Is Evolution Compatible With Christianity

[ConsequentAtheist]

This is an offshoot of the "Evolution, not a fact" thread ...

..., it seems to me the Christian can embrace evolution only by (a) constructing some teleological bastardization which has God going out of its way to construct a system that mimics what one would expect were there no God at all.

Why, necessarily, does the acceptance of evolution (micro- and macro-) require any "teleological bastardization" whatever? Would this God really be "going out of his way" in the construction of such a system? This God is theoretically omnipotent. How would the expenditure of (literally) any level of effort constitute "going out of his way"? One would presume that the solar system, the universe and all of known reality, non-reality and conceptual reality would be enough of an involvement that worrying about the molecular mechanics would be fairly trivial (absolutely trivial for an absolute being).

The issue is not one of effort but of indirection and complexity.

One can certainly believe that God implemented his decision to create man by, among myriad other things,

• anticipated/planned the killing off the dinosaurs, thereby widening the niche available to mammals
• anticipated/planned the evolutoion of the astralopithecus
• coordinated variations in the earth's tilt and eccentricity so that Africa was in a meta-cooling period as North and South America inched closer together
• anticipated/planned the resulting creation of the Isthmus of Panama during the Pliocene
• insured the right weather patterns to insure the incremental evaporation of equitorial Atlantic waters, to be deposited as rain in the Pacific
• anticipated/planned the resulting differential in saline content
• anticipated/planned the Thermohaline current that robbed temperate currents from the Arctic Ocean
• anticipated/planned the resulting shrinkage of the Pliocene African Rain Forest
• anticipated/planned the corresponding collapse of the transitional woodlands surrounding that Rain Forest
• coordinated this collapse to occur after the advent and successful entrenchment of afarensis
• anticipated, planned intense selection pressures filtering for those differentially best suited to survive the collapse of the transitional woodlands and adapt to the savannah
• etc

And this is but one page of one chapter of one book of the tome that is the narrative of evolution.

Could an omnipotent and omniscient Deity managed that feat? Of course - almost by definition. Such a God could also create a pre-aged world replete with fossils. Yet what we end up with looks remarkably like what one would expect if there were no deity at all. This is, perhaps, the central point. Science or, more broadly, methodological and ontological naturalism, cannot disprove God. They can, and do, make Him pervasively unnecessary, leaving the Theist with little more than the God-of-the-Gaps.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is a presumption in this that God set out through evolution, to create man. He may simply have said to himself "now, if we set things up just so, then after a few billion years and a series of chance events we should get something quite interesting. Something, sort of like myself. Capable of thinking, planning etc. Not to the same detail of course, but interesting nonetheless. Yes. Let's give it a go."
Full compatibility attained.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Evolution is incompatible with the bible, but it's not incompatible with christianity.
Take the literal view of the bible, and even timeline doesn't add up.
Take the bible and say it's a metaphor or something, and you have christians who accept evolution.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Full compatibility attained.

An underwhelming victory to be sure. As I said above: "leaving the Theist with little more than the God-of-the-Gaps" - Deism is no more warranted by the evidence and no less vulnerable to Occam's Razor.

 

[GeoffP]

I'd just like to add the rest of my posting from that thread, as I consider it highly relevant and hopefully doesn't leave those just reading the above with an inaccurate perception of my position:

Moreover, can we make the assumption that this Being or what have you would create a universe removed from the realm of causality? This is - to my understanding - the nature of the basis of some of islamic science (Shi'a or Wahhabi, possibly): that Allah exists at every level and, rather than wood burning because of rapid oxidation, that Allah changes each and every little particle of wood into cinder as the fire consumes the wood. This is escape from causality.

To imply that this "God [is] going out of its way to construct a system that mimics what one would expect were there no God at all" implies to me a similar disjunct with causality - that the Christian hypothesis must inevitably be constructed around the premise that God is, presumably in this all-Godness, responsible for the arrangement and orderly or disorderly reaction of every particle in the observed system. Not, admittedly, a challenge for an infinitely powerful and observant being, but it drives the expectation of entropy to zero, which is, given our observations to-date, bollocks. That is, zero entropy does not (to my knowledge; go thee hence and Google no more) exist, or should not. Randomization is a viable entity, or at least so assumed to be, given our abilities of observation.

So is the above assumption actually integral to the Christian hypothesis? There is precedence for nearly such an extreme interpretation of Fate or Destiny - but this is wrong, given the core Christian hypothesis, isn't it? That we rise or fall depending on our own actions, that is. I'm sure that there were a great many preachers talking about the "Great Plan" - but was their interpretation correct, or were they merely trying to fill a sociological gap about early class systems? (I.e., placating the masses with talk of a "Great Plan" that gave purpose to suffering, etc.) Ultimately, it doesn't seem to me that nearly this level of predestination is required for the Christian synthesis, and, frankly, that it is expressly counter to their hypothesis (free will resulting in Judgement).

So, in short, it doesn't seem right to me that we as evolutionists etc postulate that God "must have created a system that mimics the no-God state", since, after all, we're talking about events in objective, real space-time. What system is better than this one, anyway?

Or - in even shorter - it's a real world, after all.

Irrational mar-i-ji-hu-a-na leaf:

Geoff

 

[Ophiolite]

An underwhelming victory to be sure. As I said above: "leaving the Theist with little more than the God-of-the-Gaps" - Deism is no more warranted by the evidence and no less vulnerable to Occam's Razor.

You seem to be confusing compatibility with proof. Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Christianity is compatible with evolution. This does not prove either is right. Religions such as Christianity do not require proof, since they are faith based entities. The science of evolution does not need to concern itself with acceptance or rejection by religion, since it deals only with evidence and methodology.
Your question as posed has been answered and I see noting underwhelming (or overwhelming) about that answer. Additionaly it is an answer, not a victory. You do not even appear to have understood what you were asking. That's quite revealing in itself.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Moreover, can we make the assumption that this Being or what have you would create a universe removed from the realm of causality? ...

Absolutely not. In fact, once one predicates one's view on the supernatural, it is pure hubris to pretend that any assumption deserves more weight than any other. For example, there is no basis to believe that your 'enlightened' theism should be prefered over YEC. In the fantasy world of the omniscient and omnipotent where all is possible, the YEC God is no less possible than yours.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

You seem to be confusing compatibility with proof.

You seem to have a reading disability. Get over yourself.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, I think we have established that you have a writing difficulty, possibly associated with a poor grasp of logic. If you are going to take misdirected cheap shots about 'underwhelming victories' you must expect some response. If the kitchen is too hot why not return to the nursery where you belong?
Alternatively, retitle your opening post to reflect its contents. Assuming you understand either.

 

[Godless]

Christianity is compatible with evolution.

At least these Christian evolutionists believe it so:
click

Basically I think it's just a personal choice, the bible can be interpreted to fit evolution, fact is bible iterpretations seem to change within every new scientific discovery of life, so believers can be assured that theirs is the one-true religion. Interpretations in the Qua'ran also change with time.

Godless

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

..., I think we have established that you have a writing difficulty, possibly associated with a poor grasp of logic.

Perhaps, but it is indeed underwhelming to declare evolution and Christianity compatible when the cost of that compatibility is to infuse evolution with purpose and constrain Christianity to that subset of Christian theology willing to discount Genesis as flawed allegory or myth.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Christianity is compatible with evolution. At least these Christian evolutionists believe it so: click

Again, any theology can be made compatibly with any science so long as that theology modifies its dogma to allow for such science.

By the way, IRAS - referenced at the end of your linked webpage - is an interesting organization, and next year's conference on emergence should be particularly valuable. You should consider joining.

 

[GeoffP]

Absolutely not. In fact, once one predicates one's view on the supernatural, it is pure hubris to pretend that any assumption deserves more weight than any other. For example, there is no basis to believe that your 'enlightened' theism should be prefered over YEC. In the fantasy world of the omniscient and omnipotent where all is possible, the YEC God is no less possible than yours.

First off, I'm not sure what YEC refers to, but be that as it may.

I believe I'm going to weigh in more heavily on my earlier synthesis: that discussion of the issue amounts to tautological flag-waving. Both sides might be correct, but, ultimately, because of the 'causatological' issue (and do look that word up in Webster next year, boo-yah me), we really have no way of knowing. Do I, indeed, pretend that my "enlightened theism" (am I an enlightened theist? It doesn't say so on my door) is preferable over YEC (which I presume

Moreover, how can we decry the idea of a God-of-the-Gaps? I don't really personally support this position (verily it jars against my 'soul', it doth) but let's consider it from a statistical vantage point:

In any model-based analysis (that is, one not expressed as free-form jumping up and down with hand-waving) total variance in any single or multiple vector can be decomposed into: i) modeled causes (i.e. the 'factors') and ii) error. Modeled factors represent predicted sources of variance (diet, genotype, age, etc.) and error then is an expression of random variance. The two are - to all present statistical understanding, assuming conformity to known distributions (i.e. no heterogeneity in the upper or lower distributive tails) - exclusive. Error is not factor, and factor not error. To improve the explanatory value of all known factors, one must introduce new factors that increasing account for error. The introduction of new terms does not (SHOULD not - eeep!) cause improvement in the fit of known factors, but rather total model explanatory power (but, let's be frank, no one ever has enough obs for the total model anyway).

I'm not going to draw normalized distributions here, so you all can just forget about that. :bugeye:

Now, at the same time, it becomes theoretically possible (I don't know what field of mathematics one enters into exactly for this; possibly just an extension of real numbers) to reduce error without adding factors. This is where the "God thing" could happen - a reduction in error via divine intervention, equalling, thus, a "God-of-the-Gaps". A little nudge in the right direction. Suddenly, the relevance of the explanatory variables - that is, the real-world causative partial functions - becomes much bigger. Going through this "embiggening" process means that stochasticity - the "gap" in our knowledge - declines.

Is this all that would be necessary? Presumably, maybe, possibly. Do I like this explanation? Well, not that much, really. Can I discount it? Beats me. I don't know that it does or doesn't pose a clearer rationale than refutation of a fundamentalist null hypothesis contrast, which is a position though that very few people (those without cousins living in the attic anyway) accept.

Let's let the straw man go. He seems to be trying to get to Oz, and I don't think modern theory needs to go there.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have data to ignore.

:m:

Geoff

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

First off, I'm not sure what YEC refers to, but be that as it may.

Young Earth Creationist.

I believe I'm going to weigh in more heavily on my earlier synthesis: that discussion of the issue amounts to tautological flag-waving.

That was your synthesis? OK.

Both sides might be correct, but, ultimately, because of the 'causatological' issue (and do look that word up in Webster next year, boo-yah me), we really have no way of knowing.

Not "boo-yah", just "boo". If you wish to have a responsible discussion, you might consider taking some responsibility for your communication.

Do I, indeed, pretend that my "enlightened theism" (am I an enlightened theist? It doesn't say so on my door) is preferable over YEC (which I presume ...

You seem to have gotten so enthralled with your verbal cleverness that you lost track of what you were saying ...

Moreover, how can we decry the idea of a God-of-the-Gaps? I don't really personally support this position (verily it jars against my 'soul', it doth)

This is becoming tiresome ...

... but let's consider it from a statistical vantage point:

You want to consider the God-of-the-Gaps from "a statistical vantage point"? OK, but I'm anticipated little but sophomoric smoke and mirrors.

In any model-based analysis (that is, one not expressed as free-form jumping up and down with hand-waving) total variance in any single or multiple vector can be decomposed into: i) modeled causes (i.e. the 'factors') and ii) error. Modeled factors represent predicted sources of variance (diet, genotype, age, etc.) and error then is an expression of random variance. The two are - to all present statistical understanding, assuming conformity to known distributions (i.e. no heterogeneity in the upper or lower distributive tails) - exclusive. Error is not factor, and factor not error. To improve the explanatory value of all known factors, one must introduce new factors that increasing account for error. The introduction of new terms does not (SHOULD not - eeep!) cause improvement in the fit of known factors, but rather total model explanatory power (but, let's be frank, no one ever has enough obs for the total model anyway).

{yawn} Therefore? {/yawn}

I'm not going to draw normalized distributions here, so you all can just forget about that. :bugeye:

You really are impressing no one with this other than yourself, and that is clearly not needed. Please say something relevant to the thread.

Now, at the same time, it becomes theoretically possible (I don't know what field of mathematics one enters into exactly for this; possibly just an extension of real numbers) to reduce error without adding factors.

Unicorns are "theoretically possible:. Please say something relevant to the thread.

This is where the "God thing" could happen - a reduction in error via divine intervention, equalling, thus, a "God-of-the-Gaps".

Is this what we've been waiting for? Talk about a waste of bandwidth: the God-of-the-Gaps could equal an unspecified and undemonstrated reduction in undefined and unsubstantiated error. Thanks for sharing.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have data to ignore.

I clearly made a mistake about you - an admittedly naive mistake. Live and learn ...

 

[funkstar]

Religious belief is such a loose concept that you can model your particular belief (or have it modelled for you) to fit in with anything you want to - even if it seemingly contradicts it's basic tenets to do so (often even especially so). That's what apologetics are for, after all - intellectual tennis without a net such that they can hold their beliefs and the belief that they are justified in doing so, in spite of the obvious inconsistencies this brings with it, and the quality of the argument (usually poor, but dearly held).

So yes, evolution is compatible with christianity, if you want it to be. It is also incompatible; again, if you want it to be. Of course, the fact that evolution is true is not an issue, since religion doesn't deal in truth but instead in faith.

 

[GeoffP]

Is this what we've been waiting for? Talk about a waste of bandwidth: the God-of-the-Gaps could equal an unspecified and undemonstrated reduction in undefined and unsubstantiated error. Thanks for sharing.

I clearly made a mistake about you - an admittedly naive mistake. Live and learn ...[/QUOTE]

Well, I'll have to assume that you're also apologizing for the stylized one-liners. Natch, no worries.

Look, you're essentially looking to disprove God. God don't fall on the alpha=0.05 normalized scale. He ain't there, but that doesn't mean he isn't "there". That's what I'm saying. If you're looking to disprove him via big-bang math...well, there's where my scientific doubt starts cranking in. A butterfly farts in a windstorm and some bloody physicist starts telling me that the universe began with a Planter's peanut. If someone barfed up those kind of stats replete with pat assumptions at a genetics conference, we'd pelt him off the stage with rotten GM eggs - which, as you know, also cannot exist, as GM organisms of all types defy 2nd-order thermodynamics and, thus, cannot rot. Anyway, dubious.

As for unicorns, we can actually step back into causal reality for a second and say: bollocks. There is no evidence of "horniness", if you'll excuse the pun, in the genus Equus. A unicorn, moreover, is a tangible thingy, not a potentially abstract being that is simultaneously everything and nothing in the known universe. We've never found any, so they almost certainly didn't exist.

(Of course, you could actually make one without much trouble: tissue grafts are really 'in' this millenium and as long as you could immunosuppress the little buggers you're laughing. I digress)

Can we call the same for God? Well, I'd say no. He doesn't "exist" in our time-space. He's not a material thing.

I think it's sufficient to say (again with the freaking Gould) that we can't sample him. And say: thanks for playing.

If you want to interpret that to be me saying that ID shouldn't be taught in the classrooms, if that's what's getting your goat...hm. Well I'd say: no. Waste of time. Mathematical proof of God? Extremely dubious.

:m:

Geoff

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Look, you're essentially looking to disprove God.

That is one of the more absurd comments that I've read in a long time. I would never consider attempting such a thing ...

 

[KennyJC]

Is Evolution Compatible With Christianity

Well that depends what you call a Christian. Is a Christian only someone who follows the bible word for world and holds it as the absolute truth? Then no, evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

Can someone still be a Christian if they realise much of the bible is just stories by wise, but scientifically ignorant men? For example, how can a man thousands of years ago know how old the Earth is or how life came to exist?

 

[Ophiolite]

I clearly made a mistake about you - an admittedly naive mistake. Live and learn ...

Wow. Thick and obnoxious.

GeoffP I liked your analysis (doesn't mean I agree with you, just that it was well structured and clear). I think we can safely ignore ConsequentAthiest as having anything meaningful to contribute - unless it is accompanied by histrionics.

My view remains that the spiritual and the material are at their greatest separation when we view religion and science; that their compatibility is on a par with the compatibility of vinyl records and strato-cumulus clouds. They are compatible because they rarely, if ever, are required to interact. CA seems to feel he's found a neat trick to disprove God - despite his disclaimer to the contrary. His arguments seem to me simply irrelevant.

CA, judging by your reaction to some of the posts on this thread it seems as if you were expecting everyone to fall down and worship at the feet of your ineffable thesis. Hope reality hasn't bitten your ass to hard.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

CA seems to feel he's found a neat trick to disprove God - despite his disclaimer to the contrary.

That is childish nonsense.