notMichaelJackson

I was wondering, is there any reason to think that evolution could not have been or was not directed by a supernatural being? I'd just like reasons and evidence.

According to Talk Origins, there is none.


Thanks.

Wounded King

The only real reason I can think of is Occam's razor which states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

So while there is nothing known to disprove the participation of a supernatural being there is also nothing known requiring that participation, consequently the supernatural being is a superfluous entity.

notMichaelJackson

Creationists also like to use Occam's razor, stating that it would be simplier for God to have just created the world in a few days than for everything to have come into existance through the Big Bang, so I'm not sure if it is the best arguement against theistic evolution.

Occam's razor can also be worded as "the simplist explaination is probably the correct one," but note the probably in there. Also, not everything conforms to OR, and it could be debated which is a simpler explaination- theistic evolution or atheistic evolution.

Thanks for the reply, WK.

Wounded King

I think it is important to think about which interpretations of God this idea contradicts. There are a lot of threads about sub optimal design, and such like, discussing whether an omiscient and omnipotent, or omiscient and omnibenevolent and perfect, or a whole variety of other admixtures of deity like traits, God could have made some of the crap which litters the world.

There are some definitions of God, and accounts of God's behaviour, which clearly will not fit in with the theory of evolution.

RufusAtticus

Although nothing in science rules out the theological idea of a God-driven process of evolution, I'd be careful placing too much faith in that since all the evidence shows that evolution is not goal-oriented process. I find the theological idea that "Adam and Eve" represent the first people to be granted souls much more theological sound because they are less likely to conflict with science.

Asha'man

It is entirely possible that an undefined god was influencing the path of evolution.

It is utterly impossible that the Christian God was influencing the path of evolution.

If the Christian God were real, then you would have to accept the Bible as being accurate. An accurate bible is entirely incompatible with evolution, and entirely incompatible with most of modern chemistry, astronomy, geology, medicine, psychology, physics, and even logic, for that matter. Therefore, reductio ad adsurdum, the Christian God is not directing evolution.

Given that the Christian God has been ruled out, why suppose a supernatural influence at all? The process seems to work just fine without intervention, so a god is entirely unnecessary.

Oolon Colluphid

Sure, they like to use it. But as with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, they don’t understand it, and so use it utterly erroneously.

Ockham’s razor isn’t about simplicity in itself. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words, when proposing an explanation, do not include in it more elements than you really need to, in order to do the explaining. This is because, as David Deutsch (in The Fabric of Reality) notes, each element you use in an explanation needs to itself be explained. Each ‘entity’ needs justification for inclusion.

Therefore the problem with this creationist (mis)use of Ockham’s razor is that, it may be superficially simpler -- god just poofed things -- but the element you are including -- god -- itself needs explaining. In order for ‘poof’ to be an explanation, you have to explain the poofer. And it is patently obvious that before you can explain the poofer, you have to demonstrate there even is one! Now, when creationists have demonstrated the existence of god, and when they have explained how it did the poofing.... then creation might be the simpler explanation.

Or to put it another (erm, simpler ) way, evolution is the simpler explanation, because it assumes neither supernatural entities nor supernatural mechanisms.

Of course, one can be even simpler, and go with Richard Dawkins: creation just shifts the ‘how’ further out, and so leaves the problem unanswered. Creationists, in other words, replace the unknown (how-life) with the unknowable (god), and an explanation in terms of the unknowable is no explanation at all.

Cheers, DT

CJD

quote by Asha'man:

If the Christian God were real, then you would have to accept the Bible as being accurate. An accurate bible is entirely incompatible with evolution, and entirely incompatible with most of modern chemistry, astronomy, geology, medicine, psychology, physics, and even logic, for that matter. Therefore, reductio ad adsurdum, the Christian God is not directing evolution.

Given that the Christian God has been ruled out, why suppose a supernatural influence at all? The process seems to work just fine without intervention, so a god is entirely unnecessary.

-----

While the bible is entirely incompatible with the notion that the cosmos is purposeless disorder, or put differently, the result of a random slamming of atoms, it is not incompatible with any of the modern sciences you named, for two reasons:

1) you merely assume the bible has something conclusive to say regarding the modern sciences, when, in fact, it is a supernatural testimony regarding theology. As Galileo once wrote, "The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

2) Given your assumption (#1), you automatically rule out the foundational hermeneutical principle that science and theology are saying different things about the same thing. In other words, the bible does not teach astronomy, nor did the Holy Spirit have any intent to do so. The two are entirely complimentary—not contradictory. For example, when the reigning church rulers wrongly suppressed Copernicus' findings, it was they who were wrong in their interpretation, not the Scriptures themselves. The only absurdity, then, much like the religious rulers who oppressed Copernicus et al., is entertaining arguments from those who know not what they speak of. 'Tis what the Division of Labor is all about . . .

nermal

Problem is, it does tell us how the heavens go. It just does so erroneously. It tells us of the firmament, for example.

It also tells us that millions of animals, large and small, piled onto a wooden boat and sailed about for a year or so--a physical impossibility.

A literal reading of the bible is absolutely incompatible with physics, geology, astronomy, biology.

A figurative reading of the bible is a literary exercise, nothing more.

Ed

Oolon Colluphid

Ah, but you see, science doesn’t claim disorder either, only that it’s purposeless. That’s why there are laws of physics.
It may be possible, by twisting and turning, to make it seem so, figuratively. But whenever the bible makes a statement about the world, it is stepping onto science’s turf. And it is invariably wrong. Turn it into an exercise in literary interpretation if you want. In which case it is nigh on irrelevant. It’s most central claim, taken as fact, is that there is a god. Well fine. But it is a god that has interfered in the world, and continues (continued?) to do so. And that, my friend, is a scientific claim.
“Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?” Given his circumstances.

You say that:
Uh-huh. Some examples, then...

Evolution

Bible: biological diversity created in a short time, recently, in a certain order, by supernatural intervention, and groupings not related.

Evolution: Biological diversity formed over millions of years, in a different order, without supernatural intervention, and all living things related.

Chemistry

Bible: eg: water can be turned into wine by supernatural intervention.

Chemistry: water is H2O; wine is water plus a host of flavourings formed by fermentation of grape juice. Wine therefore cannot be made from just water, though water can be given some appearance and different flavour by adding stuff (eg sugar) to it -- by sleight of hand magic not by supernatural magic.

Astronomy

Bible: Universe created recently, and the earth special; stars set in a firmament (whatever that might be).

Astronomy: Universe created c 15 billion years ago, and our solar system nothing special at all; stars not set in anything, and at wildly, near-impossible to imagine, different distances from us, each a fusion-furnace like our sun.

Geology

Bible: Earth created recently. No time for long-term processes to have affected it significantly.

Geology: Earth c 4.5 billion years old, and massively affected by long-term processes (eg plate techtonics)

Medicine

Bible: Diseases caused by supernatural entities and interventions.

Medicine: Diseases caused by parasites and natural processes.

Psychology

Bible: mental disorders caused by supernatural entities and interventions.

Psychology: mental disorders caused by neurochemical imbalances and mis-wiring: no supernatural involvement.

Physics

Bible: It is possible for someone to walk on water.

Physics: It is not possible for a dense solid object (eg a human) to rest on top of a less dense liquid (eg water). Though it is possible for a dense solid object (a human) to believe it can happen.
Yup. Whenever a claim is made about the world, it is a scientific claim. Theology has yet to demonstrate there is a theos to be logising about.
And the firmament is meant as what, exactly? Sure, it’s not what the bible is primarily about. But whenever it does say something empirical -- which is often -- it is frequently wrong. It’s only not wrong when it states truisms and the banal.
What holy spirit? Ah, the one in the bible. Can you say ‘circular’?
The interpretation they were using was simply reading it and taking it at face value. Once you get into the realms of interpreting it, you lose touch with reality. Anything can mean whatever you want it to mean, and there’s no way to tell which, of mutually exclusive interpretations, is the correct one.
Well that rules out creationist arguments then. And leaves the field open to science. Science attempts to explain the natural world, and does so rather well. Theology attempts to talk about the supernatural. Non-overlapping magisteria, and all that. But here’s a novel notion for you: how do you know that theology has anything to talk about? What makes you think theology even is a subject at all?
Yep, with one side doing all the work, while the other counts pinhead-dancing angels and gazes at their navels.

Theology: ’Tis a tale told by an idiot: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

See also The Emptiness of Theology

TTFN, DT