Video here)

I'd be interested to know what Christians understand by the term 'natural'. The word seems to be used to refer to processes in which God is not acting. God, then, is an external agent who occasionally manifests himself within his universe to nudge it onto a different course.

Instead, taking Williams' apparently deistic view of the unfolding of the universe*, God can be seen as being woven into the fabric of his creation. All events are now a reflection of God's plan, and the distinction between divine and natural disappears.

*Leaving aside beliefs concerning the key miraculous events in the life of Jesus, where Williams does believe in theistic intervention.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I imagine the place for Gods activity would have been to ensure that which could only otherwise have be left to chance. Naturalistic evolution wouldn't necessarily lead to 'us' and the fact we are here is lends no more support to chance than it does God. Chancedidit vs. Goddidit - which is more probable?

Actually it lends a lot more support to chance. That's what the theory of evolution is about, that random genetic mutations occurred and natural selection allowed them to flourish. If God is guiding the mutations it's not evolution, it's intelligent design. But mostly it lends more support to chance because we know that evolution exists but we don't know that God exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says who? We don't know whether chance did (although chance theoretically (it is said) could) produce us.

Yes we do, it's called evolution.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It need not be the case that 'us' is the only product of hands-off evolution that God could use to carry out his overall purpose. Perhaps any number of evolutionary pathways could have been suitable - meaning no need for intelligent design (in the sense that God would be free to sit on all possible pathways and utilse whatever his-hands-off evolution produces. 'Us' being it as it happens.

Not that I'm a theistic evolutionist it must be said..

Why insist that God was involved in something that would be exactly the same if he wasn't involved in it

pts

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why insist that God was involved in something that would be exactly the same if he wasn't involved in it

* cough confirmation bias cough *

marco_polo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I imagine the place for Gods activity would have been to ensure that which could only otherwise have be left to chance. Naturalistic evolution wouldn't necessarily lead to 'us' and the fact we are here is lends no more support to chance than it does God. Chancedidit vs. Goddidit - which is more probable?



Says who? We don't know whether chance did (although chance theoretically (it is said) could) produce us.

It need not be the case that 'us' is the only product of hands-off evolution that God could use to carry out his overall purpose. Perhaps any number of evolutionary pathways could have been suitable - meaning no need for intelligent design (in the sense that God would be free to sit on all possible pathways and utilse whatever his-hands-off evolution produces. 'Us' being it as it happens.

Not that I'm a theistic evolutionist it must be said..

But don't those explainations imply a deterministic universe?

/ *Carefully covers free will trap with leaves

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This version of it pretty much demotes God to the manager who didn't do anything but who takes the credit for your work.

It also runs into the problem that if God does this for evolution he really does it for everything, because the entire environment effects evolution. You either have a universe (or at least a planet) where things that God did not control can happen or you don't.

If you do then theistic evolution won't work because God cannot control/decide what happens. He cannot direct, now or at the moment of creation, what he cannot control.

If you don't, if God controls or decides what happens in order to direct evolution to a point he wants then that causes major issues for the notion of free will and the future. If God wants to control how evolution takes place he needs to control if I sleep with that woman, eat that cheese roll, crash me car etc etc.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I imagine the place for Gods activity would have been to ensure that which could only otherwise have be left to chance. Naturalistic evolution wouldn't necessarily lead to 'us' and the fact we are here is lends no more support to chance than it does God. Chancedidit vs. Goddidit - which is more probable?

But as Sam points out there is no difference, theistic "evolution" is supposed to be the theory of evolution with "theistic" stuck on.

If God is "ensuring" things then it isn't evolution, it is intelligent design. So what is the point of the evolution bit? God uses Darwinian evolution to produce humans over a period of 4 billion years except for the bits where he doesn't he jumps in there and does it himself?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says who?

Well the theory of evolution, that is the point.

If Darwinian evolution isn't believed to be the process that produced life on earth then why say "theistic evolution". It isn't evolution at all, it is just theistic intelligent design.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It need not be the case that 'us' is the only product of hands-off evolution that God could use to carry out his overall purpose. Perhaps any number of evolutionary pathways could have been suitable - meaning no need for intelligent design (in the sense that God would be free to sit on all possible pathways and utilse whatever his-hands-off evolution produces. 'Us' being it as it happens.

But isn't "hands off" theistic evolution just evolution?

Again that is the point Sam was making. I can't think of any situation or scenario where "theistic evolution" actually makes sense or means anything. You are either talking about evolution or intelligent design.

Zombrex

This is actually a pretty good example of the compartmentalisation that us atheists are always going on about. We have to accept evolution the evidence is over whelming, but we have to get God in there some where ... I know "theistic" evolution! Just don't ask me to explain what the heck that actually means.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually it lends a lot more support to chance. That's what the theory of evolution is about, that random genetic mutations occurred and natural selection allowed them to flourish.

That chance could produce isn't support for chance did produce - at least not any more support for the notion that God did because God could.

If God is guiding the mutations it's not evolution, it's intelligent design. But mostly it lends more support to chance because we know that evolution exists but we don't know that God exists.

The suggestion was:

- that God didn't guide evolutions path to specifically result in us but..
- that God guided evolutions path (perhaps in initial conditions) to ensure at least one suitable-for-his-use outcome would result.

In other words, God ensures chance will produce a result whereas chance left to it's own devices might not produce a result.

Yes we do, it's called evolution.

Okay. We just don't know whether it was naturalistic chance or guided chance. (Guided chance is chance which has been stripped - by God -of the possibility of no suitable result)

Why insist that God was involved in something that would be exactly the same if he wasn't involved in it

A possible involvement has been suggested above. We can't know whether naturalistic chance can result in us.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. We just don't know whether it was naturalistic chance or guided chance. (Guided chance is chance which has been stripped - by God -of the possibility of no suitable result)

That isn't chance. The probability of something happening that can only happen is 1. Flip a coin with two heads you will get a head. There is no chance.

Theistic evolution is not evolution, it is intelligent design.

darjeeling

Wicknight wrote: »

You either have a universe (or at least a planet) where things that God did not control can happen or you don't.

If you do then theistic evolution won't work because God cannot control/decide what happens. He cannot direct, now or at the moment of creation, what he cannot control.

If you don't, if God controls or decides what happens in order to direct evolution to a point he wants then that causes major issues for the notion of free will and the future. If God wants to control how evolution takes place he needs to control if I sleep with that woman, eat that cheese roll, crash me car etc etc.

Simon Conway Morris attempts to square this circle by arguing - citing examples of convergent evolution - that the laws of the universe inevitably lead to the evolution of conscious, intelligent creatures that he would interpret (I gather) as being in the image of God.

Wicknight wrote: »

If Darwinian evolution isn't believed to be the process that produced life on earth then why say "theistic evolution". It isn't evolution at all, it is just theistic intelligent design.

Albeit a diluted form of intelligent design: ID with one hand tied behind your back. Our designer can't just jump right in and make what he/she wants straight off. Instead, he must proceed by incremental degrees.

.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

This is actually a pretty good example of the compartmentalisation that us atheists are always going on about. We have to accept evolution the evidence is over whelming, but we have to get God in there some where ... I know "theistic" evolution! Just don't ask me to explain what the heck that actually means.

Not that I really care for it myself, but I always assumed 'Theistic Evolution' was the belief that God shall we say, wrote the programme, and let it do its thing. Then at some stage bestowed a soul or spirit, or whatever one believes to be the essence of God that Man has, on what became man. Its not my bag though, so maybe I'm wrong.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

That chance could produce isn't support for chance did produce - at least not any more support for the notion that God did because God could.

The theory of evolution is the support for chance producing us. If you don't think it was chance, if you think God was involved, then you don't believe in evolution

antiskeptic wrote: »

The suggestion was:

- that God didn't guide evolutions path to specifically result in us but..
- that God guided evolutions path (perhaps in initial conditions) to ensure at least one suitable-for-his-use outcome would result.

In other words, God ensures chance will produce a result whereas chance left to it's own devices might not produce a result.

Okay. We just don't know whether it was naturalistic chance or guided chance. (Guided chance is chance which has been stripped - by God -of the possibility of no suitable result)

There is no such thing as guided chance. If you think about it for a second it doesn't even make sense. It's like picking a card from a stacked deck. Chance is negated if the process was guided. Whether God guided it to produce humans exactly or just to produce some beings that could fulfil his plan, it's still intelligent design and not evolution

antiskeptic wrote: »

A possible involvement has been suggested above. We can't know whether naturalistic chance can result in us.

Yes we can, that's the whole point of evolution and we can give fossil and DNA evidence for many of the steps along the way, each stage of which can be produced from the last through random genetic mutations guided by natural selection

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't chance. The probability of something happening that can only happen is 1. Flip a coin with two heads you will get a head. There is no chance.

Theistic evolution is not evolution, it is intelligent design.

Suppose chance on it's own can produce 100 different outcomes. And suppose that 50 of those outcomes have no suitability for Gods purposes. So he strips out the possibility of those useless 50 outcomes. And leaves chance to produce one of the remaining 50 (potentially useful to him) outcomes - by the same process of evolution that you hold to.

That's not intelligent design. It's limiting the boundaries of chance. Unless your supposing intelligent design by way of random mutation and survival of the fittest. That would be one to set the cat amongst the pigeons

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The theory of evolution is the support for chance producing us. If you don't think it was chance, if you think God was involved, then you don't believe in evolution

See my response to Wicknight above. Stripping out chances ability to produce no result ('us' being a result) is an area for potential involvement on Gods part.

There is no such thing as guided chance. If you think about it for a second it doesn't even make sense. It's like picking a card from a stacked deck. Chance is negated if the process was guided. Whether God guided it to produce humans exactly or just to produce some beings that could fulfil his plan, it's still intelligent design and not evolution

Evolution involves arrival at a particular destination by way of random mutation and survival of the fittest. That the result is confined in range by say, starting conditions, doesn't alter it being evolution. You'd agree that naturalistically set starting conditions confined the range of possible evolutionary results. So why not theistically set starting conditions doing same.

It's still evolution by random mutation and survival of the fittest.

Yes we can, that's the whole point of evolution and we can give fossil and DNA evidence for many of the steps along the way, each stage of which can be produced from the last through random genetic mutations guided by natural selection

We can't know whether naturalistic chance will produce us because we don't know whether naturalistic chance is what's at work. If it's not then that isn't what produced us. Is naturalistic chance at work? And if so, how do you tell?


(note: I'm not a theistic evolutionist - I'm just meandering through what might well be their argument. Personally I don't know how they reconcile their view with the Bible)

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

See my response to Wicknight above. Stripping out chances ability to produce no result ('us' being a result) is an area for potential involvement on Gods part.

Suggesting that those genetic patterns could not have formed is inconsistent with both the theory of evolution and the laws of physics. There is nothing preventing them from having formed, they just happened not to. It's like saying that you roll a dice, it lands on 3 and you say God prevent it landing on the other numbers. You are invoking a God to explain something that is explained perfectly adequately without one, saying that he guided a process that required no guidance

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can't know whether naturalistic chance will produce us because we don't know whether naturalistic chance is what's at work. If it's not then that isn't what produced us. Is naturalistic chance at work? And if so, how do you tell?

You tell by studying the mountains and mountains of evidence. And when you have completed your study you arrive at the theory of evolution, which states that life evolved through random genetic mutations guided by natural selection and does not require God at any stage. If you study the evidence and you find that you have no way of knowing if God was involved because it could have happened without his involvement then in reality the only reason God is even being mentioned is because you like to think he was involved and not because there is anything to suggest he was. That's not how science works I'm afraid, you have to provide evidence of a claim and saying "you can't prove he wasn't involved" doesn't cut it

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You tell by studying the mountains and mountains of evidence. And when you have completed your study you arrive at the theory of evolution, which states that life evolved through random genetic mutations guided by natural selection and does not require God at any stage.

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

If you study the evidence and you find that you have no way of knowing if God was involved because it could have happened without his involvement then in reality the only reason God is even being mentioned is because you like to think he was involved and not because there is anything to suggest he was. That's not how science works I'm afraid, you have to provide evidence of a claim and saying "you can't prove he wasn't involved" doesn't cut it

You're in the same boat - and science isn't going to help you out. You have a philosophical foundation which assumes naturalistic chance at work when you have no way of telling that this is so. Ockhams Razor is no use because we can't say whether a naturalistic chance environment is a simpler system to one in which God reigns. For the simple reason that we haven't got a clear cut naturalistic environment available to us to see how well it would perform vs. one over which God reigns.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

You're in the same boat - and science isn't going to help you out. You have a philosophical foundation which assumes naturalistic chance at work when you have no way of telling that this is so. Ockhams Razor is no use because we can't say whether a naturalistic chance environment is a simpler system to one in which God reigns. For the simple reason that we haven't got a clear cut naturalistic environment available to us to see how well it would perform vs. one over which God reigns.

Ockham's razor advises us not to "multiply entities/explanations unnecessarily", so we could employ it here. How? We know that natural selection of random mutation is capable of generating the complexity and function of life. We have both a plausible process and evidence which shows that such a process is at work. To say that there is also a subtle guiding force working in addition to natural selection is to add something which isn't necessary. Now this doesn't mean we can say that there isn't a guiding force, but it does mean we aren't compelled to assume there is one.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

Ockham's razor advises us not to "multiply entities/explanations unnecessarily", so we could employ it here. How? We know that natural selection of random mutation is capable of generating the complexity and function of life. We have both a plausible process and evidence which shows that such a process is at work. To say that there is also a subtle guiding force working in addition to natural selection is to add something which isn't necessary. Now this doesn't mean we can say that there isn't a guiding force, but it does mean we aren't compelled to assume there is one.

If you've been following the train of thought these last few posts you'll appreciate a point made that random mutation from a God-cut deck of possible mutations is still random mutation. From which some are naturally selected.

We would not be adding unnecessary entities if it necessitated Gods stripping a naturalistic deck of inopportune mutational possibilities in order to arrive at the situation we find ourselves in today.

We can't, as I say, decide naturalistic chance is capable of bringing about the current scenario for want of a way of knowing we are looking at naturalistic chance at work. And so can't really be all that sure about what constitutes "necessity"


ps: given that William of Ockham was a Christian monk, I think it unlikely that his razor can be wielded as you wield it.

antiskeptic

marco_polo wrote: »

But don't those explainations imply a deterministic universe?

I don't see how stripping a deck from 52 cards (representing the total sum of possible naturalistic outcomes) to 42 cards (the total sum of possible satisfactory-to-Gods-purposes outcomes) determines the card eventually picked. It'd be no more determined than a naturalistic universe would be.

/ *Carefully covers free will trap with leaves

How God manages to create a will free from God-determined choice is a mystery. It's the kind of thing you're better off taking as a given and getting on with the various consequences involved - rather than allow yourself to come to an unbelieving halt over.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you've been following the train of thought these last few posts you'll appreciate a point made that random mutation from a God-cut deck of possible mutations is still random mutation. From which some are naturally selected.

We would not be adding unnecessary entities if it necessitated Gods stripping a naturalistic deck of inopportune mutational possibilities in order to arrive at the situation we find ourselves in today.

We can't, as I say, decide naturalistic chance is capable of bringing about the current scenario for want of a way of knowing we are looking at naturalistic chance at work. And so can't really be all that sure about what constitutes "necessity"

ps: given that William of Ockham was a Christian monk, I think it unlikely that his razor can be wielded as you wield it.

Ockham's razor is still applicable whether or not we consider a force which influences natural selection by introducing extra mutations to select from, or by removing mutations. Evolutionary biology is field which not only covers natural selection, but also the mechanisms of mutation. These mechanisms are naturalistic, and therefore allow us to calculate things like mutation rates and genetic drift (If mutations were generated both naturally and supernaturally, then assumptions regarding mutation rates would be insufficient, as God could shuffle the deck whenever He liked). Such natural mechanisms (along with the rest of Evolutionary Biology) are a sufficient explanation of life's complexity and development, even if there is still plenty of research to be done.

What you seem to be suggesting is that, in addition to these natural mutations, there might be supernatural mutations introduced by God, either directly or by tweaking laws at certain stages. We obviously cannot rule such mutations out, but we do not need to postulate them to explain natural history, as the rates calculated from natural mutations are enough. This is why such a postulate would be deemed unnecessary (and positively ill-advised from a scientific perspective). [EDIT]-I should emphasise that the concept of supernatural mutation would include the idea of restricting mutations by tweaking laws, as well as introducing new ones.

In short, atheistic evolution assumes mutations are caused by the laws of biochemistry, and theistic evolution assumes mutations are caused by laws of biochemistry and subtle divine intervention. Life can be explained without the need for divine intervention, which is an "unnecessary hypothesis" to borrow Laplace's phrase.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

you'd go about it through 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny


We know from studying evolution that any number of other combinations could have happened. We know that non-intelligent life is not prevented because there are billions of non-intelligent life forms. That means that God would have to intervene in a way that goes beyond the laws of physics to overrule natural selection and change it to divine selection. That is intelligent design, because an intelligent being would be directly influencing the form that life would take in order to reach a conscious goal. And that's not evolution
. In comparison, beer contains only naturally occurring chemicals, I don't need to do magic to create it but no one would suggest that because the processes are natural it wasn't intelligently designed. The only form of evolution that is not intelligent design is evolution that is not in any way influenced by intelligence

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're in the same boat - and science isn't going to help you out. You have a philosophical foundation which assumes naturalistic chance at work when you have no way of telling that this is so. Ockhams Razor is no use because we can't say whether a naturalistic chance environment is a simpler system to one in which God reigns. For the simple reason that we haven't got a clear cut naturalistic environment available to us to see how well it would perform vs. one over which God reigns.

Occams razor says that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily, ie if you can explain something with A and B that is preferable to explaining it using A, B and C. We can explain it with A) random mutation and B)natural selection making C) God an unnecessary entity

I can't say for sure that Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster and the disembodied soul of my mate Dave weren't involved in evolution either but the point is that I have nothing to suggest they were. And you have nothing to suggest God was involved other than you'd like to think he was. This is just the classic "you can't prove God doesn't exist" argument. It's not up to me to show that God wasn't involved, we have completely explained evolution without him. It's up to you to show he was involved

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

We would not be adding unnecessary entities if it necessitated Gods stripping a naturalistic deck of inopportune mutational possibilities in order to arrive at the situation we find ourselves in today.

All you've said there is that if God was necessary he would be necessary. The point is that there is nothing to suggest that he is necessary

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can't, as I say, decide naturalistic chance is capable of bringing about the current scenario for want of a way of knowing we are looking at naturalistic chance at work.

Yes we can and we do. It's called the theory of evolution and nowhere in that theory is there a step where God intervenes to influence nature

antiskeptic wrote: »

ps: given that William of Ockham was a Christian monk, I think it unlikely that his razor can be wielded as you wield it.

William of Ockham was neither the first nor the only person to use the idea, he just used it a lot so people started to call it after him. This guy is one of many people who used it long before him, as did Aristotle when he said "The more perfect a nature is, the fewer means it requires for its operation". And his reasoning for why it couldn't be used for theology was dependent on the assumption that theology is revealed by God. Unfortunately for William that assumption is unfounded until the day when the existence of the Christian God and his involvement in the bible is conclusively proven. He thought it couldn't be applied to theology but he was wrong because he reached his conclusion using faulty assumptions

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Natural selection guided by whatever happens to be in the prevailing environment, not by God. If someone thinks that evolution was in any way guided to facilitate the formation of the human genome, what they believe in is not evolution

It seems to me (and that's not to say my observation is correct) that there are two lines of thought within theistic evolution (including maybe a fudge between the two). Those whould believe that evolution continues undisturbed until God decides to interviene in some limited way. And those who think there there is no interaction in the evolution process, meaning that "mankind" could have take any form if it was run all over again.

The first line of thought seems very close to the sitiuation domesticated animals and cultivars find themselves in. For example, presumably one doesn't believe that the dog is somehow not, or never will be, subject to evolution because we have apparently bent its evolutinary course to meet our ends and we have ostensibly guided the unguided (at least over the merest fraction of time ).

The second line of thought - where God merely set the whole thing in motion and stepped back - should remove any objections along the lines of "theistic evolution is not 'real' evolution". However, it does raise some interesting, but nevertheless tricky, theological and ontological questions.

I would lean towards the first line.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to me (and that's not to say my observation is correct) that there are two lines of thought within theistic evolution (including maybe a fudge between the two). Those whould believe that evolution continues undisturbed until God decides to interviene in some limited way. And those who think there there is no interaction in the evolution process, meaning that "mankind" could have take any form if it was run all over again.

The first line of thought seems very close to the sitiuation domesticated animals and cultivars find themselves in. For example, presumably one doesn't believe that the dog is somehow not, or never will be, subject to evolution because we have apparently bent its evolutinary course to meet our ends and we have ostensibly guided the unguided (at least over the merest fraction of time ).

If I use a natural process in order to deliberately produce something for a reason it's still intelligent design, which was the point I was making. Labradoodles were bred for blind people who were allergic to the hair of Labrador guide dogs but not that of poodles. Labradoodles were intelligently designed. It doesn't have to involve supernatural powers to be intelligent design

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The second line of thought - where God merely set the whole thing in motion and stepped back - should remove any objections along the lines of "theistic evolution is not 'real' evolution". However, it does raise some interesting, but nevertheless tricky, theological and ontological questions.

I would lean towards the first line.

The second line of thought would be real evolution but that's more the cosmological argument because everything except the setting in motion can currently be explained by science without the necessity of a God. People who say that are basically just saying God was involved in evolution because they like to think he was and not because there is anything to indicate that he was.

AtomicHorror

In response to the OP, some Young Earth Creationists hold to the concept that the races are the descendants of the sons of Noah. Ken Ham's Creation Museum over in the US claims for example that North African blacks are the descendants of Canaan's son Ham. Ham, incidentally, was cursed by God.

The curse of Ham, rather like the curse of his father Canaan, was used by some Christians (important emphasis there) as a justification for slavery during the 19th century. The North Africans were "cursed", and the rest were not actually descendants of Noah, ergo not human but another "species". Ironically a lot of this was a perversion of emerging ideas regarding evolution, and was a particular annoyance to Darwin who believed in a single origin for the human species (and was an abolitionist to boot).

Ken Ham's lot apparently still hold to the Hamite hypothesis, which means that his sponsors Answers In Genesis do also:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php

Now, they're not racist but...

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suppose chance on it's own can produce 100 different outcomes. And suppose that 50 of those outcomes have no suitability for Gods purposes. So he strips out the possibility of those useless 50 outcomes. And leaves chance to produce one of the remaining 50 (potentially useful to him) outcomes - by the same process of evolution that you hold to.

So what you're saying is that god intelligently designs the universe so that there is no chance for any outcome other than what he actually wants, but that this is still evolution?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's not intelligent design. It's limiting the boundaries of chance. Unless your supposing intelligent design by way of random mutation and survival of the fittest.

I think you are looking at this all wrong. There is only two types of outcome: Those god want and Those god doesn't want. It doesn't matter if there are ninety nine individual outcomes that god would find acceptable and only one which he wouldn't, they still fall into two categories. If god removes all chance for one category, then he is designing reality so that only one type of outcome is possible, thus intelligent design.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

Well if those particular circumstances are supposed to be"intelligent design" then you just have to show the lack of intelligence in the "design". Things like the odd "choices" of which systems are redundant in a body, the structure of the eye, pointlessly long nerves in the neck of giraffes all go to refuting the idea that any creature was designed by something intelligent.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're in the same boat - and science isn't going to help you out. You have a philosophical foundation which assumes naturalistic chance at work when you have no way of telling that this is so.

I just showed you above how you show naturalistic chance is at work-just show the that there is no intelligence, just blind chance.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ockhams Razor is no use because we can't say whether a naturalistic chance environment is a simpler system to one in which God reigns.

Considering people still cant define god, I would have say a naturalistic chance enviroment is simpler than one ruled by god.

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the simple reason that we haven't got a clear cut naturalistic environment available to us to see how well it would perform vs. one over which God reigns.

But you also havent got a clear cut enviroment ruled by your god to see how well it would perform vs. one over which Allah reigns, or one which Vishnu reigns, or Zenu or Ra or Odin etc.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

ps: given that William of Ockham was a Christian monk, I think it unlikely that his razor can be wielded as you wield it.

So what?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how stripping a deck from 52 cards (representing the total sum of possible naturalistic outcomes) to 42 cards (the total sum of possible satisfactory-to-Gods-purposes outcomes) determines the card eventually picked.

It determines that the card eventually picked is satisfactory to god. Thats like saying fixing a poker deck so that any of the 10 cards that you could use to make a winning hand will come out isn't really cheating because no one hand is favoured by you over the others once any of those hands will win.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How God manages to create a will free from God-determined choice is a mystery. It's the kind of thing you're better off taking as a given and getting on with the various consequences involved - rather than allow yourself to come to an unbelieving halt over.

Yes, instead of examining a claim that seems to show a contradiction in the whole god idea, just ignore it and stay a believer :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

How God manages to create a will free from God-determined choice is a mystery. It's the kind of thing you're better off taking as a given and getting on with the various consequences involved - rather than allow yourself to come to an unbelieving halt over.

Exactly. Anything that you think suggests there is a God is lauded and anything that suggests otherwise is a 'mystery'. This is what's known as confirmation bias.

Bottle_of_Smoke

PDN wrote: »

While I have no problem if Adam & Eve were black, white or blue - I fail to see the logic of what you're saying.

Just because Africans are mainly black today it doesn't follow that the original ancestors of all races were also black.

+1

Look at apes. most of them white. Besides the apes we evolved from are extinct. My own opinion is the original humans were closer in skin colour to whites/arabs/orientals and the ones who travelled south and west evolved black skin to deal with the very high levels of UV light.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Study can't inform you whether or not naturalistic chance is that which is at work. A theory might suppose that mutations are random/directionless but how would it go about deciding that - as opposed to a mechanism in which certain mutations are excluded from occuring under particular circumstances?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Occams razor says that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily, ie if you can explain something with A and B that is preferable to explaining it using A, B and C. We can explain it with A) random mutation and B)natural selection making C) God an unnecessary entity

My apologies for the delay in replying.

The last part of your response is the piece which most directly addresses the objection raised: how do you know naturalistic chance is that which is at work? It might be helpful to rephrase this objection in the light of Occams Razor being wheeled out if I were to ask you: how do you know that what you see around you now is "fittest"?

That is to say; random mutation + natural selection would, were they the only mechanisms operating, produce a result about which it could be said "that which has survived is fittest". But to suppose we (for example) are fittest because we are surviving is to engage in circular reasoning (if trying to argue rm+ns only to be operating). You assuming part of which you're trying to demonstrate in other words.

Regarding your other points.

We know from studying evolution that any number of other combinations could have happened. We know that non-intelligent life is not prevented because there are billions of non-intelligent life forms. That means that God would have to intervene in a way that goes beyond the laws of physics to overrule natural selection and change it to divine selection. That is intelligent design, because an intelligent being would be directly influencing the form that life would take in order to reach a conscious goal. And that's not evolution

The number of combinations possible in a naturalistic environment is finite. The number of possible combinations in a God stripped deck is less than the above figure and finite. The deck stripping would have to do with design as limiting the designs possible. Evolution isn't so much concerned with the starting conditions leading to the result as it is the mechanism by which the result is achieved given starting conditions.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So what you're saying is that god intelligently designs the universe so that there is no chance for any outcome other than what he actually wants, but that this is still evolution?

Whether the universe is naturalistic or not, there are starting conditions which limit the number of potential outcomes in the evolutionary scenario. The evolutionary scenario isn't concerned with the starting conditions which determine the number of potential outcomes. It's concerned with the mechanism whereby the outcome is achieved.

I think you are looking at this all wrong. There is only two types of outcome: Those god want and Those god doesn't want. It doesn't matter if there are ninety nine individual outcomes that god would find acceptable and only one which he wouldn't, they still fall into two categories. If god removes all chance for one category, then he is designing reality so that only one type of outcome is possible, thus intelligent design.

See above. You seem to me to be stretching the remit of evolution to cover your own philosophical leanings.