Thursday, March 24, 2011
Theistic Evolution or Materialistic Evolution Part 1
The saga continues in my quest to find the truth about how and when everything got here. Currently I have read a lot of anti evolution stuff and am being persuaded more that way, but when I read theistic evolutionists talk, they can be persuasive also. Here is where I am at... If theistic evolution is true, to me it seems more "miraculous" and more impossible than just an instantaneous, from dirt creation of man. I think the theistic evolutionist also needs to believe in abiogenesis (life from non-life) to be consistent. (of course he would say God guided the abiogenesis) But here is the deal, we now know that a single "simple" cell is about as complex as a galaxy, that is not really controversial at this point among scientists as far as I know. There is no such thing as “simple” life of any kind! Here is my question for all you theistic evolutionists out there: Do you believe in abiogenesis? If so, why do you choose what is obviously a harder thing to believe than an immediate creation of fully formed life? The science cannot be the reason. Google “abiogenesis” and you will see that it is pure philosophy coming from an assumption of a world of only naturalistic causes. The most you will find is "we know it must have happened like such and such..." If you do not believe in abiogenesis, why do you believe God chose to do one thing instantaneously (abiogenesis) but then guided things through evolution the rest of the way? Seems ad hoc. If abiogenesis cannot escape being mere philosophy and an ad hoc silly theory, then evolution can’t escape either. Saying a veloceraptor became an ostrich seems more palatable than believing a single cell came from primordial soup. But it is the same thing. You can't pick and choose, and if you try, you need to tell me how that is not ad hoc. If you believe in evolution as biogenesis (life from life) you have no reason to not believe abiogenesis occured because they are both based on the same hypothesis of naturalism (whether theistic or not). And if you believe abiogenesis then I want to offer you the chance to buy a bridge I am selling. I don't see how this tension can be resolved. This is where I am at right now in my quest for answers on this topic. More later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, you are making the fallacy of equivocation. Just because one theory might be invalid doesn't mean a similar theory is equally invalid since it might be under different premises & categories. If abiogenesis were true it would be a product of chemistry, not biology. Evolution, if it is true, requires biology, existing living things. Thus they are in two separate categories and not comparable.
ReplyDeleteNow as to compatibility of abiogenesis to theism, historically many Church Fathers believed in spontaneous generation(i.e. the theory that slime and rotting garbage spontaneously turned into maggots, flies & fungus). What you may not know is that none of them believed this was a supernatural process. They all believed that it was an unknown natural process. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that God gave certain types of matter the intrinsic natural power to transform into primitive life.
Thus I find Christians who panic over abiogenesis & atheists who crow that it will overthrow God tedious and ignorant of history. Abiogenesis is a non-starter. What you need, my friend, is to study the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. I'd like to recommend the book THE LAST SUPERSTITION: A REFUTATION OF THE NEW ATHEISM by Edward Feser. In addition to finding a better way to take down the New Atheists' philosophical ignorance, it shows the folly of post-Enlightenment mechanistic philosophy which unfortunately undergirds much of modern Protestant creationism as well as the new atheism.
Ben Yachov,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. My point in comparing evolution to abiogenesis was to force an unpalatable theory onto people who accept evolution. Dont you agree that to accept biological evolution one should also accept abiogenesis? I realize they are different, but they are both a type of evolution, and both have the same naturalistic assumptions. Contrary to what you claim, they are absolutely comparable. They both seek to explain how one thing becomes another thing through natural process.
So let me ask you, do YOU believe abiogenesis happened? Do you think the "science" behind it is convincing? Do you think the wikipedia article is a decent layman's summary of the various theories? If so, can you see how these theories look uterly ridiculous and fanciful to me, and far more implausible than special creation?
>I realize they are different, but they are both a type of evolution,
ReplyDeleteI reply: That's not a scientific claim, it's more of a philosophical claim, largely made by Richard Dawkins. Though a brilliant biologist, he is an inferior, unremarkable & incompetent philosopher. I don't agree with him at all & I don't think you would want to, either.
>They both seek to explain how one thing becomes another thing through natural process.
I reply: I do not believe that a natural process happens formally apart from God. Natural processes happen because God imbues nature with teleology & final causality. Darwinian natural selection is a teleological process insomuch as it acts according to goal-seeking & final causality, which strongly implies Aquinas's Fifth way.
Granted, it is against William Paley's model of design being imposed onto nature externally, but the philosophy behind Paley is inferior & if anything it is the same underlying philosophy held by Dawkins (i.e. nature is void of final and formal causes.) This type of metaphysics is also behind the ID movement. Paley's underlying philosophy helps fuel modern atheism, St. Thomas Aquinas is the cure to this sickness that says, "Evolution can only and must be understood atheistically".
>So let me ask you, do YOU believe abiogenesis happened? Do you think the "science" behind it is convincing?
I reply: I don't know & honestly don't care. Philosophically, I believe it could have happened but it would not, IMO, negatively affect a classical theistic view of God. It may kill Paley's view of God but that false god and metaphysical abortion deserves to die anyway. We must not bow down to idols.
>If so, can you see how these theories look uterly ridiculous and fanciful to me, and far more implausible than special creation?
Aristotilean/Thomist philosopher David Oderberg, in his book REAL ESSENTIALISM, made some excellent metaphysical arguments against the possibility of abiogenesis(as well as limits in evolution). I find those strongly plausible. However, I do not hold them absolutely and I believe it is possible that primitive life could have a natural cause. Even Oderberg admits that they are not absolute.
But I don't find any ID criticism of abiogenesis the slightest bit convincing. It is mechanistic post enlightenment philosophical crap. Thomism is where it is at my Boychik!
Peace & Cheers!