How Did Humanity Come To Be

[General Mung Beans]

How did the human race to be. Personally I am an evolutionary creationist (aka theistic evolutionist).

[Singular Intellect]

How did the human race to be. Personally I am an evolutionary creationist (aka theistic evolutionist).

If you really understood evolution, you'd understand perfectly why there's no place in it for a deity.

Furthermore, you should be asking how any deity 'came to be' if you seriously advocate its existence.

[Anguirus]

Uh...good for you? Congratulations on not being completely crazy?

I mean, do you pretty much believe that science is sufficient to explain the evolution of Homo sapiens, and that our current set of traits evolved in response to various environmental pressures, only "Plus One God?" If so, you're proposing an additional actor that is not necessary, but you're not actually actively wrong with regards to the biological process of evolution and the natural history of humanity. You're just tacking unnecessary stuff on top that I don't believe in myself.

If you believe the "Intelligent Design" propagandists, and believe that Homo sapiens must have been somehow designed by some magic woo-woo in order to exist, then you're wrong for a million reasons.

[Samuel]

I don't get theistic evolution. Why would God use a superior process and natural selection at the same time (in this case superior is defined as "not greased with the blood of the weak)?

[Guardsman Bass]

How did the human race to be. Personally I am an evolutionary creationist (aka theistic evolutionist).

It's debated, but if I remember my biological anthropology class, right now the general consensus is that modern Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa off of a group of hominid species known as "archaic Homo Sapiens" (there were arguments about how the group split up into different species of hominids, and which one is the main predecessor for modern homo sapiens), and then spread out across the world from there. Neanderthals were a "cousin" species of hominids, and all of us evolved from Homo Erectus at some point or another.

[Covenant]

How did the human race to be. Personally I am an evolutionary creationist (aka theistic evolutionist).

We are descended from great apes, along with several other human-like species that did not survive as long as we have. Advanced tool use was one of the very old and very useful adaptations of our now-extinct hominid forefathers, moving from simple tools like Chimpanzees to full tools made for a purpose. Though not unique to us, as other animals understand the use and modification of objects for tools, great apes have a large brain and complex manipulators that allow them to get a lot more creative with their tools (or toys) than, say, a Dolphin or a Bird or even an Otter. That should dampen your feelings of uniqueness, just be glad you have thumbs.

And from then on forth it was basically a crapshoot. Several species competed for dominance separately, but generally the smarter you were the faster you could adapt to other environments, since you didn't need to wait for biological evolution to catch up, you could just make do with more tools. It seems likely that we got lucky, as Homo Sapiens has a decidedly homogeneous genetic spectrum, making it likely we're descended from an unusually small number of individuals (10,000 - 1,000 breeding pairs) and there were other humanoid species around (and possibly even Homo Sapiens sub-species) that could have theoretically out-competed us for control. Or it could mean that we're descended from a group that did alarmingly well, just like how the Neanderthals themselves didn't survive to today either, despite being large-brained, intelligent, capable tool-users.

I don't get theistic evolution. Why would God use a superior process and natural selection at the same time (in this case superior is defined as "not greased with the blood of the weak)?

He wouldn't and nowhere in either evolution or theism is such an origin evidenced. Since these are nearly always huge whitewashing attempts on established creation stories one has to wonder why the infallible deity (or pantheon) in question didn't just tell us the real story from day one.

It's basically the worst idea you can have. In most religions the creation aspect is usually quite important to the end result, without which large portions of the following story fall apart. The most common examples of this are the wishy-washy sorts of "hand-held evolution" where our ancestors are nannied along just to get us to the point where we can be judged and condemned to fiery hells for disobedience.

The idea that mankind is a unique creation should not only get blown out of the water by the multiple hominid species that were around, but also due to the fact that unless you're a Sumerian Evolutionary Creationist I can't really see why your chosen god took so damned long to appear to it's chosen people just so it could make up some crazy and false creation story.

[Channel72]

It's basically the worst idea you can have. In most religions the creation aspect is usually quite important to the end result, without which large portions of the following story fall apart. The most common examples of this are the wishy-washy sorts of "hand-held evolution" where our ancestors are nannied along just to get us to the point where we can be judged and condemned to fiery hells for disobedience.

Yes, biological evolution is pretty much impossible to reconcile with Judeo-Christian creation mythology. But I'd rather people try to half-heartedly "incorporate" theism into biological evolution than go the fundie route and just deny evolution entirely. The first option is simply misguided, but the latter leads to a blatant denial of reality with often harmful results.

[Temujin]

How did the human race to be. Personally I am an evolutionary creationist (aka theistic evolutionist).

Well, there was this Monolith you see.

Seriously, its as others have pointed out. A number of different groups of primates evolved to varying degrees. Some of the more successful species survived and evolved further, while some of the less successful species went extinct. In between we ended up with less developed primates that survive to this day (the great apes), and groups like Neanderthals, who despite initial success, eventually succumbed, although the exact reason why is still not entirely understood.

We're special only in the sense that we survived, not by any divine mandate, but by chance. It could have easily gone another way.

[Einzige]

'Theistic evolutionism' has always struck me as even more fundamentally dishonest than Biblical literalism. The Fundamentalist will say to you, point-blank, precisely what his agenda is, what he believes and what he is after. 'Liberal' Christians, on the other hand, always strike me as theocrats sotto voce: they'll actively refuse to let you in on what they're getting at until it has been gotten at, and then expect you to stand in awe of their understanding and cosmopolitanism (and, of course, to accept Christianity as a by-product of that).

[Serafina]

'Theistic evolutionism' has always struck me as even more fundamentally dishonest than Biblical literalism. The Fundamentalist will say to you, point-blank, precisely what his agenda is, what he believes and what he is after. 'Liberal' Christians, on the other hand, always strike me as theocrats sotto voce: they'll actively refuse to let you in on what they're getting at until it has been gotten at, and then expect you to stand in awe of their understanding and cosmopolitanism (and, of course, to accept Christianity as a by-product of that).

That is pretty much by definition not "fundamentalist", since it does not rely soley on a foundation - unlike literalism, which is based soley on a single book.
It is also much saner, since it does not have to deny basically all of science - basically, theistic evolution just says "god fiddled with evolution from time to time since he wanted to achieve something specific".

How did the human race to be. Personally I am an evolutionary creationist (aka theistic evolutionist).

Evolution is both a fact and a theory - like music is a fact (that you can observe etc.) and get's studied with musical theory. The Theory of Evolution pretty much explains the observed facts of evolution.

To make a long story short and simple:
Now extint apes in Africa were put under selective pressure that favored both higher intelligence and bidepalism.
The bipedalism was a better way of movement in a Savanna (prodiving a better field of sight against predators and faster propulsion) while intelligence helped to cope with predators etc.
At some point, intelligence had evolved to a degree where it was suddenly much more advantageous and provided means to overcome the limitations of their physiology - advanced tool use.
From there onwards, we have several species of homo sapiens that got more and more intelligent. Most of them slowly spread from Africa to other continents, since they were now highly adaptable to new enviorments. Imagine it somewhat like this: You have two tribes in one area and both tribes grow. One day, both are too large to stay in the same area and one moves out - to the next best unoccupied hunting ground or something like that.
These early human species were then replaced by newer ones, until the modern human (homo sapiens sapiens, that's we) came along.

Humanity is of couse still evolving, but we no longer have a large central population that provides new species that then migrate (which is the reason for the multiple stages of our development) - after all, we are more or less evenly spread across the world for a long time now.
Pretty much no one can relibly tell you where that evolution will go, since it just depends on waaay to many factors - like predicting the weather for next year.

Incidentally, humans are STILL apes - in the same way that we are mammals or penguins are birds.
The fossil record for human evolution is pretty rich, we know dozen of intermediary species - there really isn't a missing link any more, tough it's of course always possible that we find another intermediary species.
It's kinda like this - we started with two dots and then discovered more and more dots between those two. Right now we have a dotted line - there is still room, but is is clearly a line.

[Einzige]

That is pretty much by definition not "fundamentalist", since it does not rely soley on a foundation - unlike literalism, which is based soley on a single book.
It is also much saner, since it does not have to deny basically all of science - basically, theistic evolution just says "god fiddled with evolution from time to time since he wanted to achieve something specific".

I didn't say it is fundamentalism. I said it is more dishonest than fundamentalism.

[Serafina]

That is pretty much by definition not "fundamentalist", since it does not rely soley on a foundation - unlike literalism, which is based soley on a single book.
It is also much saner, since it does not have to deny basically all of science - basically, theistic evolution just says "god fiddled with evolution from time to time since he wanted to achieve something specific".

I didn't say it is fundamentalism. I said it is more dishonest than fundamentalism.

Ah, sorry, i misread that.

Still, i disagree with you:
An Young Earth Creationist denies all of science, while a theistic evolutionists only chooses to read the bible in a non-literal fashion. That's not even dishonest, since it is clearly not written to be read in a literal way.

[Einzige]

That is pretty much by definition not "fundamentalist", since it does not rely soley on a foundation - unlike literalism, which is based soley on a single book.
It is also much saner, since it does not have to deny basically all of science - basically, theistic evolution just says "god fiddled with evolution from time to time since he wanted to achieve something specific".

I didn't say it is fundamentalism. I said it is more dishonest than fundamentalism.

Ah, sorry, i misread that.

Still, i disagree with you:
An Young Earth Creationist denies all of science, while a theistic evolutionists only chooses to read the bible in a non-literal fashion. That's not even dishonest, since it is clearly not written to be read in a literal way.

Right, I understand that. If there were a sliding scale of falsity, the Fundamentalist would be all the way at the end. My qualm is on a somewhat more meta level. Maybe it's just my personal experiences, but every 'theistic evolutionist' I've ever debated seemed to want me to be impressed by his temper - as if to say, "Here is a rational Christian; ergo, Christianity is rational!"

Like I've said, it's not something I can immediately put my finger on. But I have run into it before. It's smugness, but a self-conscious smugness. At least the starry-eyed zealot makes no bones of his beliefs.

[Covenant]

I agree that theistic evolution is more dishonest than fundamentalism. Fundamentalism, while insane, is a self-contained crazy. Trying to stick invisible god fingers in a million science pies and then explain it away with "It is a mystery!" is dishonest about faith and about science. Which do you believe? The science does not need god, and the god texts never mentioned science before you were confronted with it.

Yes, biological evolution is pretty much impossible to reconcile with Judeo-Christian creation mythology. But I'd rather people try to half-heartedly "incorporate" theism into biological evolution than go the fundie route and just deny evolution entirely. The first option is simply misguided, but the latter leads to a blatant denial of reality with often harmful results.

All true, but that doesn't make it admirable. Here's my rationale:

Someone who is taking up the "Theistic Evolution" concept isn't waffling between evolution and creationism, they're waffling between creationism and deistic creation, where the two sides are represented by a hands-off creator being that allowed evolution to occur and a literal guided shat-into-existance creation. It's not an evolutionary theory, it just accepts evolution as a fact and then assumes, regardless of the mechanism, that there must be a contrived divine hand in things.

Theistic Creationism is a middle path between those two religious concepts that says that while God didn't take a literal hand shaping us from dirt, he also didn't just stand all the way back, and instead nudged natural processes towards a form of creation preferred by the almighty but not actually built by it literally.

Such a person already has doubts about a literal creation and believes that these writers were not always correct, so they must be open to the concept that the texts could be mis-written, written about things we know are false, or simply stories. This isn't a person we need to congratulate yet. If they really do think that you have to look past some of it, and that observable science is still verifiable (otherwise there would be no evolutionary prefix to their thought) then you need to push them a bit harder until they move that line in the sand back a little further, and a little further, and eventually end up with doubt about the entire creation thing and admitting that evolution stands fine on it's own.

Anyway, I don't mind transitional thought, people can't lurch from one extreme to another. I'll throw some zingers at the theistic evolution proponents but they're not going to get the full cannonade until they're the last ones standing.

[General Mung Beans]

A reply to major points:

1. I'm not really a "liberal" Christian either-other than theistic evolution I am generally conservative in my theological views.
2. I do not need to be told how evolution happened-I know. I was asking your opinions.
3. The question about whether evolution need or does not need God is interesting. If one believes (as I do) God caused the Big Bang than nothing currently in the universe would be able to exist without Him.

[Stark]

How can god cause the big bang? Why is this a better explanation than 'it happened'?

[Einzige]

I'll bite.

3. The question about whether evolution need or does not need God is interesting. If one believes (as I do) God caused the Big Bang than nothing currently in the universe would be able to exist without Him.

Why? What would be the point, if Jahveh really existed, to go about doing His business in such an extraneous way? If He is possessed of all the attributes most Christians argue for (omnipotence chief among them), why bother with either the Big Bang or 'theistic evolution'? Within the context of a Biblically-based worldview, a literal reading of the Genesis creation account actually makes more sense, if we still accept the validity of the principle of parsimony.

Actually -- that's not quite true. Mucking about in the dirt seems quite unbecoming of a deity who could do the same amount of work without making any effort whatsoever.

[General Mung Beans]

I'll bite.

3. The question about whether evolution need or does not need God is interesting. If one believes (as I do) God caused the Big Bang than nothing currently in the universe would be able to exist without Him.

Why? What would be the point, if Jahveh really existed, to go about doing His business in such an extraneous way? If He is possessed of all the attributes most Christians argue for (omnipotence chief among them), why bother with either the Big Bang or 'theistic evolution'? Within the context of a Biblically-based worldview, a literal reading of the Genesis creation account actually makes more sense, if we still accept the validity of the principle of parsimony.

Actually -- that's not quite true. Mucking about in the dirt seems quite unbecoming of a deity who could do the same amount of work without making any effort whatsoever.

You might as well ask "Why doesn't God prove His existence by performing miracles for everyone?"

[Srelex]

You might as well ask "Why doesn't God prove His existence by performing miracles for everyone?"

Some consider that a legitimate question.

[Einzige]

I'll bite.

3. The question about whether evolution need or does not need God is interesting. If one believes (as I do) God caused the Big Bang than nothing currently in the universe would be able to exist without Him.

Why? What would be the point, if Jahveh really existed, to go about doing His business in such an extraneous way? If He is possessed of all the attributes most Christians argue for (omnipotence chief among them), why bother with either the Big Bang or 'theistic evolution'? Within the context of a Biblically-based worldview, a literal reading of the Genesis creation account actually makes more sense, if we still accept the validity of the principle of parsimony.

Actually -- that's not quite true. Mucking about in the dirt seems quite unbecoming of a deity who could do the same amount of work without making any effort whatsoever.

You might as well ask "Why doesn't God prove His existence by performing miracles for everyone?"

Good evasion. Bad answer. I'll repeat: why would a deity - and not just any deity, but the God of Abrahamic monotheism, who has always been treated as a Supreme Being - need any sort of convoluted process to accomplish what He sets out to do? This line of reasoning can extend quite beyond just the creation myth, into the very centrifugal sacrifice at the heart of Christianity itself.

[General Mung Beans]

I see where your argument is going:Why did God bother to send His Son to Earth to have Him sacrificed so men could be forgiven? And even the creation account in Genesis could have been more streamlined: why not create the world and everything on it in one moment?

((Unnecessary quote tags removed --LadyTevar))

[Samuel]

1. I'm not really a "liberal" Christian either-other than theistic evolution I am generally conservative in my theological views.

What does that mean? Jesus thinks the poor leach off welfare?

You might as well ask "Why doesn't God prove His existence by performing miracles for everyone?"

Because he doesn't exist?

I see where your argument is going:Why did God bother to send His Son to Earth to have Him sacrificed so men could be forgiven? And even the creation account in Genesis could have been more streamlined: why not create the world and everything on it in one moment?

Are you going to offer an answer to this?

[Einzige]

I see where your argument is going:Why did God bother to send His Son to Earth to have Him sacrificed so men could be forgiven?

Precisely. Why not, say, just forget about those Talmudic sacrificial requirements (a Law He formulated, mind) and forgive mankind without needing to appease his own bloodthirstyness?

And even the creation account in Genesis could have been more streamlined: why not create the world and everything on it in one moment?

Indeed. The Christian God seems to be more wasteful than any government programme I can imagine.

[General Mung Beans]

What does that mean? Jesus thinks the poor leach off welfare?

No but that I believe in most of the usual Evangelical Christian theology such as salvation by faith and conservative morality; to give an example: if you were to ask me people I'm influenced theologically by I would name Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham, and John MacArthur although at the same time I believe Graham is too ecumenical and that MacArthur is rather too anti-Catholic.

Are you going to offer an answer to this?

Because God moves in mysterious ways beyond human understanding but I'm quite sure you'll laugh at that explanation.

[Einzige]

No but that I believe in most of the usual Evangelical Christian theology such as salvation by faith and conservative morality; to give an example: if you were to ask me people I'm influenced theologically by I would name Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham, and John MacArthur although at the same time I believe Graham is too ecumenical and that MacArthur is rather too anti-Catholic.

Ah, that's understandable, then. I don't blame you: most low-church Protestants couldn't tell you what they believe, either.

Because God moves in mysterious ways beyond human understanding but I'm quite sure you'll laugh at that explanation.

You're right.