Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Christian Darwinism and the Evolutionary Pathway to Spirit.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Deductive logic teaches us that the acts of reasoning and knowing are inseparable from the act of negating. To understand the law of non-contradiction (a thing cannot be and not be at the same time) is to also understand its reciprocal principle, the law of identity (a thing is what it is and not something else). If we know what cannot be, we also know, in a complementary sense, what is. As the legendary Sherlock Holmes reminds us, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

On the subject of God and Evolution, for example, there are two competing models, but only one of them can possibly be true. In order to provide a meaningful overview, I will use common terms in my abbreviated summary of each model so that the differences relevant to our discussion will become evident:

{A} Traditional Theistic Evolution acknowledges two Divine creative strategies. (1) Through a purposeful evolutionary process, God “forms” man’s material body from the bottom up, and (2) By means of a creative act, God “breathes in” an immaterial soul from the top down, joining spirit with matter.

{B} Contemporary Christian Darwinism recognizes only one Divine creative strategy. Through a natural evolutionary process, God “allows” all of man’s physical, rational, and spiritual traits to emerge from the bottom up and does not, under any circumstances, intervene from the top down, even to infuse a soul into a pre-existent human.

Can we say with apodictic certainty that one of these paradigms is false and, by extension, that the other one is true? If we assume that God exists, and if we assume that rational souls exist, and if we assume universal common descent is a valid theory, then the answer is yes. Reason dictates that a bottom-up, evolutionary process, though it may be responsible for the development of lower living forms, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, produce a rational soul. In other words, Christian Darwinism is, without question, a false world view. To be rational, then, one must either embrace Traditional Theistic Evolution or reject macro evolution (universal common descent) altogether.

But how do we know that Christian Darwinists are wrong when they assume that matter can evolve into spirit? To begin with, we must take note of the way Christians differentiate between these two realms of existence: material entities, such as bodies, brains, and organs are physical entities and contain parts, which means that they can disintegrate, decay, die, or be transformed into some other kind of matter (or energy, perhaps); spiritual entities such as souls, minds and faculties, are non-physical entities and contain no parts, which means that they cannot disintegrate, die, or be changed into something else.

Clearly, a material body (or brain), which will die and change into another kind of matter, cannot evolve into a spiritual soul (or mind), which is unchangeable, contains no parts, and will live forever. If then, spirit is to be joined with matter, its origins cannot come from matter or from a material process; it must come from another source, that is, it must come directly from God, who creates spirit and implants it in a pre-existing being from the top down.

Even So, Christian Darwinists, without a modicum of embarrassment, hold that matter can, through incremental evolutionary changes, make the leap from dust to eternity. While materialists argue that molecules can come from out of nowhere and then re-arrange themselves to produce organic life; Christian Darwinists argue that molecules can re-arrange themselves into a spiritual soul that contains no molecules. I will leave it to the reader to discern which of these two propositions represents the greater threat to the standards of rational thought.

For a Christian to make sense of evolution, he must, if he accepts universal common descent, and if he accepts the transcendent nature of the soul, envisage some process by which God, at the right stage in the evolutionary process, implanted the soul into a pre-existing human being. The process itself simply cannot make the voyage. For rational theists, no gradual development from lower animal forms to human rational souls can be admitted.

Comments
Aren't you a believer in eternal souls? If so, it's peculiar that you'd take issue with some evolutionary path to a supernatural soul. That may be unworkable, and I think it is, but it's the "supernatural" part that's lacking rational critique, not the evolution part. And if I'm recalling you correctly, you just "leap" there, to credulous acceptance of a rational soul. That does not seem self-aware as a position to take. When I was a Christian, for the last decade or so I was a theistic evolutionist. Maybe theistic evolution (or "Biologos" or whatever they call it now) has changed a lot as an ideology, but I did not hold to scenario {B}, nor can I recall any of the many theistic evolutionists I interacte with embracing {B}. It's a big world, so I don't doubt that {B} does happen, but who would you point to as a reference for the advocacy of {B} out there? I'd be interested to read that argument from them. In any case, embracing the superstitions you embrace pretty much cuts your legs out in any such dispute. If I'm a theist, advocating for {B}, it's not even hard dispensing with your argument: God's design, from before the foundation of the universe, incorporated a spiritual dimension to matter that in configurations where God's evolved creatures reason and respond to natural law, the supernatural vector of that matter-spirit fusion endures. That's just how God designed it." Boom, you're refuted. That's the wonder of theology. No one knows anything, and everyone "knows" everything, all at the same time, and my credulous superstitions are just as powerful as yours, and so nullifying any theological position you want to adopt is trivial, if I don't happen to agree with it. Or, I could say: God 'etherealizes' the mind at death, and this becomes the eternal soul, preserved perfectly in character and quality, just unbound from the flesh. Evolution produced a physical 'soul' in the form of a reasoning mind with free will and moral agency, and it is "transcoded to eternity" upon the death of that person. Once you let me play on your supernaturalist playing field, it's dueling intuitions, unbound by any accountability to falsification, or practical models. Your God and mine is BIG, BIG god! And so he can do anything. Further more, your God and mine is MYSTERIOUS, and his ways our HIGHER than ours. This means no credulous intuition can be resisted with more than a counter-intuition, which is to say it can't be resisted at all. So you say "that makes no sense, for supernatural substances to evolve along with physical matter, or to be produced by biological evolution". Well, have a sit on your own petard, why don't you: who are who to tell God how he can or cannot, or did or did not operate??? A theist who believes in an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot offer this as anything more than idle conjecture:
Clearly, a material body (or brain), which will die and change into another kind of matter, cannot evolve into a spiritual soul (or mind), which is unchangeable, contains no parts, and will live forever.
That's theology for ya! It's a blessing and a curse. You can conjecture such, and no one can ever discredit your idea. Your conjecture is immune to discredit. But by the same token, it's impotent, and can't touch anyone else's conflicting or different conjectures. At it's most epic, it's two idle conjectures trying to gum each other death, and failing horribly. No confirming, falsifying, or adjudicating feedback from real world evidence is needed, or even relevant. If your God can do all the magical, fabulous, imaginary things you subscribe to, so can the god of the subscriber to {B}.eigenstate
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply