Is theistic evolution just a step to disbelief?

[hithesh]

There is gradual progression among the Christian community, from a literal interpretation of the Genesis story leading to six day creation, to a quasi-literal approach that sees the days as representative of millions of years, to intelligent design, and now to Theistic Evolution.

I'm astonished that some months ago I would visit the origins forum, and see (ID) adherents, YEC, and the quasi-YECs, as the majority, but today and recently it seems that TE is gaining ground.

Soon, it seems that (TE) will be the accepted take on creation by believers

I believe in Theistic Evolution, but I find that many believers find this take on origin, to be somewhat-blasphemous or at least puzzling, and I think I understand why. For, me personally believing in (TE) created a radically different take on the bible--I don't understand how someone who accepts (TE) can maintain the traditional take on Christianity and the Bible.

For me stories such, as Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, are all allegory, and I'm starting to lean in assuming that Moses departing the red sea is perhaps allegory as well.

I tend to deconstruct the bible, differentiate between various interpretations, historical understandings, and historical events at the time of writing, to determine what the writers of the books of the bible meant, and what was guiding them to write.

There are certain things that I don't believe in today, that has long been taught to me in childhood, such as hell, pre-rapture tribulation, and the devil.

Well, let me rephrase: I do believe in hell, and the devil, just not the way its depicted in the Christian tradition. I see no reason for Christianity to have an entirely different take on hell, and the devil, that what was understood by the Jewish Tradition.

It would seem to the untrained eye, that I am following a path leading to disbelief, but for me it's a path to greater sense of belief, where meaning becomes more important than what is real, but I can see how perhaps others engaging in the same post-modernist take on the Bible, might be venturing into disbelief.

That's my assumption, but I'm wondering if it's true?

For the (TE) crowd, do you believe that taking a (TE) position is a settlement with a faith that has been waning, or is it a position that has led you to a new found affirmation of your beliefs?

Is (TE) a path to disbelief, or is it a path to a great understanding of belief?

 

[busterdog]

TE is one of many paths to destruction. Plenty of alleged literalists have found their own paths.


Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Act. 4:12

Can the above be allegorized? Why not? Once it has, what does it mean? Lots of TEs do not go there, but this process of reasoning allows one to get there.

How does one make the following allegorical? How can it be reconclied with TE?

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pro 3:6
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
The alternative is appparently to direct your own path or more of it than is wise.

YEC is not free of inconsistencies, but there is a tendency in YEC toward trouble.

For some, however, I would guess that TE beliefs would even lead them to salvation. See Romans 8:28.

 

[Libre]

Interesting topic. I think in scientific terms, but my faith is spiritual. By that I mean that the new birth is a spiritual thing that cannot be seen or measured, as in science. It is still a very real thing, however.

Science and the Bible will in the end support each other, is what I have found. They used to think the earth had four corners because the Bible said so. Now we understand that as metaphor.

The Bible tells what all the world means in our relationship with God. It is not necessarily a scientific book. Still, as I mentioned, good science and the good interpretation of the Bible will support each other. God made the mind that thinks scientifically, regardless of how long it took to be in its present form.

I see in the evolution theory an underlying design from the Creator. I call them building blocks. Atoms, molecules, DNA, are the same building blocks, but they build many things. Whether God reached down and made our world, or whether He made it to become what it is, I don't know.

Many men of science are true believers in Jesus. How can you not believe at least in God as creator when you see how exquisite our universe is?

Libre

 

[vossler]

Lot's of interesting observations, I'll touch on a couple that spoke loudest to me.

For, me personally believing in (TE) created a radically different take on the bible--I don't understand how someone who accepts (TE) can maintain the traditional take on Christianity and the Bible.

That statement is exactly what I think and dramatically distinguishes many believers. It's good to at least hear a TE acknowledge this fact.

There are certain things that I don't believe in today, that has long been taught to me in childhood, such as hell, pre-rapture tribulation, and the devil.

This is no surprise to me. I think it's a natural by product of evolutionary belief.

It would seem to the untrained eye, that I am following a path leading to disbelief, but for me it's a path to greater sense of belief, where meaning becomes more important than what is real, but I can see how perhaps others engaging in the same post-modernist take on the Bible, might be venturing into disbelief.

I have no doubt this is a very common line of thinking among TEs. Hopefully such realizations will eventually lead people back to a proper respect of God's Word and the truths within.

That's my assumption, but I'm wondering if it's true?

I happen to believe it is true.

 

[crawfish]

I have no doubts that "TE", or more specifically the type of thinking that has us re-evaluating the meaning of long-held Biblical interpretations, is causing some uncertainty with many believers. They have been told one thing their entire lives, and as it is shown more and more that things are NOT actually that way, they will doubt.

However: in the end, we're leading to an inevitable conclusion. Data will continue to mount in favor of science, and the traditional way of viewing the bible will fade. When that happens, a firm foundation in TE understanding will help ease the transition.

 

[crawfish]

This is no surprise to me. I think it's a natural by product of evolutionary belief.

(and honest, thorough Bible study. )

 

[Melethiel]

I'm TE, but see things in a different way. My theological position is very conservative/confessional. I see Adam & Eve, Noah, etc, as real people, although the accounts may be somewhat mythified (is that even a word?). I'm sure my views are cognitively dissonant in several places, but as a Lutheran, I don't see that as a problem.

 

[laptoppop]

However: in the end, we're leading to an inevitable conclusion. Data will continue to mount in favor of science, and the traditional way of viewing the bible will fade. When that happens, a firm foundation in TE understanding will help ease the transition.

I just heard an interesting lecture by Dr. A. E. Wilbur-Smith where he referenced a survey in Europe. Over 1/2 of the people surveyed identified themselves as not believing in God in any form (atheist), and of those 80+% said the reason why they held that position was that evolution proved we didn't need one.

 

[Mallon]

Rather than people rejecting Christianity because of evolutionary theory, I believe it is the opposite -- the implications of young earth creationism -- that cause Christians to lose the faith. Many of the fallen, and many current YECs, have been brought up to believe that the Bible must be historically and scientifically accurate in order to speak spiritual truth. It's this dichotomy of science and faith, as espoused by the atheists and YECs, that is dangerous. Not evolutionary creationism.

 

[gluadys]

Is (TE) a path to disbelief, or is it a path to a great understanding of belief?

It can be a path to disbelief and it can be a path to stronger faith.

A lot depends on whether a person leaving a traditionalist way of thinking can make the transition to a new way of dealing with scripture and the confessions of the Church. It does require, as you have experienced, a radically different perspective.

And for some, this perspective cannot be consistent with belief. If they have already rejected a literalist stance for scientific reasons, but cannot reject the theological stance, they may try TE for a short time, but it never becomes real to them, and they move on to agnosticism or atheism.

Of the atheists I have met who were ex-YE creationists, all still held that the literalist interpretation was the only reasonable interpretation of scripture. You either accepted it literally or not at all. They became atheists because they could no longer accept scripture literally in light of science, nor could they accept a radically different interpretation of scripture.

For my part, I was introduced to some aspects of non-literal interpretation before I discovered evolution at all, and had already begun gravitating to what seemed to me a better way of learning what the bible has to teach. So when I did discover evolution, I had no problem integrating it into an already non-literalistic way of thinking about scripture. In fact, my first reaction on reading a primer on evolution was "So that's how God did it!" (i.e. create living things) The forced choice of YE-creationism or atheism was never a factor in my spiritual development. I am sure that if it had been, I would no longer be a Christian.

I am also sure that many former YE creationists are still Christian because the TE option exists.

 

[laptoppop]

Rather than people rejecting Christianity because of evolutionary theory, I believe it is the opposite -- the implications of young earth creationism -- that cause Christians to lose the faith. Many of the fallen, and many current YECs, have been brought up to believe that the Bible must be historically and scientifically accurate in order to speak spiritual truth. It's this dichotomy of science and faith, as espoused by the atheists and YECs, that is dangerous. Not evolutionary creationism.

And for those who are confused, hithesh is not an evolutionary creationist.

I would almost like to agree with you -- but I have to be honest. YEC is not that well known to affect a broad survey like this. It is a niche belief. The more basic problem is that people know that what is taught in schools about evolution disagrees with what they read about a 6 day creation when they just open up the Bible and start reading in Genesis.

 

[Mallon]

The more basic problem is that people know that what is taught in schools about evolution disagrees with what they read about a 6 day creation when they just open up the Bible and start reading in Genesis.

And the way to solve this problem would be to distinguish properly between ontological and methodological naturalism in the science classroom. Not to remove the teaching of evolution or introduce the teaching of Christian creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

There is gradual progression among the Christian community, from a literal interpretation of the Genesis story leading to six day creation, to a quasi-literal approach that sees the days as representative of millions of years, to intelligent design, and now to Theistic Evolution.

You have the history and "progression" somewhat confused.

Christianity NEVER had a "literal interpretation of Genesis" until 1900! Augustine was non-literal, so was Calvin.

Christianity was TE to start with. See the first quote in my signature. That is by Christians in 1832 after scientists -- ALL of whom were Christians and many were ministers -- falsified Flood Geology (and young earth) in 1831.

It was not until the 1880s that literalism was seriously introduced. This was The Fundamentals published in the period 1900-1910. Fundamentalism was predominantly a reaction to Higher Criticism of scripture.

Fundamentalism has been acting like a Fifth Column corrupting Christianity ever since and has been growing.

Soon, it seems that (TE) will be the accepted take on creation by believers

And the problem with that is?

For me stories such, as Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, are all allegory, and I'm starting to lean in assuming that Moses departing the red sea is perhaps allegory as well.

Why? What is there in God's Creation that would lead you to that?

I tend to deconstruct the bible, differentiate between various interpretations, historical understandings, and historical events at the time of writing, to determine what the writers of the books of the bible meant, and what was guiding them to write.

This is not "deconstructing". It is how you are supposed to interpret.

I see no reason for Christianity to have an entirely different take on hell, and the devil, that what was understood by the Jewish Tradition.

Christianity inherited the view on a battle between good and evil and Satan that was part of a particular Jewish sect -- the Essenes. Read up on them.

Is (TE) a path to disbelief, or is it a path to a great understanding of belief?

The second choice. Remember, God cannot contradict God. Biblical literalism pits God in scripture vs God in His Creation. In that type of battle, God can only lose.

 

[lucaspa]

The more basic problem is that people know that what is taught in schools about evolution disagrees with what they read about a 6 day creation when they just open up the Bible and start reading in Genesis.

The solution is for Sunday schools to do their job better. For one thing, they can point out that the 6 day creation they read about in Genesis 1 disagrees with the 1 day creation they read about in Genesis 2.

 

[crawfish]

I just heard an interesting lecture by Dr. A. E. Wilbur-Smith where he referenced a survey in Europe. Over 1/2 of the people surveyed identified themselves as not believing in God in any form (atheist), and of those 80+% said the reason why they held that position was that evolution proved we didn't need one.

That's exactly why we need to present TE - not as a belief or dogma, but as a way of thinking that keeps science and Christianity in step with each other.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I just heard an interesting lecture by Dr. A. E. Wilbur-Smith where he referenced a survey in Europe. Over 1/2 of the people surveyed identified themselves as not believing in God in any form (atheist), and of those 80+% said the reason why they held that position was that evolution proved we didn't need one.

I think the fault lies in cosmology rather than evolution. Most people assume they are one in the same. As most TEs will agree evolution most definitely points to a creator. It's the physicists and cosmologists that are still trying to show the universe as being possible without a beginning or a creator, i.e. String Theory.

 

[Deamiter]

I think the fault lies in cosmology rather than evolution. Most people assume they are one in the same. As most TEs will agree evolution most definitely points to a creator. It's the physicists and cosmologists that are still trying to show the universe as being possible without a beginning or a creator, i.e. String Theory.

And thus the physicists are all atheistic?

Quite the contrary! When the Big Bang theory first became publicly widespread, it was firmly embraced by Christians who saw it as a verification of the Bible's description of God creating. It replaced the earlier idea that the entire universe is static and unchanging a concept rather foreign to Christianity and more compatable with some of the Eastern religions.

The whole basis of science is to observe and make predictions. If God did create a series of dimensions that could generate the universe, does that make God any less a creator? It sounds like you were raised to believe that God very well could have created in the Big Bang, but what prevents God from having created in an earlier event? We must never limit our understanding of God by our painfully limited understanding of his creation!

As to the OP, I suggest that people who seek out other anti-intellectuals will largely see science as a primary source of deconversion. When you and your friends have built a world-view that requires that our observations of creation be ignored or at least filtered, then anybody who is curious enough to look at nature will be forced to choose between accepting reality or accepting their interpretation of scripture. But is it science or a faulty interpretation of scripture that is at fault?

As a person who is not afraid of academia and who loves learning, I see many people walk away from Christianity as they see Christianity disproven by what they can observe and test for themselves in nature. Should I blame these people for opening their eyes to the evidence in God's revelation in nature? Perhaps it is not nature that is flawed but the claim that early Genesis is not compatable with scientific conclusions that drives those who seek truth away from Christianity (and sadly by extension away from Christ).

 

[shernren]

Evolution itself is just a scientific theory about the origin of biodiversity on Earth. In its truth or falsity it says absolutely nothing about whether or not God exists.

However, some people construct a perception of reality in which evolution is antithetical to God - if evolution, then atheism. Some atheists construct this perception, as well as almost all YECs to some degree. The problem of course is that evolution is simply a scientific theory. It does not stand or fall by rhetoric or spiritual investigation or philosophical probing, it stands or falls by the evidence. And when someone comes to the evidence and sees that it is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, what are the consequences? Either that person must follow the YEC/atheist logic down the rabbit hole into believing that since evolution is true therefore atheism is true, or that person must find some way to synthesize a scientific theory with a religious outlook.

All TE is is the outcome of that synthesis. And how can a well-done synthesis of science and faith ever compromise either science or faith?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

For the (TE) crowd, do you believe that taking a (TE) position is a settlement with a faith that has been waning, or is it a position that has led you to a new found affirmation of your beliefs?

Is (TE) a path to disbelief, or is it a path to a great understanding of belief?

For me, I would have to say the latter.

I'm not a faith-driven kind of person by nature, and things have to make sense to me before I'll believe in them. Now, I am a baptized "born again" Christian, but I came to that position kicking and screaming, dragged by the weight of the historical and prophetic evidence, as well as some small personal divine revelations. None of that proved God's existence (it can't be proven one way or the other), but it did establish it for me by the civil court standard of a "preponderance of the evidence", and that made it more reasonable for me to take the "leap of faith" than not to.

But if Biblical literalism and YEC had been required, I would never have become a believer. Toss those two onto the scales, and for me they'd have tilted the other way. So I've always been a TE person, and a theological liberal in some other ways, though I'm very conservative on what's contained in the Nicene Creed, and not at all lacking in zeal for the faith.

 

[pastorkevin73]

There is gradual progression among the Christian community, from a literal interpretation of the Genesis story leading to six day creation, to a quasi-literal approach that sees the days as representative of millions of years, to intelligent design, and now to Theistic Evolution.

I'm astonished that some months ago I would visit the origins forum, and see (ID) adherents, YEC, and the quasi-YECs, as the majority, but today and recently it seems that TE is gaining ground.

Soon, it seems that (TE) will be the accepted take on creation by believers

I believe in Theistic Evolution, but I find that many believers find this take on origin, to be somewhat-blasphemous or at least puzzling, and I think I understand why. For, me personally believing in (TE) created a radically different take on the bible--I don't understand how someone who accepts (TE) can maintain the traditional take on Christianity and the Bible.

For me stories such, as Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, are all allegory, and I'm starting to lean in assuming that Moses departing the red sea is perhaps allegory as well.

I tend to deconstruct the bible, differentiate between various interpretations, historical understandings, and historical events at the time of writing, to determine what the writers of the books of the bible meant, and what was guiding them to write.

There are certain things that I don't believe in today, that has long been taught to me in childhood, such as hell, pre-rapture tribulation, and the devil.

Well, let me rephrase: I do believe in hell, and the devil, just not the way its depicted in the Christian tradition. I see no reason for Christianity to have an entirely different take on hell, and the devil, that what was understood by the Jewish Tradition.

It would seem to the untrained eye, that I am following a path leading to disbelief, but for me it's a path to greater sense of belief, where meaning becomes more important than what is real, but I can see how perhaps others engaging in the same post-modernist take on the Bible, might be venturing into disbelief.

That's my assumption, but I'm wondering if it's true?

For the (TE) crowd, do you believe that taking a (TE) position is a settlement with a faith that has been waning, or is it a position that has led you to a new found affirmation of your beliefs?

Is (TE) a path to disbelief, or is it a path to a great understanding of belief?

So you admit that evolution is a belief?