How can theists believe in Darwinian evolution?

This is a question that to me is puzzling in it's logic.There are people who proclaim themselves to be Christian, or holding other similar faiths, who believe 100% in Darwinian evolution. It makes no sense at all to me. One tenet of such religions is that there is a soul, or at least a connection between the human and its God-a connection that differs from a connection that exists between an insect or other being, and a God. So how can one believe this? Is it through ignorance of the meaning of Darwinian evolution, is it through denial, or is it rational in someway that is not readily apparent.Afterall, if humans came to be through natural, unguided mechanisms, how in the world could there be a soul? And have can humans have a unique relationship with a God, when there was never any plan for any of us to exist anyway, and we are absolutely no different from any other living being including plants and bacteria- other than our complexity-which is really just an illusion anyway. God decided to develop a relationship with humans AFTER he found out, to his surprise that this sentient being arrived out of the chaos? That seems like a silly joke.How can people like Kenneth Miller and the like even begin to address this? I have no clue-but it strikes me as idiotic.

Thread copied here from the How can theists believe in Darwinian evolution? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

The way I see it, a god could have made humans by evolution. Humans are all the things that the bible says about us in terms of being special but the mechanism to bring us into being was evolution.Perhaps YHWH had a reason for all of the time before humanity that he did not care to share with us because it was not relevant at the time.After all, he used concepts and language that people could comprehend at the time.Now that we are less ignorant of the world we can read his words written in the rocks and the soil and in our bones. Perhaps we no longer need to be 'talked down to' by YHWH and can read his words directly.Was that any help?

It is fairly obvious. They have faith that their chosen beliefs are correct, and at the same time are sufficently convinced that they can trust the natural world to reveal scientific truths about the world that their chosen deity has created. If their religious texts say one thing, but the world reveals another, then one has to question whether their reading and interpretation of the texts is correct, or whether they are being deceived in some way (Satan burying bones, etc.)I have numerous scientist friends, colleagues and ex-lovers who are evangelical Christians, and are theistic evolutionists. They see neo-Darwinian evolution as both obvious and inevitable, and likewise see Genesis 1-2 as obviously allegorical. It doesn't casue them any problems.I also know a few young scientists who started as creationists, and even managed to maintain this through their (bio/med) degrees - yet when it came to their post-grad period, they all abandoned creationism in the face of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Always interesting to see that particular development... So you believe in the kind of god who could not impart a soul to some creature if he wished it? You must belive in a fairly weak deity. And you believe in a god that doesn't know the future? Strange. Yep, that how it all seems to me (creationism and theistic evolution) - but I guess it took me a while to see it...

I don't have such a problem understanding how people can have faith that their beliefs are correct as much as I do trying to figure out what the heck those beliefs are. There are people that believe that there was never any plan for humans to exist, that they are simply the accidental result of chance mixing of chemicals, which may one day morph itself into a grey ooze, or into solid blocks of breathing moss, but that for some particular reason, God found out that humans were one of the byproducts of this mixing of sludge, so he liked them, so he figured those were as good as any to put a soul into?And not only that, he put a soul into them, even though there were transitional being somewhere in between us and monkeys, and yet he didn't put a soul into them, he was waiting for that one last transitional, sometime around 200,000 years ago, and that is when he decided to make his move-which won't last forever because we will evolve into other bacteria, so probably he won't waste souls on them. We are still not sure what he is going to do with all those other souls he will have left over, or what the heck he is going to do with the ones he already created, because there can't be a hell, if we are simply products of survival of the fittest. How can anyone go to hell, if you are just doing what the accidental sludge made you for-surviving better than others?And what would Genesis be allegorical of? Of the randomness of molecules colliding, or grains of silica replicating imperfectly?Since you don't believe in a God, I find your beliefs easy to understand, so I guess I need to hear more from people who actually do believe in a God, while at the same time believing that we ended here by accident-and that we are just bits of replicating proteins accidentally strewn together-to really understand what they think.

I don't see any difficulty. It was known long before Darwin, that the way humans reproduce is very similar to the way that other animals (such as cats and dogs) reproduce. The religious view has long been that either God individually inserts a soul in each human, or that at some time he inserted it into the biology. I think the dominant view is that, as a personal God, he individually inserts the soul in each human, perhaps shortly after conception. Incidentally, this shows up in the abortion debates. Evolution does not change this problem at all. The view long held by many theists (not just scientists) was that God created an orderly world, and as an omnipotent and omniscient being, he created it in such a way that mankind was certain to arise through evolution.This also is not a problem for theists who are evolutionists.As far as I know, the only actual difficulty is with the doctrine of original sin. But even with that, as far back as Augustine we see proponents of the theology of original sin who accepted that the Adam and Eve story did not need to be taken literally but could instead be seen as a metaphor. And the theology of original sin is not really a biblical doctrine anyway - it is made up theology that not all Christians believe.There really isn't any difficulty with a theist accepting evolution. And many did, before the new creationism of the 20th century.

Whoa whoa, its an orderly world, that was certain to produce humans, by use of a completely unguided, uncontrolled process which has no direction, no design, no designer, and has no certainty of anything? Huh? This is what some people believe? And they want to call creationists crazy?Wow! Edited by Bolder-dash, : typo

So your god cannot plan using evolution? So your god does not have the knowledge of what his actions will precipitate? Taking a guess, I would say that I was an evangelical theistic evolutionist for about as long as you have been alive. I probably know a bit more about it than you think

So you think that your god could not use a process that to mankind looks uncontrolled and undesigned, to produce his desired result? Once again, you seem to have a very unimaginative and restricted god.

From a devout Christian.Nope. It is not an orderly universe and it has no design, no designer, and humans ain't special. Get used to it.If there is a purpose it is the purpose we give.There is no certainty of anything.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

There are many different versions of Christianity. If you juxtapose your beliefs with the likes of someone such as Jar, you will find glaring disparities in opinion.The idea is that no one holds a title over the rights of what is or isn't Christianity.Could one be a Christian and still be a theistic evolutionist? That all depends upon your interpretation of a Christian is and by what source it derives its authority.It comes down to two fundamental differences in beliefs. If you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible then, no, it wouldn't be reasonable to assume evolution. If, however, you view the bible as a template with metaphor, then evolution presents no conflict. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Obviously, no theist would agree with that "no design, no designer, and has no certainty of anything" part.There is an extensive philosophical literature on determinism - the question whether things were certain to work out the way that they did. There are many proponents of determinism, and they are not all theists.

I would.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I assumed you were saying that creationism and theistic evolution seems idiotic to you, so I am not even sure if you are clear on what you believe, but ok.Now you are just saying that to mankind, it is an illusion of being uncontrolled and undesigned, but that is in fact incorrect, it is designed, but we are just unable to see it (at least some of us)?You are right, you do have a good imagination.

I think it is safe to assume that this thread will quickly show that most people who believe in theistic evolution of the Darwinian kind, have never really spent much time thinking about it.