Atheist Evolution: The Origin of Life

[TerrorDæmonum]

This is another evolution thread, but directed at evolution itself, on its own, without any divine intervention and without any appeal to what cannot be logically/empirically derived. It is about its limitations and recognizing the limits as being absolute: any philosophical derivation from evolution is going beyond the biological science.

Some traditional Catholics accept the theory of evolution.  But if evolution is true, then the Biblical account of the dawn of mankind appears far removed from reality.  Instead of being created by God, an Adam & Eve arrived at by evolution would've had parents. 

The Theory of Evolution is incomplete and it is working backwards. It is based on biological study that is quite advanced, and it is working backwards from that. The more remote the subject is, the speculative it becomes, because it is impossible to know what one does not know.

This leads to a working backwards that assumes a very steady state: life exists and begets other life. It all falls apart when you get to the origin of life.

Evolution describes lifeforms as we know them, and it can make connections between different lifeforms that may not seem to be connected at first glance, but it says nothing about origin. There are theories on various mechanisms and some interesting molecules made, and a lot of speculation on what things might have been like at the time, but none of it is conclusive.

There is nothing to exclude alien lifeforms from seeding this planet with life.

So, evolution by itself explains why different lifeforms are they way they are and how they are related and has some interesting things to say about why biological forms are the way they are, but that is its limit.

These are questions for theistic evolutionists.  This thread assumes, for the sake of argument, that evolution is true.  And if it is, then why did God, who is omnipotent and can see the future, inspire a creation account that causes so much confusion and division in the Body of Christ?

Assuming evolution is approaching truth as presented and developed, how is it the basis for any conclusions on spiritual matters? It has a big empty part at the start, a lot of unknowns, and a lot of speculation. It leaves room for anything we want: alien lifeforms visiting earth and seeding it with life of various sorts, some unknown chemistry interaction that was able to replicate and grow into life as we know it, our conscious perception is a lie and a part of some other reality we do not perceive at all (computer simulation, Matrix, brain in a vat, etc).

The science of biology is not concerned with anything else: it is essential advanced organic chemistry: it works with the chemicals, but there is more to us than that. Even atheists who pretend there is nothing more act as if there is.

So I propose: the origin of life is shrouded in questions for evolutionary biologists and every scientist, and the basic facts as we know it merely conclude that life exists. The philosophical speculations and conclusions people may derive from the science are chosen beliefs, not a result of the actual science.

And it could all be wrong: science frequently is and has to revise things completely, so it is hardly the basis for any lasting faith.

[Mono no aware]

Assuming evolution is approaching truth as presented and developed, how is it the basis for any conclusions on spiritual matters?

I would think because it refutes the notion of a special creation of man, a paradisaical state, the fall, and original sin.  This may be "the chicken or the egg," but it was from religious quarters whence opposition to evolution first came, and continues to come.  That is not arbitrary.  Evolution goes against doctrine.

The first parents were created directly by God.  Therefore, we declare as contrary to Sacred Scripture and contrary to the faith the opinion that man came to be from imperfect nature to the most perfect and, in a continuous process, finally human.

We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.

Evolution, as you rightly point out, does not say anything about the ultimate origin of life.  It is an explanation of how speciation occurs.  But that is sufficient for it to impugn the traditional doctrine of the origin of man—and the origin of concupiscence.  We either have a bestial nature because we are, ourselves, beasts, or we have a tendency to concupiscence because we have a hereditary stain, the descendants of a pair who were once pure, fell, and became accursed.  Concupiscence was "inflicted on the whole of human nature as a result of our first parent's sin" (Summa Theologiæ, I-II:82, iii).

[TerrorDæmonum]

Assuming evolution is approaching truth as presented and developed, how is it the basis for any conclusions on spiritual matters?

I would think because it refutes the notion of a special creation of man, a paradisaical state, the fall, and original sin.  This may be "the chicken or the egg," but it was from religious quarters whence opposition to evolution first came, and continues to come.  That is not arbitrary.  Evolution goes against doctrine.

Would it not be the other way around? Also, there were ancient philosophies/sciences on this matter which would have a naturalistic origin of some sort.

If you read the origin of modern evolutionary biology, it is based on observations to some extent, but it is very philosophical. It is not that doctrine is opposed to science, but that the people pushing this particular field were very philosophical and religious about it.

It was not about finding the facts and understanding nature, but finding a suitable replacement for doctrine.

And the facts, such as they appear, do not defy doctrine. They might defy certain imagined appearances, but to call a conjecture fact is perhaps a bit imprudent.

While working with assumptions does seem to indicate that human history is continuous from non-human history, there is no actual data to support this.

In terms of doctrine, there is no reason to accept any model. Do the anatomically modern humans represent actual human history? I think they probably do, but it is not a matter of doctrine. It could be that the natural development of species was entirely distinct. We only really know what human civilization has attested to, and there is very little in the past to indicate much.

Maybe Adam and Eve were far more than we imagine, and their fall made them closer to animal, and we only see the remnants of the animals. Does behavioural modernity mean something in all this?

In short, I don't see the facts and theories of evolutionary biology as having any actual conclusions on these questions that would seem to contradict doctrine.

It is easy enough to intellectually dismiss it and replace it with some other model too. Basing one's beliefs on one's understanding of evolutionary biology is foolish: it is a foundation of nothing.

• Appearances are deceptive and the timelines and theories are all based on erroneous interpretations.
• Actual human history is lost and the only evidence left behind is misleading.
• Genetic studies are a lot more limited than we think: humans and avocados have a common ancestor...or maybe just a common origin in a world created specifically for our existence.
• Evolutionary biology raises more questions than it answers, and it is not the basis for any philosophical worldview except nihilism and absurdism: one can believe whatever one chooses and be "safe".
• Ancient aliens...

Divine revelation cuts through the questions and gives us what we need to know, and we should believe that, rather than fallible senses and faulty reason and contradictory scientific inquiries.

[Mono no aware]

Maybe Adam and Eve were far more than we imagine, and their fall made them closer to animal, and we only see the remnants of the animals.

Given that they had ribcages (Genesis II.22), pudenda (Gen. I.28), and the requisite appendages and mouths to eat fruit from trees (Gen. III.2), it would seem that Adam and Eve were corporeal entities.  The Church's traditional exegesis does not suggest that they were anything other than human.  I am not sure if an argument from silence would be enough to suggest that they were otherwise. 

William Blake, one of whose illustrations from Paradise Lost I reproduced above, represented them therein as dimorphous human primates.  But privately he hypothesized that Adam and Eve had been something like quasi-angelic androgynes, and that the fall corrupted them similar to how it turned brightest Lucifer into hideous Satan: "Spirits of purest light | purest at first, now gross by sinning grown."  But this is closer to the Hermetic and Gnostic view than the orthodox, and at any rate it is not compatible with evolution.

It is easy enough to intellectually dismiss it and replace it with some other model too. Basing one's beliefs on one's understanding of evolutionary biology is foolish: it is a foundation of nothing.

Many people who accept the theory of evolution would probably be willing to replace it with a different model if the evidence was better.  Or they would ditch it if there was sufficient evidence to falsify it.  "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!" was the answer of some eminent biologist when queried on what sort of evidence might make him change his mind. 

Panspermia does not really compete with evolution, as evolution is concerned with speciation, not with how cellular life first appeared on earth.  The Silurian hypothesis, similarly, does not necessarily challenge evolution, but challenges our level of certainty about how much we can know about the earth's history.  The DNA evidence, in my view, is the surest evidence for evolution, with the sighed caveat that things could change in light of new evidence to the contrary.

Divine revelation cuts through the questions and gives us what we need to know, and we should believe that, rather than fallible senses and faulty reason and contradictory scientific inquiries.

This seems to suggest we plump for creationism based on the bible.  This would redound to the problem of epistemology of faith.  To know that we should prefer a Hebrew revelation over our senses and our reason, we would need an instance of grace, or mystical experience, or personal infallibility.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Given that they had ribcages (Genesis II.22), pudenda (Gen. I.28),

That may be a problem with personally interpreting scripture. I heard that the reference was not a rib bone as we would understand it. I don't recall whether what I read was of a worthy source or not, but I know that interpreting Genesis is not a trivial thing and it is very succinct, written for an ancient audience, and translated into languages we use now.

and the requisite appendages and mouths to eat fruit from trees (Gen. III.2), it would seem that Adam and Eve were corporeal entities.  The Church's traditional exegesis does not suggest that they were anything other than human.  I am not sure if an argument from silence would be enough to suggest that they were otherwise. 

With the same reasoning, the fact they had no quarrels with animal life, ate only plants, and would not die indicates that were not "humans" as we experience humanity at the moment.

[Justin Martyr]

If I recall, Origen thought that Adam and Eve were purely immaterial creatures and perfect spheres before the fall, and that after the resurrection we will return to such a state. Though, I'm pretty sure this is one of his views which was condemned as heresy. I'd have to check Constantinople II.

[Mono no aware]

With the same reasoning, the fact they had no quarrels with animal life, ate only plants, and would not die indicates that were not "humans" as we experience humanity at the moment.

Well, yes.  This is why evolution is at odds with nearly the entire creation account.  That they had no quarrels with animal life was due to the fact of animals themselves eating only plants (Genesis I.30).  The gastrointestinal tract of a lion cannot support a vegetarian diet.  We are dealing with a scheme that is at variance with almost everything we understand about biology.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Well, yes.  This is why evolution is at odds with nearly the entire creation account.

The creation account ultimately says that God made everything from nothing, and that does not exclude natural processes we witness. It just means God is the creator of them.

That they had no quarrels with animal life was due to the fact of animals themselves eating only plants (Genesis I.30).  The gastrointestinal tract of a lion cannot support a vegetarian diet.  We are dealing with a scheme that is at variance with almost everything we understand about biology.

Isaias 65 describes the situation well. They knew that animals as we know are reliant on what is essentially violence. That is why it is special: it is contrary to what we understand about biology because biology is concerned only with temporal fallen nature.

As I addressed before, the creation account is not the only significant event.

From creation, man was free from trials and pain and death. After the fall, man was labouring and suffering, yet, long lived and ate plants. After the Flood, man was allowed to eat animals, and had shorter lives.

So we are considering a "double fall". One is a fall from grace, and the other is a degradation of, essentially, biology. We would perceive the description of man before the flood as being superhuman, wouldn't we? Who knows what the world was like to them?

And God blessed Noe and his sons. And he said to them: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand. And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you: Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat

The issue of understanding the mysteries in Genesis and stumbling over evolutionary biology seems voluntary. It is such a small matter that is resolved so many ways, and can be completely ignored without any fault because it is almost entirely philosophical in practice.

It seems a shame to stumble over something so small and insignificant.

[Mono no aware]

The issue of understanding the mysteries in Genesis and stumbling over evolutionary biology seems voluntary. It is such a small matter that is resolved so many ways, and can be completely ignored without any fault because it is almost entirely philosophical in practice.

I don't see how it can be resolved.  You are saying that "biology is concerned only with temporal fallen nature," but that relies on a presupposition of the fall.  Without assuming a fall, biology can only investigate and harvest information, and thus far in our understanding of the biological record, there does not appear to have been a fall—at least not one where lions went from being herbivores to being carnivores.  Everything we know about the biology of Felidæ tells us that they were never ruminants.  You are asking me to square a circle, and that is no "small matter."

From creation, man was free from trials and pain and death. After the fall, man was labouring and suffering, yet, long lived and ate plants. After the Flood, man was allowed to eat animals, and had shorter lives.

Again this is something at variance with evolution.  I say this as a vegetarian: it is almost undoubtedly the case that the uniquely large brains of the bipedal Homininæ who emerged on the Serengeti millions of years ago were gotten by animal protein.  A large brain comes at a high caloric cost, and it was likely acquired when these primates went from the fruits and leaves easily foraged from brachiating in a forest, to dining on the animals of the plains, gotten with rocks and spears and fleetness of foot.  Our teeth reveal us as evolved omnivores.  It was only after agriculture and civilization, such as with the Greeks and the Hindus, when philosophers could sit around and contemplate the ethics of consuming animal flesh.  Whereas in Genesis, it is the reverse: agriculture comes after the fall.

Forgive me, but I'm having some difficulty understanding your position.  You seem to be saying that evolution is perfectly supportable (to an extent), and easy to reconcile with scripture, but then you are putting forth all these scenarios which make it impossible to reconcile evolution with scripture.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I don't see how it can be resolved.  You are saying that "biology is concerned only with temporal fallen nature," but that relies on a presupposition of the fall.  Without assuming a fall, biology can only investigate and harvest information, and thus far in our understanding of the biological record, there does not appear to have been a fall?at least not one where lions went from being herbivores to being carnivores.  Everything we know about the biology of Felidæ tells us that they were never ruminants.  You are asking me to square a circle, and that is no "small matter."

Then it is easier to accept you have a common ancestor with starfish.

That is a pretty significant leap I think.

Again this is something at variance with evolution.  I say this as a vegetarian:

I am strict: I don't eat anything from animals, including honey or ingredients and products derived from animals.

t is almost undoubtedly the case that the uniquely large brains of the bipedal Homininæ who emerged on the Serengeti millions of years ago were

That is assuming continuity as before. The fact is that Adam and his closer descendants are simply lost to us. We can only guess as to where and when they were.

It was only after agriculture and civilization, such as with the Greeks and the Hindus, when philosophers could sit around and contemplate the ethics of consuming animal flesh.  Whereas in Genesis, it is the reverse: agriculture comes after the fall.

Considering the earliest possible date for the composition of Genesis, it is obviously condensing history dramatically and only including what is relevant to its purpose.

The fact it includes certain details and passes over others signifies something about those details that are included.

Forgive me, but I'm having some difficulty understanding your position.  You seem to be saying that evolution is perfectly supportable (to an extent), and easy to reconcile with scripture, but then you are putting forth all these scenarios which make it impossible to reconcile evolution with scripture.

My position is that we need to put things in order: certain above uncertain, knowledge above speculation, eternal above temporal.

The temporal biological evoluiontary biologist perspective does not support anything: nothing can be built on it. It is also full of holes and open questions. It describes a lot to explain lifeforms whose remnants we find and the variations we see in species, but it does not support much of any use, except to provide a crutch to those who fear the eternal.

There are those who will argue strongly against religious belief and doctrines, and present evolution and science and all empirical data they can to support their views, but they can never answer the most important question: why? Not just "why do we exist?", but "why should anybody care?". What difference does it make? If nothing matters, and death is certain, why pretend anything?

In short, why let tiny things like the diet of cats get in the way of accepting what can be known for certain?

If you treated evolution like religion, would you not give it all up, because it does not answer some very basic questions and seems at odds with reality? Where did life come from? If evolution is gradual over time, why does it appear otherwise in the fossil record?

Certainly, biology and worldly history are things which will be constantly developing as more answers are sought, more questions are found, etc. Except for those paid to work in the field, it is a distraction to the rest of us. I mean, you could use cosmological issues to support an argument of the same kind.

Modern cosmology has a lot of questions, but all the current models are quite different from the descriptions we may read in Genesis.

[Mono no aware]

I am strict: I don't eat anything from animals, including honey or ingredients and products derived from animals.

I don't consume dairy, but I do consume honey, so I do not qualify as a vegan (so-called).

That is assuming continuity as before. The fact is that Adam and his closer descendents are simply lost to us. We can only guess as to where and when they were.

Right.  In terms of history, the only thing that testifies to an Adam is Hebrew scripture.  In terms of evolution, there is just the speciation of the great apes, which is testified to by the fossil record and DNA.  Continuity is not assumed; it is evident.

The temporal biological evoluiontary biologist perspective does not support anything: nothing can be built on it. It is also full of holes and open questions. It describes a lot to explain lifeforms whose remnants we find and the variations we see in species, but it does not support much of any use, except to provide a crutch to those who fear the eternal.

It doesn't just describe past lifeforms, though: it describes present ones as well.  It is useful, at the very least, in telling us about our ancestry, both recent and distant.  DNA modeling is neutral.  A person could have no understanding of Judaic religion and still find evolution something of interest.

There are those who will argue strongly against religious belief and doctrines, and present evolution and science and all empirical data they can to support their views, but they can never answer the most important question: why? Not just "why do we exist?", but "why should anybody care?". What difference does it make? If nothing matters, and death is certain, why pretend anything?

Long before evolution was known, Stoics and Epicureans were musing on the certainty of death and the question of whether anything matters.  That evolution has been used as a cudgel by some against Christianity does not make evolution a religion of its own.  For some of us it is just a matter of fact that if evolution is true, Christianity is false—and vice versa, for that matter.  I don't know if accepting evolution without also accepting Christianity necessarily makes one a nihilist.  Perhaps it logically should, but it is refuted by the existence of all sorts of gooey secular quasi-religious trends making the rounds these days: panpsychism, meditation, psychedelics, Gaia, &c.  The people who are into these things typically accept evolution.

In short, why let tiny things like the diet of cats get in the way of accepting what can be known be certain?

I suppose because the carnivorous diet of cats can be known with a good degree of confidence.  I struggle to see how it can be known with certainty that cats were once herbivorous.  Absent a moment of mystical revelation, that is.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I suppose because the carnivorous diet of cats can be known with a good degree of confidence.  I struggle to see how it can be known with certainty that cats were once herbivorous.  Absent a moment of mystical revelation, that is.

It was known to all the ancients...who had to avoid being eaten.

The issue is that the natural world we perceive is not the beginning or the end: it is passing. What does it matter if we don't know about it? If there is nothing else, then it matters not at all. If there is something else, then that is more important. Maybe the natural world was as we see it, but man was so much above it before the fall, it was not seen as violent, but entirely natural, as any other natural process. Animals, after all, are just complex systems, converting energy and matter into different forms. Perhaps we only perceive ourselves as strangely intelligent and gracile apes because that is what we are left with, and the disorder which afflicts us has hidden a lot from us. Maybe Adam, if we could peer into the Garden, would seem as a representation as an angel to us, and Adam only saw himself as "naked" after losing something greater.

To think what we have is all there is, forward and back, is a bit contrary to what we know intuitively, otherwise, we would not be interacting here on this issue.

I think I wrote some time ago that modern philosophers like to ponder the questions, but are afraid of finding the answers. It is a bit absurd, to have a bunch of people seeing a material world passing by, seeing nothing but the mortal flesh which is passing, pondering the meaning of it all.

I don't know near enough of modern biology to be considered to have any kind of proficiency, and I am fine with that, because that knowledge does not matter. It does not direct my life. I only know what I learned and I know there is a lot more.

But when it comes to knowledge that does matter, what does direct my life, I am happy to have obtained it, and I did not obtain it from men or through fallible senses. If I had known there was knowledge I wanted, but would never obtain, that would have been most intellectually painful, always seeking and pondering, and never finding and obtaining.

[Mono no aware]

Maybe the natural world was as we see it, but man was so much above it before the fall, it was not seen as violent, but entirely natural, as any other natural process. Animals, after all, are just complex systems, converting energy and matter into different forms. Perhaps we only perceive ourselves as strangely intelligent and gracile apes because that is what we are left with, and the disorder which afflicts us has hidden a lot from us. Maybe Adam, if we could peer into the Garden, would seem as a representation as an angel to us, and Adam only saw himself as "naked" after losing something greater.

I think I am beginning to understand your position better.  If I read you correctly, you are not saying that lions were once herbivorous, but that prelapsarian humans did not view the violence in nature as a negative.  Made in the image and likeness of God, they had a "God's-eye view" of things, so to speak, and were able to witness all the gore and guts of the evolutionary order with a serene detachment. 

But this an impassive and indifferent sort of divinity they were gifted with—more like a Parmenidian monad than the beneficence of a good God.  Animals are indeed "just complex systems," but they nevertheless have brains and nervous systems and can therefore suffer.  It would seem more God-like (if God is love) to empathize and want to spare these creatures, rather than be like what Epicurus said of the gods: that they are so caught up in their own blessedness and beatitude that they cannot be bothered a whit about the plight of any mortals.

To think what we have is all there is, forward and back, is a bit contrary to what we know intuitively, otherwise, we would not be interacting here on this issue.

I think I wrote some time ago that modern philosophers like to ponder the questions, but are afraid of finding the answers. It is a bit absurd, to have a bunch of people seeing a material world passing by, seeing nothing but the mortal flesh which is passing, pondering the meaning of it all.

But you are making it a dichotomy, between Christianity and a sort of pondering nihilism.  This dichotomy does not exist.  For one thing, people tend not to have the stomach for nihilism; they are not lions or eagles.  And uncertainty makes them anxious.  They feel there must be something special about being a human.  As I pointed out previously, people who lack Christianity go in for all sorts of metaphysics and philosophical goo-goo.  Panpsychism is very trendy these days.  It is basically Vedanta, though dressed up in heady gabbing about neuroscience and qualia.  These people don't see "just the mortal flesh which is passing."  They have noticed that there are unexplainable phenomena concerning the mind, and so they believe in a meta-Mind.  Modern philosophers are not afraid of answers.  On the contrary, they are forever coming up with their own gooey answers, or rehabilitating old ones.

When a philosopher holds his tongue it may be the sign of the loftiness of his soul; when he contradicts himself it may be love; and the very courtesy of a knight of knowledge may force him to lie.  It has been said, and not without subtlety: il est indigne des grands cœurs de répandre le trouble qu'ils ressentent—but it is necessary to add that there may also be grandeur de cœur in not shrinking from the most undignified proceeding.  A woman who loves sacrifices her honour; a knight of knowledge who "loves," sacrifices perhaps his humanity; a God who loved, became a Jew.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I think I am beginning to understand your position better.  If I read you correctly, you are not saying that lions were once herbivorous, but that prelapsarian humans did not view the violence in nature as a negative.  Made in the image and likeness of God, they had a "God's-eye view" of things, so to speak, and were able to witness all the gore and guts of the evolutionary order with a serene detachment. 

Maybe, but I was envisioning it more like viewing a waterfall or something: not as violent or anthropomorphized, but the movement of nature.

Animals are indeed "just complex systems," but they nevertheless have brains and nervous systems and can therefore suffer.  It would seem more God-like (if God is love) to empathize and want to spare these creatures, rather than be like what Epicurus said of the gods: that they are so caught up in their own blessedness and beatitude that they cannot be bothered a whit about the plight of any mortals.

They have nervous systems (brains are part of the nervous system, so to list them separately would be redundant and repetitive), but they don't have immortal souls.

We understand ("empathize") some things about them, but do not forget: it is all temporal. Our temporal suffering is nothing compared to what we can suffer, just as the joys we can have are not comparable to the joy we can have.

As far as animals go, I don't think empathy is good. That is an emotional sharing. Sympathy, choosing to care, is good. But it must be ordinate.

Those who worship nature, in words or in practice, have made a grave error. As far as man's relation to nature:

And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it.

It was not "detached", but ordinate, in harmony with the order established.

[TerrorDæmonum]

But you are making it a dichotomy, between Christianity and a sort of pondering nihilism.  This dichotomy does not exist.  For one thing, people tend not to have the stomach for nihilism; they are not lions or eagles.

It is a dichotomy: we get what we want forever, or we are deprived of it forever. We can be distracted by the temporal now, but this does not last.

Those who sought vainly as you described will have an eternity to ponder how meaningless it was and what they gave up.