Is Scripture still inerrant according to theistic evolution?

Firstlightdawn · Feb 10, 2026

The Barbarian said:
Punctuated equilibrium (Eldredge and Gould)

Eldredge supplied the empirical evidence; Gould supplied the conceptual framework that explained the pattern’s deeper causes. Eldredge discovered what Gould explained.

John Bauer · Wednesday at 6:14 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
… and why its unneeded application (and overuse) in turn contributes to the fact that a number of Christians continue to put their trust in science even while they value the Bible.

Huh? This statement is rhetorically suggestive but analytically underdeveloped. What are you saying, exactly?

John Bauer · Wednesday at 6:29 AM

There is no conflict between punctuated equilibrium (Gould) and phyletic gradualism (Darwin). These are not mutually exclusive ideas—it's not an either/or choice. Both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are describing the same thing, just at different scales. As observed by Kenneth Miller in his book Finding Darwin's God, the only thing that makes punctuated equilibrium appear novel is the choice of a timescale with which to present the data. Once you expand the brief ‘punctuation’ interval, stretching it to its actual temporal length, the pattern resolves into the same incremental change Darwin described—long periods of stasis followed by speciation or extinction. "The contrast is an artifact of how the lines are drawn,” Miller observed, “not of how evolution works."

And Miller shows that Darwin himself explicitly described long periods of stasis punctuated by intervals of modification. The single diagram in Origin was never meant to depict slow, continuous, steady rates. Darwin wrote that "each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification"—a textbook description of stasis and punctuation. The supposed gradualism/punctuation controversy is a rhetorical one; there is no substantive difference. Gould expanded on a pattern that Darwin had briefly described. The whole thing collapses once the missing timescale is restored.

Miller explains:

Remember that [Darwin] drew exactly one diagram in the Origin, designed to allow his readers to see how he believed new species were formed over time. Darwin presented this diagram so that his readers would have some idea of how he imagined descent with modification might take place over time. Naturally, he focused on what things might look like when changes were taking place—not on what might happen when they were not. Should we take the branching lineages that Darwin drew as showing his commitment to regular, steady change over time? After presenting the drawing he wrote:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

... [I]t turns out that Darwin got it positively and overwhelmingly right the first time.

Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (CliffStreet Books, 2000), pp. 112-115. Emphasis mine. The quote from Darwin is taken from The Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1872; Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 119-120.

o_mlly · Wednesday at 7:18 AM

Job 33:6 said:
ID isn't a scientific theory.

Who made you the gate keeper?

Job 33:6 said:
There literally aren't any scientific publications on ID.

And for the same reason there aren't any Fords in a Chevy dealership's showroom.

The evo's have circled their wagons -- academia oppresses and excludes people who believe in intelligent design. Politics, not worthwhile objectives, now controls grant money.

The Barbarian said:
It's called "Marxism."

Nonsense. Marxism does not deny that market forces determine prices. You should stay in your own narrow lane.

The Barbarian · Wednesday at 8:36 AM

ID isn't a scientific theory.

o_mlly said:
Who made you the gate keeper?

From the IDers themselves. The Discovery Institute Wedge Document:
Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

It's a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory. By their own admission.

o_mlly said:
The evo's have circled their wagons -- academia oppresses and excludes people who believe in intelligent design.

And yet, guys like Michael Behe and Michael Denton have tenure at major universities. I took my first graduate course in immunology from a professor who was tenured and a YEC. Nice try.

(claims there are no alternative theories to free markets)
It's called "Marxism."

o_mlly said:
Nonsense. Marxism does not deny that market forces determine prices.

Marx’s Critique of the Market.
Within the orthodox Marxist tradition exchange has tended to be seen as no more than the passive
reflection of the social relations of capitalist production, the sphere in which the capitalist exercises
his ‘cunning right of the strong’ (Engels, 1843). From this perspective capitalist exploitation appears
as no more than the expression of the greed of the capitalist or of the essential rapaciousness of
capital. Although Marx did indeed describe the market as the realm within which the essence of
capital manifested itself, the relationship between essence and appearance was not that of a
deterministic reductionism. For Marx, the appearance is the form of existence of the essence: the
essence of capital is only realised in the interaction of particular capitals in the sphere of exchange.
‘Conceptually, competition is nothing but the inner nature of capital, its essential character,
manifested and realised as the reciprocal action of many capitals upon each other; immanent
tendency realised as external necessity.)(Capital exists and can only exist as many capitals; hence its
own character appears as their reciprocal action on each other.)’ ‘A universal capital, not confronted
by alien capitals with which it exchanges … is … an impossibility. The mutual repulsion of
capitalists is already inherent in capital as realised exchange value’ (CW28, 350).

https://cooltexts.github.io/clarke/pubs/LAMARKW.pdf

o_mlly said:
You should stay in your own narrow lane.

Libertarian here. Maybe you don't see the difference, but we do.

The Barbarian · Wednesday at 8:37 AM

John Bauer said:
And Miller shows that Darwin himself explicitly described long periods of stasis punctuated by intervals of modification.

Today's winner.

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 9:02 AM

John Bauer said:
Huh? This statement is rhetorically suggestive but analytically underdeveloped. What are you saying, exactly?

Yes, it is underdeveloped and skewed.

But I'm simply saying that inerrancy is an exaggeration and is a bit too polysemous in its usage among various denominations.

It also isn't a demonstrably realistic descriptor of the biblical corpus, and its continued use for the defense of the Bible over and against the sciences, particularly the biological sciences and the Theory of Evolution, sets some people on a path where their ability to value that same biblical corpus is decimated.

Personally, it doesn't bother me that the collection of biblical literature isn't historically perfect and has "fragile human containers---handle with care" written all over it. So, I never use "inerrant" as a descriptor for the Bible.

River Jordan · Wednesday at 11:05 AM

The Barbarian said:
Actually, that quote was by Dr. Todd Wood, a YEC. He doesn't think evolution is true; he's just too honest to deny that the mass of evidence indicates evolution.

Yes I was aware that it was Wood's quote. That's why I said "anyone" in my post you replied to. Even when it comes from one of their own team the rank denialist will still deny it without further thought.

River Jordan · Wednesday at 11:09 AM

Job 33:6 said:
I'm laughing so hard over here over that whole "fifth force" thing. I mean come on now.

It's an engineer and a cardiologist giving evolutionary biologists their opinion on a field they don't work in. If you'll notice, their paper has only been cited twice since publication so it looks like the response from evolutionary biologists has been something like "thanks for your opinions".

Job 33:6 · Wednesday at 11:34 AM

o_mlly said:
Who made you the gate keeper?

And for the same reason there aren't any Fords in a Chevy dealership's showroom.

No. ID itself acknowledges it's position as religious as noted above. You can easily find interviews, lectures, discussions etc. offered by the ID movement, and they openly acknowledge that they aren't offering scientific mechanisms. So when I say that ID isn't science, I'm just acknowledging what everyone is well aware of and agrees on.

Even in their own independent writings, they don't offer scientific mechanisms. Because their position is of course a religious position involving supernatural intervention.

And I'd recommend you do more reading about what Intelligent Design is and what they advocate for if you don't understand this.

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 11:50 AM

John Bauer said:
There is no conflict between punctuated equilibrium (Gould) and phyletic gradualism (Darwin). These are not mutually exclusive ideas—it's not an either/or choice. Both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are describing the same thing, just at different scales. As observed by Kenneth Miller in his book Finding Darwin's God, the only thing that makes punctuated equilibrium appear novel is the choice of a timescale with which to present the data. Once you expand the brief ‘punctuation’ interval, stretching it to its actual temporal length, the pattern resolves into the same incremental change Darwin described—long periods of stasis followed by speciation or extinction. "The contrast is an artifact of how the lines are drawn,” Miller observed, “not of how evolution works."

And Miller shows that Darwin himself explicitly described long periods of stasis punctuated by intervals of modification. The single diagram in Origin was never meant to depict slow, continuous, steady rates. Darwin wrote that "each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification"—a textbook description of stasis and punctuation. The supposed gradualism/punctuation controversy is a rhetorical one; there is no substantive difference. Gould expanded on a pattern that Darwin had briefly described. The whole thing collapses once the missing timescale is restored.

Miller explains:

Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (CliffStreet Books, 2000), pp. 112-115. Emphasis mine. The quote from Darwin is taken from The Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1872; Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 119-120.

Kenneth Miller's book is a good one---I read it a few years after it was published.

River Jordan · Wednesday at 11:53 AM

Now the denialist is descending into conspiracies to explain why reality isn't lining up with his preferences. Consensus on evolution is explained away via atheist brainwashing and creationists' failure to publish in science journals via a conspiracy to suppress their work.

Isn't it obvious to ask where all the creationists' rejected manuscripts are? If this conspiracy exists there must be a stack of very good manuscripts from creationists that were rejected for non-scientific, unprofessional reasons, right?

Where are they?

o_mlly · Wednesday at 12:10 PM

The Barbarian said:
It's a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory. By their own admission.

Nope. What you posted from Discovery Institute does not say what you think it says.

The Barbarian said:
And yet, guys like Michael Behe and Michael Denton have tenure at major universities.

What's your point? Is it that those who disagree with the tenets of evo theory and have academic tenure proves something? Try again.

The Barbarian said:
Marx’s Critique of the Market.

Another unrelated data dump? The text does not say anything about prices and market forces. Try again.

The Barbarian said:
Libertarian here. Maybe you don't see the difference, but we do.

Good for you and your dog.

Job 33:6 said:
ID itself acknowledges it's position as religious as noted above. You can easily find interviews, lectures, discussions etc. offered by the ID movement, and they openly acknowledge that they aren't offering scientific mechanisms. So when I say that ID isn't science, I'm just acknowledging what everyone is well aware of and agrees on.

First, you've already admitted that theistic evolution is a religious position. So what's your point?

Secondly, whenever I read, "... everyone is well aware and agrees ...", I know the author is merely exaggerating and, as in this case, has not done much research on the issue. Search "Intelligent Design is a Science" and read or watch some of the results and get back to me.

The Barbarian · Wednesday at 12:26 PM

o_mlly said:
Nope. What you posted from Discovery Institute does not say what you think it says.

It says that the "Governing Goal" of ID is to promote "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

What about that, do you not understand? The goal is to spread their religious beliefs.

o_mlly said:
academia oppresses and excludes people who believe in intelligent design.

And yet, guys like Michael Behe and Michael Denton have tenure at major universities. I took my first graduate course in immunology from a professor who was tenured and a YEC. Nice try.

o_mlly said:
What's your point?

Your claim is just wrong. I showed you several examples, one from my own academic experience.

o_mlly said:
Another unrelated data dump?

"Although Marx did indeed describe the market as the realm within which the essence of capital manifested itself, the relationship between essence and appearance was not that of a deterministic reductionism. For Marx, the appearance is the form of existence of the essence: the essence of capital is only realised in the interaction of particular capitals in the sphere of exchange."

A very different theory of markets than that of Adam Smith. No point in denying it.

The Barbarian · Wednesday at 12:28 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Kenneth Miller's book is a good one---I read it a few years after it was published.

I had an opportunity to meet and briefly speak with Dr. Miller. Enjoyed his comments.

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 12:33 PM

The Barbarian said:
I had an opportunity to meet and briefly speak with Dr. Miller. Enjoyed his comments.

I would have paid to be a fly on a wall near that meeting.

Job 33:6 · Wednesday at 1:18 PM

o_mlly said:
Nope. What you posted from Discovery Institute does not say what you think it says.

What's your point? Is it that those who disagree with the tenets of evo theory and have academic tenure proves something? Try again.

Another unrelated data dump? The text does not say anything about prices and market forces. Try again.

Good for you and your dog.

First, you've already admitted that theistic evolution is a religious position. So what's your point?

Secondly, whenever I read, "... everyone is well aware and agrees ...", I know the author is merely exaggerating and, as in this case, has not done much research on the issue. Search "Intelligent Design is a Science" and read or watch some of the results and get back to me.

Theistic evolution is a faith based position. The theory of evolution is not. Those are two different categories.

Intelligent Design is also a faith based or metaphysical position, and it does not offer a scientific theory in contrast to evolutionary theory in the same way that, say, plate tectonics competes with other geological models.

There’s an important distinction here.

Worldview or faith positions include:

Theism / Theistic evolution
Atheism (or philosophical naturalism)
Evolutionary creationism
Young earth creationism
Old earth creationism
Intelligent Design
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism
Agnosticism, Deism, etc.

These positions make metaphysical claims about God, purpose, miracles, ultimate causes, or the absence of such things. They go beyond what science can test. We’ve talked before about ensoulment as an example, that’s not a scientific category.

By contrast, scientific theories include:

The theory of evolution
The theory of gravity
Germ theory
Atomic theory
The theory of plate tectonics
Geodynamo theory

These involve physical mechanisms, observation, testing, and prediction. They deal with measurable phenomena, things like fossils, genetics, CT scans of transitional species like Tiktaalik, and so on.

Science studies physical processes. It does not scan for God, nor does it test for souls or divine intention. Those are different kinds of questions.

Theists and atheists alike can accept scientific theories. But Intelligent Design, while meaningful to many as a philosophical or theological view, is not recognized as a scientific theory in the same category as evolutionary biology. It makes claims about supernatural intelligence or intervention that are not empirically testable in the same way.

These are simply different domains of inquiry.

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 2:04 PM

Job 33:6 said:
Theistic evolution is a faith based position, but the theory of evolution is not. These are two different things. ID is a faith based position, and they do not offer a scientific theory in contrast to the theory of evolution.

Faith positions=
Theism or Theistic evolution
Atheism or atheistic evolution
Young earth creationism
Old earth creationism
Intelligent Design
Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
Buddhism etc.

These are positions that involve supernatural deities (or a complete lack thereof), miracles, and things that are outside of science. I think we talked about ensoulment before as an example of something outside of science.

Scientific theories=
The theory of gravity
The theory of evolution
The theory of plate tectonics
Geodynamo theory
Germ theory
Atomic theory etc.

These involve physical mechanisms and testing. Observations and study based on observed objects, such as tiktaalik (if you recall the CT scans and high definition scans imagery).

No one has high definition CT scans of God. These are two different categories or study.

Theists and atheists may accept scientific theories such as those listed, but intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a faith position that involves supernatural intervention. Or sometimes they posit ideas such as alien intervention or otherwise.

From what I've studied of it for the past twenty years since college, I would say that I.D. can be either 1) a faith-based position which serves as a form of apologetics, or 2) an alternative (although minority) position within Philosophy of Science. Neither of these is, obviously, 'official science' per say, and the difference between the two will depend on which epistemic framework is being used.

Whatever the case may be, being that I'm willing to give a hearing to other arguments such as Aristotle's Prime Mover, Paley's Watch-Maker, Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Anthropic Principle, I can allow at least an additional hearing from the more philosophical advocates of Intelligent Design, without any expectation that they will "wow" me in the process of their presentation.

o_mlly · Wednesday at 2:59 PM

The Barbarian said:
It says that the "Governing Goal" of ID is to promote "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

What about that, do you not understand? The goal is to spread their religious beliefs.

? I do understand.

The problems is that you don't understand that a specified goal does not categorize or define a field of inquiry as a science or a religion. Rather than its goals, its presuppositions do.

The Barbarian said:
And yet, guys like Michael Behe and Michael Denton have tenure at major universities. I took my first graduate course in immunology from a professor who was tenured and a YEC. Nice try.

It may be another tea and dog time. You're repeating yourself.

The Barbarian said:
A very different theory of markets than that of Adam Smith.

Nope. The market forces of demand and supply transcend political systems. Capitalist and communists face the same forces in deciding how to allocate scarce resources. You'd know that if you took the time to learn more about economics.

o_mlly · Wednesday at 3:05 PM

Job 33:6 said:
Intelligent Design is also a faith based or metaphysical position ...

Nope. ID requires no leap of faith greater than evo theory.

Job 33:6 said:
These positions make metaphysical claims about God, purpose, miracles, ultimate causes, or the absence of such things. They go beyond what science can test.

ID does not make such claims.

Job 33:6 said:
But Intelligent Design, while meaningful to many as a philosophical or theological view, is not recognized as a scientific theory in the same category as evolutionary biology.

Only to those who do not read what ID is about.

Job 33:6 said:
It makes claims about supernatural intelligence or intervention that are not empirically testable in the same way.

You didn't study ID as I suggested, did you? ID make no such claims.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Is Scripture still inerrant according to theistic evolution?

Active Member

Reformed

Reformed

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Well-Known Member

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Similar threads