Talk:Guided evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think we need an article on "guided evolution", as opposed to "unguided evolution". It's a distinction worth making, if only to shed light on the creation-evolution controversy.
| Evolution | "Creationism" | |
|---|---|---|
| Unguided evolution | Guided evolution | Young-Earth creationism |
| "Evolution" | Creationism | |
- Guided evolution: Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process
- Unguided evolution: Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
- Young-earth creationism: God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so
The terms are in use, and it will help us as writers to be able to refer to the concepts if there's an article - or at least some links. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Evolution and divine guidance
I think this matter can be merged into Theistic evolution, but I'd like to see it clarified here first.
At issue is the significance of the claim that "evolution is compatible with" this or that religion. I think this depends on the term evolution is used.
- Also the kind of religion--Filll 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If it means that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process" - then this directly contradicts many church's notions of the creative process.
- But in some cases, like Hinduism, it is somewhat in accord.--Filll 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
But if it only means that (1) the various species came into being over the long course of geological histort (i.e., the fossil record is authentic) - then a huge number of additional church's will accept this.
- But not all of course.--Filll 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be an issue of the "middle ground", the 40 to 45 percent who reject the idea that "God had no part in this process" but who can't swallow the idea that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form".
- Sort of, but I think it is more complicated. I think you are smart to raise the question however, so we can ponder it. I am not sure we can get anywhere however.--Filll 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Humans as distinct from animals
Another confusing factor that's easy to overlook is the distinction that religious people usually make between (A) Human beings and (B) animals. For many - if not most - human beings are "higher than" animals. Biologists, on the other hand, class human beings "as" animals.
Some religious sentiment (or doctrine) is probably caught up in this distinction. It's insulting or heretical to some, to hear that human beings and animals have a common ancestor. ("We are not apes".)
Scientists may be perplexed or amused at this distinction.
- It might be difficult for humans to swallow. But in many issues: language, tools, warfare, arithmetic, genetics, use of fire, emotions, culture, traditions, etc, the behavior of animals and humans overlap, and animals and humans do not appear as distinct separate groups. As I ponder this, the only thing that seems to distinguish animals and humans is the manufacture of textiles (which could be linked in with Genesis if a person wanted to?).--Filll 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, you left out the invention of computers. :-) --Uncle Ed 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Atheism vs. Faith
Then there's the connection with atheism. I think this is the "third rail" of the whole shebang. If human beings, or species in general, could come about without any intervention by God, this permits atheism. Many religious believers reject atheism adamantly, even vehemently.
If human beings could not come about without God's intervention, then this forbids atheism. Many atheists reject any sort of "science" or "theory" or "belief" which contradicts atheism.
- True atheists get involved in this debate and turn up the level of heat considerably. I do not believe that it is particularly constructive.--Filll 17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Need for clarification
Okay, I've laid it out the best I can. I think that the stuff that's been swept under the rug should be brought out, even if some readers (or contributors) would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! I mixed my metaphors, sorry. :-) --Uncle Ed 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evolution polls
See also my laboriously constructed table(s) at User:Ed Poor/creationism table. --Uncle Ed 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
