Is "guided evolution" anachronistic?

Something that seems to be suggested a lot is that, okay, evolution might be evidenced, but maybe that's just how [x god] operates.

Evolution as I understood it is very much a chance operation, dependent on the possibility of extreme failure in order to make scientific sense. Similarly, as I understood God, he was something more than a name given to physical processes understood by science. So this argument was never very satisfying to me.

I'm just wondering what other people think really. I don't claim to be a great expert on god or evolution so I'd be interested in hearing anyone's views on the idea. Is it viable, or is it just religion trying to adapt to new science without appearing to back down (not that that's such a bad thing really)?

 

For evolution to work, we must assume that life does, in fact, evolve. This being the case, I see no reason why God might not have created a universe that functioned this way.

 

Well of course it is viable....anything is a possibility really, however the question we should be asking ourselves is how probable is it? Any "God" or to avoid misinterpretation/confusion we'll just say "creator," could have designed existence as such that it evolves in a specific way and everything is predetermined. This creator also could have simply allowed for mutations (evolution) to occur so as to continue on the original "life" or existence he created, aka adaptation and survivability. Perhaps it's the bases of allowing "life" to exist within existence, assuming this creator does not view all existence as life, but rather all life as a part of existence. Who knows really.....

However I would have to say that things such as "intelligent design" and anything along those parameters is pretty evidently just religious organizations trying to keep up with the times, and science just so happens to be a very significant aspect of the time being so far as humans are concerned. Everything is in flux, either you change with the unavoidable changes that take place or you fall behind in terms of "survivability"...apply this not only to life in general, but also organizations such as religions.

Because "God" may or may not exist, depending upon the perspective "God" is viewed from.

 

Obviously. I was saying that I see no inherent issue with the idea, though of course it's no more likely than anything else.

 

See, as I understood evolution, it's chance. As in, if it's not chance, then it's not evolution by definition. But I may have misunderstood the theory.

 

If evolution happened by chance, we wouldn't see evolution. In the theory of evolution there are a lot of random mutations. The crux of the theory is that the beneficial mutations remain, while the detrimental ones die off. I do see it as a bit illogical that God would guide every step in the process. I see no logical error in the idea that he created something and allowed it to evolve on its own.

Of course, I'm not even sure how credible the theory of evolution is.

 

Oh, I see where you're coming from. Mutations occur often times by chance in the form of an error when "copying" genetic structures, the change happens in the nucleotide. It's direction so to say is not a set path, however external stimuli do influence the rate at which mutations may occur.

If it is not chance, than it implies that the external stimuli has had much more of an impact on these mutations than we've expected, and the genetic code has evolved as a result. It's much more likely that if "evolution" did not occur mostly by chance and cross genetics that the external influences would be responsible, not a "God" that has mapped out the course of mutations.

The detrimental mutations themselves don't die off (aka the change in the code), the species usually dies as a result. An example: A bird is born with three wings due to a mutation, which actually prohibits it from flying...this in turn inhibits its ability to survive and it dies as a result. Those who have received beneficial mutations are a minority, however the offspring of these are typically the ones to survive as they in turn inherent the genetic makeup of the mutation, which then becomes a typical trait for that species.

 

You know that's not strictly true, right? I mean, as a way to briefly outline the theory it works, but it doesn't bear out. Detrimental traits frequently survive and beneficial traits frequently die out, or they're passed on but not in sufficient numbers that they don't get "drowned out" in the gene pool. A trait dies out if it isn't passed on to offspring who then pass it on to their offspring. A trait can have a pretty detrimental effect and still be passed on as long as it doesn't kill you before you reproduce. Similarly, a beneficial trait would only be reasonably "guaranteed" to be passed on if not possessing it hampered other creatures' chances of survival - if a trait is beneficial but uncommon, it's not going to be passed on in sufficient numbers to cause anything we'd recognise as a new species.

 

Okay, that was a poor way of phrasing it, but I think you know what I meant.

I'm impressed at your grasp of common sense principles. What I'm not so impressed with is your inability to see the intent of my explanation, which was not to explain the theory in any detail but to explain the basic premise. The basic premise is that organisms with beneficial mutations survive, while those with detrimental ones die. Obviously neither of these happens every single time, but the overall theory is that they usually do, or else you wouldn't have evolution.

 

I'd consider it the evolution of religion(that being some of it's followers) to take a less embarrassing stance in matters of it's dogma, versus what is being taught in public schools in the non theocratic places of the world.

From the polytheistic religions of the past to the monotheistic ones of the present, religion is always in a state of change through reinterpretation of it's doctrine.

Just my opinion.

It doesen't take much skill to change the Moral of the three little pigs from, "Do good work" to "Don't build wood houses" to an innocent child, or a credulous public for that matter.

 

Is not God anachronistic

Why do we need God?

 

I wonder if anyone in this thread actually knows what 'anachronistic' means. I haven't seen it used correctly yet.

 

I actually had to wiki the word. I'm still not quite sure what the OP is asking tho, but I"ll try??

But um.. yah, you really gotta know God outside of the dogma of religion. Basically, God = Evolution = All life = Change = Intelligence. All of these words are highly interrelated in concept.

You gotta understand that all life is intelligent, which means that all life is conscious. All life "feels", but not in a way which most people understand.

Mutations can happen due to genetic damage or mutation, but (IMO) much of it is done intelligently (with purpose).

If you need proof, just look at the human. We evolve consciously in every decision we make. The way we set up schools, set up our rooms, organize our social systems, our diets. We are simply the process of Evolution representing itself in a higher degree.

 

All the existing concepts about evolution or creation of life are projections of anthropomorphic ideas into external world.
Some might be more trendy or anachronistic than others, but still no difference in essence.

=======================================================

I like Woody Allen but I guess he never has read a chapter of what nuclear physicists really thought [or wrote] about projects they worked on, about purposes of latter and what philosophical implications were by-products of empirical observations and theoretical assumptions on the nature of nature, as discussed in a narrow circle of those extremely bright individuals.
Those ideas and thoughts will not reach the mainstream or even elite intellectual circles of New York for the next hundred or even hundreds of years.

And of what belongs to past (in terms of philosophical ideas about true nature of life), the single great name comes to mind, that of Schopenhauer.
Nobody has surpassed latter on reflecting more pessimistically and clearly on the observable mechanisms guiding individual life, with moral and ethical questions viewed in the context of mortality and utter objective insignificance of anything relative to near infinite time and universe.

 

I suspect it's a lot of the latter, but I have no problem with reconciling God and Darwin. Michael Miller, the evolutionary biologist who was the star witness against ID at the Dover school board trial, thinks that God does not exactly guide evolution, but did stack the deck by setting up the universe and the laws of physics in such a way that random events and natural selection would lead inevitably to intelligent life forms of some kind. Did science or his Catholic upbringing lead him to that conclusion? I'd suspect the latter, but it's only a theory.

 

^ Agreed tbh, the title of the thread is itself nonsensical.

 

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the title to this thread. What is "guided evloution"? I guess I think of the theories put forward by ID; or the more grandiose directional theory by the paleontologist and mystic, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin; or perhaps the NonRandom Mutation Theory of Lee Spetner, in which beneficial genetic changes are triggered by environmental cues. I'm falling asleep, so I'll try to grapple with these tomorrow.

 

What I've got from the title is:

"Is the idea of God guiding the process of evolution an error in chronology or something that is in the wrong historical time frame."

This does not make sense. Evolution could not have been in the wrong historical time frame (if indeed it happened, that's another debate). This implies it could have happened on Tuesday two weeks ago. Or 9 years ago. Or 90 trillion. Or whatever time frame you want to create.

 

The title of this thread immediately made me think of Teilhard. I'm doing research on him this semester (so that's probably why). His idea might be interesting to consider, at least philosophically. He believed convergence was the flip side of chaos and randomness. In response to randomness, chaos, life brought itself together in greater complexities/orders. Really made me think about this sort of "middle way" path between a more cartoonish, magical God "pushing" organisms along, and a strictly materialism point of view of the evolution of life.

 

Well - if God created universe in 7 days - he himself evolved trough the process...
Allowing God to be the supreme order of things - he probably evolves all the time - and we poor believers evolve with him together...
So I do not see anything wrong with Mr Evolution and Mr God going together without any trouble...