What we must accept if we accept evolution

I think it comes down to whether one is inclined to either believe in things for which we do not have evidence (faith), maintain an open mind on such things (agnosticism), or disbelieve in them

The Catholic Church accepts evolutionary theory but still holds that the human soul originated with God

I think that there MUST be some (kind) of determinism in TOE

You can study evolution without believing science is the avenue, or the only avenue, to truth.

This doesn't make sense to me. Nihilism is a subjective opinion

The Fall....

In which case we should all go home.

So you don't accept that your house has a Domovoi?

A: So you don't accept quantum indeterminacy?

A: So you don't accept that Eos has rosy fingers?

A: So you don't think that there is value in existence, and that morality is thus meaningless?

Are you willing to examine the evidence that seems to indicate that your assumption is wrong?

Surely one could believe in a supernatural world without necessarily believing in an immaterial soul.

Okay, then let's start with th fact that I am a Christian and yet also find the TOE to be the best explanation available for the life we see about us and that which came before.
Is that sufficient eveidence to falsify your asserton?

Domovoi are not material entities...I provided a link for you to help.

Well, in that case, the fact that I can provide thousands and thousands of names of Christians who believe both Christianity and also that the TOE is a valid explanation of life as we can see it will not be accepted as evidence falsifying your assertion?

why is your god a liar?

I'm not sure what to do except to reiterate my argument. The argument is that meaning is created by mind. It cannot be objective or subjective, except as created so by a mind.Then meaning has no place in this discussion. Rationality and logic does not necessitate that meaning be objective (applying to everything / all people) or subjective (applying to only one person). Meaning is created by a person. If you are that person, the meaning is objective. And there is no way to objectively see that it is not objective. If you are not that person, then that person's meaning looks subjective.In other words, the "objectivity" of meaning is observer-dependent. There are observers who have objective meaning. Just because you view it as subjective doesn't make it subjective. Just because it is only one person holding that meaning doesn't make it subjective.In other words, there's nothing that can make meaning "objectively subjective". Everybody judging meaning is an observer, and has meaning attached with their viewpoint. There is no observer-dependent position on meaning. Meaning is only subjective insofar as the observer sees it that way.There is no abstract, observer-independent view on meaning. Nihilism, inasfar as it is true, is only true because that is what you have chosen, and insofar as you are the observer. There is no logical necessity beyond that bare point. Because meaning is created, and you can't ... BE without it.Just ask Faith.