Does theistic evolution entail supernatural adjustments in the process of evolution?

[SerenelyBlue]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

 

[joshua 1 9]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

Theistic evolution at least under Frances Collins says that DNA is the "language of God". God spoke and this is the language He used to create life here on planet earth.

Non theists understand that we have laws that regulate and govern the universe. They simply do not make any attempt to try to understand where those laws come from. DNA is made up of molecules called nucleotides.

 

[HTacianas]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

You'll likely find about 100 different answers to your question, and they'll all be speculation, including mine.

Evolution relies on, for lack of a better term, a series of accidents of nature. The DNA of an organism changes through a random mutation coming about for little or no reason at all. That's a fairly simplified view I know, but I don't mean to knock anyone's ideas by using the example.

But there exists also a deliberate and intentional mutation of an organism's DNA that we call parasite altered host behavior. It comes in several different forms. Basically, a parasite causes its host to change its behavior to better suit the needs of the parasite. While that change only occurs in the infected host and is not passed to its offspring, I see no reason why there could not be a similar catalyst for DNA changes that are. As if to say a cro magnon man catches a cold and begins to create better tools.

I believe these subtle changes over time are caused rather than random accidents. A cro magnon man catches a cold and develops a living soul.

 

[dqhall]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

Intelligent design supports some of the theory about genetic mutations and differentiation of species, except it recognizes God made improvements to living organisms. God has shown many people miracles, thus it is believed that God is creator. There is also a realization that God did not cause people to do bad things. They erred apart from God as they wandered apart from what is righteous and benevolent.

 

[SkyWriting]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

I believe that animals change over time according to stress elements that develope in the immediate enviornment, and that God had already planned and continues to execute every moment of the Cosmos. But that's just me.

 

[SerenelyBlue]

Thank you very much for your answers.

 

[sfs]

But there exists also a deliberate and intentional mutation of an organism's DNA that we call parasite altered host behavior.

What parasites alter host behavior by changing its DNA? Other than retroviruses, that is.

 

[bcbsr]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

It's a very good question, and I think there may be different viewpoints even among theistic evolutionists.

If you frame the question in terms of an equation, is it:
Non-theistic evolution = time + stochastic processes + replication + natural selection
Theistic evolution = time + stochastic processes + replication + natural selection + God's intervention.

God's intervention being viewed as necessary in light of the improbability of the others explaining nature as we see it today.

 

[MariaJLM]

I have kind of always understood it as God triggering the changes in species, either directly or indirectly, rather than it all being by chance like the classic atheistic evolutionists believe. The former is essentially the stance I take, although I don't dwell on this issue much as it's not crucial to our salvation.

 

[SerenelyBlue]

Thank you for your responses

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

It looks to me as if the "theistic" adjective was adopted some time (years? decades?)
ago to
sooth the consciences of some who didn't believe Yahweh's Word could be accepted as Truth (for whatever reasons),
and still wanted to believe they were 'honestly' .... .... ... believing in 'God'.....

 

[SerenelyBlue]

Not believing in evolution equals substantial ignorance. You don't please God by becoming uneducated.

 

[pgp_protector]

Question assumes God didn't plan fully for what would happen.

 

[SerenelyBlue]

It is impossible to use evolution to create. It is a random process without purpose.

 

[Tom 1]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

As I understand it, the theory of evolution was and is developed through observation, hypothesis about what is observed, testing of the hypotheses, deductions from this process and so on. Theistic evolution accepts that there is a physical process of evolution but questions some of the hypotheses/conclusions drawn, and speculates about what role God might have in the process, e.g as overall originator of a subsequently natural process or as being directly involved at every stage, or building a directional purpose into the process in some way.

 

[sfs]

It is impossible to use evolution to create. It is a random process without purpose.

That's not correct. "Random process" just means a process that we, as humans, can't predict. There's nothing that says random processes can't be used to create. In fact, humans do use random processes to create: genetic algorithms are random, and they're used to design things, and a whole bunch of random processes are used to find solutions in machine learning.

Science describes evolution as random because it's unpredictable. It can't describe it as without purpose, since there is no scientific test for purpose.

 

[Job 33:6]

Really, "random" is good, in regards to evolution. Random allows for the inclusion of variation in any and every possible form. It is this same inclusion of variation, which allows us to live.

 

[Pastor Ryan Johnson]

Help us fight blind evolution and remind the world of our Creator (Film)!
www.ib7movie.org

 

[stevevw]

What is the difference between evolution and theistic evolution, except for the fact that with theistic evolution God is the first cause and therefore we can call it creation?

As someone else has mentioned evolution or the Modern synthesis is based on accidental natural causes which have no purpose or design in producing lifeforms. All life evolved from a universal common ancestor and branches out to form the tree of life which forms the basis of common descent. Natural selection weeds out the non-beneficial mutations and allows those with beneficial variation to survive and reproduce. According to this theory, all variation including increasing complexity stems from natural selection acting on random mutations.

As far as I understand it theistic evolution basically believes the same thing except they add that God created the universal common ancestor. The problem with both these ideas is that research is pointing to there being a forest of life rather than a tree of life because bacteria have a great ability for HGT. I think some theistic evolutionist may believe God created several forms of life that all life has evolved from so this may be in line with the research.

But the big difference I see is that evolution is based on natural causes that are accidents and have no purpose and theistic evolution has design and purpose because it is Gods creation. Even though some theistic evolutionist still supports the Darwinian theory I cannot see how they can deny purpose and design in their perspective. I think there is new evidence coming out all the time which is showing that life can evolve through built-in mechanisms that they were designed with rather than through random mutations and natural selection alone.

Such as through development processes that produce certain forms over others, the ability for life to change forms through environmental pressures that are often producing well-suited changes. Living things can control their own evolution through changing environment rather than having to be mutated into changing to fit into an environment and other ways of changing such as through epigenetics, HGT and symbiosis which allow creatures to share genetic info.

Living things and their environments can be viewed as a co-operative where ecosystems change rather than individual creatures through constructive or reciprocal change rather than adaptations alone. When taking this view to theistic evolution it makes more sense as it incorporates laws and mechanisms that God would have designed life with to be able to change and live on this planet and not be left to some random and blind process that does not guarentee any particular end result of having any purpose. As Dawkins said

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. River out of Eden (1995) p.133

 

[expos4ever]

It is impossible to use evolution to create. It is a random process without purpose.

I bet others have chimed in on this, but I believe evolution is not entirely "random" - the "natural selection" part cannot be understood as a "random" process.