Theistic Evolution

[Christian Doc]

Theistic evolution I think has 2 main problems if approached from a Christian perspective. I suspect other religious faiths may find it easier to join the two because their texts may not be in tension with evolutionary theory.


Problem 1 - Evolutionary theory seeks to exclude God from the creative process of life in its diversity. As seen on this thread, Evolutionist resist bringing God into the evolutionary process. I entirely understand why and would agree with them. Therefore to suggest the theistic component to evolution undermines the solidity of the belief in evolution. It is still possible and many Christians adopt this position but I think there are problems with it.

Problem 2 - The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 do not suggest any scope for an evolutionary mechanism. The time frame is short (ref to Exodus 20 for clarification of what the term "day" means") and the kinds of formed rapidly in a miraculous way. Clearly for non-Christian religious faiths (perhaps Sikhs, Hindus where I am not sure of the specifics of the creation stories but I don't think they stipulate time frames etc) this is not such a problem. However, for a Christian - we must reconcile the scriptures with what we see around us. I think that the scriptures leave it open for the variety of life seen on earth to be explained by the evolutionary process working within its kinds. I think the scriptures are clear that the evolutionary process did not result in the various kinds. God created the kinds and the kinds diversified over time.


These are my thoughts on this topic. Over the years I have adopted most positions except atheistic evolution. I don't think I can ever say I was an atheist. I did adopt the theistic evolution position. I then was an old-earth creationist (after rejecting the claim that evolutionary theory could result in the formation of life and the diversity of kinds of life). I am now a young earth creationist.


I do think that the discussion of theistic evolution is an interesting topic. However, the Christian approaching this topic needs to bear in mind there is more at stake than just Genesis 1 and 2. I am not sure that "Evolution vs Creationism" is the right place for that discussion as it is a theological rather than scientific discussion.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have never really understood the insistence of many Creationists that the scientific Theory of Evolution has anything to do with God. With their "Evolutionary theory seeks to exclude God from the creative process of life in its diversity". The personal belief in God has absolutely nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory.
What does is the idolatry of the Bible. Worshiping the literalistic interpretations of an allegorical understanding of the creation of the world as understood by a tribe of nomads over 3000 years ago. And in the process ignoring scientific evidence of Gods incredible methods of providing life's diversity.
While those who accept theistic evolution can at least give God credit for the natural occurrences obvious those who actually understand how our universe and world work.

 

[Autodidact]

Problem 1 - Evolutionary theory seeks to exclude God from the creative process of life in its diversity.

No, it doesn't, any more than atomic theory or gravitational theory. It is utterly, completely, totally silent on the issue of God's involvement, as is all science. If you believe in God, any God, then science tells you HOW God went about designing and creating the universe. In this case, if you believe in God, then this area of science explains the tools that God used to created diverse and well-adapted species.

I'm getting so tired of repeating myself to people who are determined not to learn anything.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's your problem, Doc. Science works. If you base your religious faith on rejecting science, then your faith, and your religion, is doomed.

A better view to take is that science allows us to learn all about the wonders of God's creation. If you truly believe that God created all things, then all scientific inquiry would lead you to a greater understanding and appreciation of God's creation.

It's only if you're afraid that science may reveal what you suspect you secretly believe, which is that God did not create the universe, that you have anything to fear from science, including Biology, which is entirely based on evolutionary theory. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) in turn is one of the most robust and best supported theories in the history of science. The only way you can legitimately reject it is to reject science itself.

 

[evolved yet?]

Gravity and god can not co-exist! You can no longer be a theistic gravitationalist burn gravitationalists at the stake!

 

[Alceste]

Theistic evolution I think has 2 main problems if approached from a Christian perspective. I suspect other religious faiths may find it easier to join the two because their texts may not be in tension with evolutionary theory.


Problem 1 - Evolutionary theory seeks to exclude God from the creative process of life in its diversity. As seen on this thread, Evolutionist resist bringing God into the evolutionary process. I entirely understand why and would agree with them. Therefore to suggest the theistic component to evolution undermines the solidity of the belief in evolution. It is still possible and many Christians adopt this position but I think there are problems with it.

Problem 2 - The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 do not suggest any scope for an evolutionary mechanism. The time frame is short (ref to Exodus 20 for clarification of what the term "day" means") and the kinds of formed rapidly in a miraculous way. Clearly for non-Christian religious faiths (perhaps Sikhs, Hindus where I am not sure of the specifics of the creation stories but I don't think they stipulate time frames etc) this is not such a problem. However, for a Christian - we must reconcile the scriptures with what we see around us. I think that the scriptures leave it open for the variety of life seen on earth to be explained by the evolutionary process working within its kinds. I think the scriptures are clear that the evolutionary process did not result in the various kinds. God created the kinds and the kinds diversified over time.


These are my thoughts on this topic. Over the years I have adopted most positions except atheistic evolution. I don't think I can ever say I was an atheist. I did adopt the theistic evolution position. I then was an old-earth creationist (after rejecting the claim that evolutionary theory could result in the formation of life and the diversity of kinds of life). I am now a young earth creationist.


I do think that the discussion of theistic evolution is an interesting topic. However, the Christian approaching this topic needs to bear in mind there is more at stake than just Genesis 1 and 2. I am not sure that "Evolution vs Creationism" is the right place for that discussion as it is a theological rather than scientific discussion.

Problem 1 is not a problem. Scientists don't "seek to exclude God". They seek to discover the truth. If the search for facts about how the world works had led them to evidence of God's meddling, then THAT would be our current understanding. Plenty of scientists are theists. Something like 80%. Do you think they'd reject evidence of their Gods if any turned up? Of course not. They'd publish it for peer review, because evidence speaks for itself.

Problem 2 is not a problem. Plenty of Christians do not believe the Bible is literally true. If a literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't fit the conclusions we have drawn from the empirical investigation of our origins, we can take it as a metaphor or simply historical documentation of the creation myths of the ancient Jews who didn't know as much as we do now about human origins. If your sect can't deal with that, you can go to a non-literal sect and still be just as much of a Christian as ever. Maybe more.

 

[Christian Doc]

Autodidact

If you base your religious faith on rejecting science, then your faith, and your religion, is doomed.

Thankfully I do not reject science. I just don't accept the theory of Evolution as providing the answers to the origin of life and the diversity of life. My religious faith is certainly not doomed - it is florishing thank you.

The evidence for my faith in Jesus is not at all affected by the theory of Evolution.

The authority of scripture is affected by the theory of Evolution because it casts into doubt whether Genesis is a true historical account. Jesus refers to Genesis and Peter refers to Genesis as historical fact.

The passage in 2 Peter is very relevant to the Evolution debate and I have quoted it a number of times as a result:

" 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

2Peter 3v4-7



Alceste - many Christians do not accept that the bible is true - but that is to their loss. It is vitally important to the life of a Christian.

 

[Alceste]

The passage in 2 Peter is very relevant to the Evolution debate and I have quoted it a number of times as a result:

2Peter 3v4-7



Alceste - many Christians do not accept that the bible is true - but that is to their loss. It is vitally important to the life of a Christian.

But to a Christian whose faith is based on a personal relationship with Christ rather than idolotry of a book written by men about Christ, this passage hasn't got the legalistic significance you choose to read into it.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

The shame is that a lot of Christians really can't separate the bible from god. They believe that if the bible is wrong on any one point then that automatically means that god cannot exist. Therefore they fervently hold on to the idea of an inerrant scripture despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
In a sense, the book becomes their god.

No, the Bible is a guide and authoritative book.

 

[Alceste]

No, the Bible is a guide and authoritative book.

It's degree of "authoritative"-ness is greatly disputed within your church. Even some seminaries teach aspiring ministers to view it as a man-made book about the origins of the Christian church (and therefore just as fallible as any work of man). And really, to look at it as the word of god you need to ignore its history and overlook a heck of a lot of grubby, manly fingerprints all over it.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact

Thankfully I do not reject science. I just don't accept the theory of Evolution as providing the answers to the origin of life and the diversity of life. My religious faith is certainly not doomed - it is florishing thank you.

ToE is one of the most robust and best supported theories in the history of science. The only way you can reject it is to reject the scientific method. The evidence that supports it is overwhelming. If you wish to review it, we could start yet another thread. That is why 99.9% of Biologists accept it.

The evidence for my faith in Jesus is not at all affected by the theory of Evolution.

Why would it be, any more than the theory of germs?

The authority of scripture is affected by the theory of Evolution because it casts into doubt whether Genesis is a true historical account. Jesus refers to Genesis and Peter refers to Genesis as historical fact.

Yup. It makes it clear that Genesis is not historically accurate. But actually, why even worry about evolution, basic Geology makes it clear that Genesis is not historically accurate, as does astronomy, cosmology, archeology, paleontology, linguistics, anthropology and most of physics.

 

[Anaximander]

Wait so it he bible doesn't line up with science it's a metaphor but it if lines up with science it's literal? Seems like a good way to make the bible unfalsifiable.

Wow, this forum is awesome. The only problem I see is that one could spend all day and night evaluating/assessing/commenting upon all of the replies. My wife will probably soon divorce me if I jump into it too much. I'll just comment on Atomists'.

Hi Atomist,

Excellent thought, since I dread the thought that my own wishful thinking is possibly creating an untruth immune to scrutiny. However, I have just one issue with this thought. The Bible is unfalsifiable all on its own. Falsifiability is a tool for science and science is a tool to understand nature - not supernature. Inherent in nature is the principle of causality, which allows us the opportunity to falsify things that are false. Falsifiability is a useless tool when it comes to anything supernatural. If we consider the Bible merely as a product of human beings (i.e., Higher Criticism) as an atheist would, then the Bible certainly is open to falsifiability.

Within my Christian faith, I believe the Bible was human/God co-authored. I believe it was inspired, yet littered with human mistakes as it was copied and recopied, translated and retranslated. Notice this particular argument, along with the Bible, is unfalsifiable. If my belief is wrong, the Bible certainly cannot falsify my belief - yet I never expected it to.

So, why am I confident in theistic evolution? With issues involving nature, I can use falsifiability. Young earth creationism directly conficts with the realities of nature, such as the age of the universe and no evidence for a global flood. In other words, falsifiability actually can be a tool to reject YEC and even the GAP theory. For me, it negates all possible beliefs except atheism and theistic evolution (I consider agnosticism a suspension of belief, or a fence sitter, not ready to embrace a belief).

I reject atheism and accept Christianity for philosophical reasons (a later discussion). If my Christian belief is true, then the realities of nature, such as evolution and an ancient earth, will certainly conform to God's Word and vise versa (as long as the human co-authors didn't screw it up too much). Because of this, evaluating the Bible literally vs. metaphorically makes sense. It is using nature to get closer to the true meaning behind the verses.

Sorry about being long winded.

best,

 

[Atomist]

Anaximander,
Let say there is this book, call it the "bable" and it's riddled with hundreds of stories with varying degrees of realism. Now these people, lets call them "Chrastians" believe these stories and say "bable" can't be wrong, but rather the interpretations are wrong. What are we suppose to believe about the "Chrastians" and the "bable"? I think it's reasonable from an outsider to find the "bable" facetious and not only that the "Chrastians" are, to quote dawkins, "defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument could not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not."

But if we take the stories in the bible to be literal, then such hypothesis have failed. So in order for a reasonable person to believe them they have to say those are metaphors. I get that, I don't respect it, but I get it.

 

[Anaximander]

Anaximander,
Let say there is this book, call it the "bable" and it's riddled with hundreds of stories with varying degrees of realism. Now these people, lets call them "Chrastians" believe these stories and say "bable" can't be wrong, but rather the interpretations are wrong. What are we suppose to believe about the "Chrastians" and the "bable"? I think it's reasonable from an outsider to find the "bable" facetious and not only that the "Chrastians" are, to quote dawkins, "defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument could not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not."

But if we take the stories in the bible to be literal, then such hypothesis have failed. So in order for a reasonable person to believe them they have to say those are metaphors. I get that, I don't respect it, but I get it.

Hi Atomist,

First, quoting Dawkins, an ardent atheist, attempting to explain anything about Christianity will convince only like-minded atheists/agnostics. His premise is that there is no God (or anything supernatural), which means his arguments can conclude nothing else. If you are trying to convince a Christian, fat chance.

Now, if this is a personal quest because of your agnosticism, then that's a different story. Your problem is assuming that the answer for you is in the Bible. I did the same thing during my agnostic/atheist days, but the only conclusion by using a Higher Criticism approach is atheism and not necessarily the truth. Methodological naturalism, a tool for understanding nature, cannot be used on a question about the supernatural. When one attempts this, truth is mandated to equal atheism. Dawkins is hardwired to use this approach because he is a scientist, so if you consider him an expert (as I can see you do) you will fall into this trap.

My Christian belief has nothing to do with how to interpret the Bible.

best,

 

[Biblestudent_007]

It's degree of "authoritative"-ness is greatly disputed within your church. Even some seminaries teach aspiring ministers to view it as a man-made book about the origins of the Christian church (and therefore just as fallible as any work of man). And really, to look at it as the word of god you need to ignore its history and overlook a heck of a lot of grubby, manly fingerprints all over it.

. . .:knight: The holy Bible is the authoritative word of God.

It can be read as book that can contribute to science.

I was OEC, but can still consider myself one if ToE keeps being equated with Atheism.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Yup. It makes it clear that Genesis is not historically accurate. But actually, why even worry about evolution, basic Geology makes it clear that Genesis is not historically accurate, as does astronomy, cosmology, archeology, paleontology, linguistics, anthropology and most of physics.

all this cool and nebulous stuff can be found the numerous passages of the Bible.

 

[tumbleweed41]

. . .:knight: The holy Bible is the authoritative word of God.

It can be read as book that can contribute to science.

I was OEC, but can still consider myself one if ToE keeps being equated with Atheism.

Please provide one example of the Bible's contributions to science.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Please provide one example of the Bible's contributions to science.

I don't need to.

 

[tumbleweed41]

. . .:knight: The holy Bible is the authoritative word of God.

It can be read as book that can contribute to science.

I was OEC, but can still consider myself one if ToE keeps being equated with Atheism.

Please provide one example of the Bible's contributions to science.

I don't need to.

Or you can't...

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Or you can't...

Deuteronomy 4:19
And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:41
   The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
   1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 15 (Whole Chapter)

Scriptural support that alludes to God as the Creator of the universe and heavenly cosmos. And this has is basis in faith and reason.