Progressive creationism is similar to theistic evolution in that it holds that the Earth and the universe are very old and that evolution occurred to a limited extent. It differs in that it believes God was more involved than in theistic evolution: rather than guiding the process and causing the more unlikely genetic changes to occur, he specifically created different kinds of animals by using previously existing animals as opposed to creating them out of nothing.
Most of the questions for theistic evolution and old-earth creationism also apply to progressive creation. This view accepts the standard scientific views of the age of the universe and the Earth, but rejects evolution. Genesis 1 is interpreted fairly literally, with the exception that the six days of creation were actually six eras, not literal hour days. Hence, this view is sometimes called the "day-age" view. When did the first man come into existence: 50, - , years ago according to secular science, or 6, years ago according to Biblical genealogies?
Even if "became the father of" in Genesis 5 means "became the ancestor of," the age of each person at the time their descendant was born is still recorded. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how this chapter can be reconciled with a belief that Adam and Eve existed tens of thousands of years ago. How is the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning" in Genesis 1 to be interpreted? See How Long an Evening and Morning? This view interprets Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible literally.
The Earth and all its life forms were created in six hour days, and the Earth is less than 10, years old. See Answers in Genesis' articles on geology. What's the age of the universe? What about stars that are millions of light-years away? See Answers in Genesis' articles on astronomy and astrophysics. See WikiChristian. And so he decided to gather a group of theologians and scientists to create the BioLogos Foundation in order to foster dialogue between the two sides.
Through the Washington-based foundation, Collins says he and his colleagues hope to support scholarship that "takes seriously the claims of both faith and science. But the primary audience for BioLogos is Collins' own Evangelical community. See the top 10 religion stories of As he read through the thousands of e-mails he received from readers of his book, the former NIH scientist noticed that there were 25 or so common questions that his mostly Evangelical correspondents raised.
How should Christians respond to Darwin? If God created the universe, who or what created God? Does believing in science mean one can't believe in miracles? What is up with Noah's Ark and the flood? Well, there was that whole excursion onto land thing. Sea mammals undoubtedly came from land mammals, not directly from sea fish. Yet the means to do so being not another techno fix, but a direct experience of transcendence. Changing human ethical conduct and perception nature beyond all natural and evolutionary boundaries or potential.
Displacing the evolutionary root for a new spiritual root or moral enhancement. Did God create natural selection, just as God created gravity and light? Of course. The problem here is not for God, but for humans. If humans are just like all other creatures governed by natural selection, then we really do not have anything to do.
They just exist! So why do we care about government and science? What does natural selection tell us to do? Does being good, whatever that means, give people an evolutionary advantage? If survival is the ultimate goal of life, as Darwin says, then it would follow, that eternal life or survival would be the ultimate reward to humans for living a good life.
McGowan says that belief in a rational universe is rational, and I quite agree. Thus he seems to be able to go along with a Creator God, but he does not think it is necessary to have a moral God, because science through natural selection explains how living beings act and exist.
But I raise the question, Is natural selection moral? If not, then humans need no morality and can just be selfish and ethnocentric.
If so, then the morality of natural selection must come from God and this gives God plenty to do. Just because natural selection is amoral, that does not mean human morals are irrelevant. Is gravity moral? Of course not. The same goes for natural selection which, like gravity, is a simple fact of the universe we live in. Attaching abstract, personal concepts like morality to these impersonal natural forces is meaningless. If natural selection is amoral, it means that it does not reward good and punish evil.
It means that nature is amoral. If goodness does not produce benefits for individuals or society, then morality is pointless and the amoral win. Yes, morality is personal. Maybe you did not notice it, but Mr. McGowan seems to deny that humans are personal.
Being personal is what makes humans special and unique beings, very different from our hominid peers and other creatures. In any case it seems that he thinks that our destinies are governed by an impersonal force such as karma, which is not moral because it does not take motive in consideration. What do you think? Are humans special in that they are rational and moral? In that we are not doing a very good job being rational and moral, do we need help from God?
Natural selection is amoral, just as gravity is amoral. However, morality is a valid survival strategy and to the extent that it is a valid survival strategy it is selected for. A species that cooperates survives better than a species made up solely of competing individuals. A species that can coordinate itself into large cooperative structures survives better than one that can only coordinate itself into small cooperative structures.
Societies that can cooperate fare better than those that war against themselves. So a moral sense, morality, and cooperation are all products of natural selection… but still these are but one strategy and cooperation between species is not an automatic consequence. We still have species whose lifecycle is to burrow into a human eye and blind our children. We still have species succeeding because they are ruthless towards those they steal resources from.
We still have species that live distant from one another and do not cooperate except to breed. Natural selection favours what works, which may or may not match our own moral sense.
Humans are far from being the only moral species. We likely are the most cooperative species on the planet and this has produced clear benefits for us. We are also able to plan and match our behaviours to a preferred outcome better than other species can. Altruism as a survival trait exists in many species, and cooperative individuals do tend to survive better and have more opportunities to pass on their genetic material.
It was challenging at first to realize that our perception of morality likely has its roots in the amoral process of natural selection. I understand how some people can suggest that, if our moral compass has no greater purpose or foundation, then there is no reason to consider the ethical implications of our personal and group decisions.
However, our evolved moral sense is what led us to develop the concepts of love, equality, and consideration for our neighbors. Even if these are human inventions, does their enhancement of our mutual life experiences not give them some value, if only for us?
As sentient creatures, we have the ability to choose, to some extent, how we think about, perceive and interact with our world. It seems nonsensical to suggest that our evolutionary origins render illegitimate our desire for a positive human experience. Working together and taking care of each other has so far been the best strategy for a mutually positive human experience.
The existence or non-existence of a god seems inconsequential in this discussion. Also, apologies for any biology- or philosophy-related faux-pas I may have committed above. Please feel free to correct me, and offer resources that will broaden and enhance my understanding. Thank you in advance. Thank you Benjamin and Swanon for your responses. I am old fashioned enough to think if something has moral consequences, it is moral, rather than amoral.
You know, if something looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck or a very good facsimile. Just because some products of natural selection do not seem to be based on the principle of cooperation does not per se disprove the rule, if the general principle holds.
I have defined morality as the conscious following of moral principles, so by that definition only humans can be moral. I would suggest that if we can determine that the universe is both rationally and morally structured, which is a big if, then this fact is evidence of creation by a rational and moral God.
The obverse then would be true, if we find the universe to be not rationally nor morally structured, then humans are justified to claim there is no rational and moral creator God. If God acts like and works like God, then God is God. Great essay, Dale.
There is, quite simply, no way to reconcile evolution and Christian doctrine. There never was an Adam and Eve, and as you say, there was never a time when the offspring of proto-humans could be so different from their parents that one could call them the first modern humans. This is the BS that the Catholic church is now trying to sell to the public, but it fails miserably. Genetics also destroys Christian doctrine. But now we know that it is the Y chromosome donated by the father that produces male children, and that a virgin, even if she could be pregnant without sperm, would only produce a clone of herself.
If you want to argue that the long and bloody history of religion has somehow made man more moral, well, you might find that to be an easier sell on a religious blog.
My problem only begins when believers reject evolution. Believers may suffer from cognitive dissonance or not, their belief systems may be accomodatable with science or not, I will remain an atheist anyway.
Morality is a human construct and derives from a societies joint agreement on what is ethical and what is the best way for individuals to behave in order to have a society that does not descend into chaos.
The so-called lower animals have their own forms of morality and behavior characteristics that ensure group cohesion, which in turn ensures group survival. Human morality is always in flux. To try and argue that without Gawd man would be better off doing any damn thing he pleases just to please himself is idiotic.
Every animal that lives in groups has been supplied by evolution with behavior traits that keep the group from dissolving into chaos and breaking apart.
As I noted, I am very non-mainstream, thus what I believe may or may not map to other mainstream Christian beliefs. But yes, that spiritual relationship relates to everything that God expresses. What convinces you that those that taught you what you now believe, knew what they were talking about?
How did they attain this knowledge? You do realize that theologies are conceptual notions regarding God, right?
0コメント