10 dangers of theistic evolution

[Marshall Janzen]

I think mythologizing (or presuming to demythologize) the resurrection is the more logically consistent position for a TE. But, I am glad many either prove me wrong or provide exceptions to the rule. Consistency in logic is required of no one, ultimately.

Some of the more abrasive Catholics, Lutherans or Orthodox believers who believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation have laid the same charge of inconsistency at those who take the Lord's supper symbolically while taking the creation week literally. If you take one symbolically and one literally, perhaps you have a way of working it out in your mind without inconsistency. If so, it's too bad that you have so little charity towards others who also try to rightly interpret each passage.

 

[Melethiel]

Nothing wrong with being "logically inconsistent". I'm perfectly happy being a TE who holds a highly conservative and traditional theology and view of Scripture. (And per Mercury's post above, I'm one of those more abrasive Lutherans as well. ) If that makes me "logically inconsistent," so be it.

Just don't call me a liberal.
[/rant]

 

[Marshall Janzen]

(And per Mercury's post above, I'm one of those more abrasive Lutherans as well. )

I hope I didn't give the impression that I think Lutherans or the other groups I mentioned are more abrasive. I was trying to say that what followed didn't apply to all (or even most) in those groups, but a more abrasive subset.

Sorry if I caused offense!

 

[Melethiel]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I think Lutherans or the other groups I mentioned are more abrasive. I was trying to say that what followed didn't apply to all (or even most) in those groups, but a more abrasive subset.

Sorry if I caused offense!

None at all. I understood your intent...I was identifying myself with that subset, given that I am quite guilty of bringing up the Sacraments with regard to YEC interpretation.

 

[Willtor]

I would agree with every danger the man suggests.

"Danger" obviously is an expansive term. It is beyond generalizing. It is really the easiest kind of attack argument there is.

Heck, I even drew a connection with Nazis as the possible result of TE. But, lots of other beliefs can get you there as well. YEC/biblical literalism can be dangerous. And none of those beliefs require that you get to such extremes in and of themselves.

I think (but I could be wrong) that the German Nazis were Lamarckists, not Darwinists. The trouble I would imagine the Nazis would have had with strict Darwinism is that it doesn't allow for the Aryan people to be superior to anybody else in any empirical sense.

I know this wasn't your main point, but I just write to present my understanding.

And obviously many TEs here do not fit his mold. Mythologizing the resurrection is the easiest counter-example. Many TEs here simply don't.

I think mythologizing (or presuming to demythologize) the resurrection is the more logically consistent position for a TE. But, I am glad many either prove me wrong or provide exceptions to the rule. Consistency in logic is required of no one, ultimately.

I would strongly disagree with this point. For most of us, we started with the resurrection as the primary informer to our theologies. A person could have no access to the traditional interpretations of Scripture and conclude that the Bible advocated genocide or taught that God actually became angry or repented and conclude that the Scriptures were not sound for theology at all. But if the person is persuaded by the grace of God through Christ, it's hardly a point against his logic.

That said, once the foundation is established, and should a person come to particular views on the authority of Scripture, it remains to be seen how various parts of the Scriptures should be interpreted. This is a legitimate point of dispute even among Bible-believing Christians.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Heck, I even drew a connection with Nazis as the possible result of TE.

Never studied the Nazi much have you? The "Master Race" was created, not evolved, it was the "lesser races" that evolved from apes in Nazi propaganda. It was through crass breeding with the lesser races that caused the "master race" to loose their powers.

Nazi mythology was a variant of Norse creationism, not scientific evolution.

 

[crawfish]

I think mythologizing (or presuming to demythologize) the resurrection is the more logically consistent position for a TE. But, I am glad many either prove me wrong or provide exceptions to the rule. Consistency in logic is required of no one, ultimately.

Are you saying there is no logical way to hold both viewpoints? I'd disagree with that.

 

[Assyrian]

I think mythologizing (or presuming to demythologize) the resurrection is the more logically consistent position for a TE.

Why? Is the only alternative to everything in the bible being literal, that everything in the bible is a metaphor? Or to put it another way, must God either always literally or always speak in parable? Surely God as the supreme communicator and is able and willing to use both?

For all their understanding of different literary forms in scripture YECs seems to have this gut level attachment to literalism, and feel that the only logical alternative to everything being literal is taking everything mythologically. God isn't like that. He has spoken at many times in many ways.

 

[busterdog]

Are you saying that any TE who believes in the resurrection is being logically inconsistent? There's really almost no other way to read what you're trying to say here.

Yes.

 

[busterdog]

Nothing wrong with being "logically inconsistent". I'm perfectly happy being a TE who holds a highly conservative and traditional theology and view of Scripture. (And per Mercury's post above, I'm one of those more abrasive Lutherans as well. ) If that makes me "logically inconsistent," so be it.

Just don't call me a liberal.
[/rant]

Well, far be it from me to claim a reliable consistency either.

We have done this a number of time. Science says that dead guys named Lazarus don't come back from the dead. The Gospel says raised him. Science says planets need billions of years to form. Genesis says it takes a day. I find it inconsistent not to apply the samr reasoning in both cases.. And. yes, I understand that the TE position distinguishes between "miracles" on the basis of the evidence as in: 1. there is testimonial evidence of the resurrection; and 2. there is no testimonial evidence for a six day creation and contrary science.

Based upon the argument that God speaks through creation and historical witness, the inconsistency is allegedly removed. I find that logic forced and not consistent with scripture. Of course, forced logic is not absent logic.

But, we are not saved by consistency.

 

[Willtor]

I think there's a misunderstanding. Science doesn't say that Lazarus didn't come back from the dead. If scientists were able to examine him before and after, it would have a strange paradox on its hands. I suppose that it wouldn't be able to explain the paradox, but it would know that it had a paradox.

 

[PaladinValer]

Begging your pardon, but science has no answer to the question of resurrection since we aren't sure still on all the particulars on the subjects of life and death.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Well, far be it from me to claim a reliable consistency either.

We have done this a number of time. Science says that dead guys named Lazarus don't come back from the dead. The Gospel says raised him. Science says planets need billions of years to form. Genesis says it takes a day. I find it inconsistent not to apply the samr reasoning in both cases.. And. yes, I understand that the TE position distinguishes between "miracles" on the basis of the evidence as in: 1. there is testimonial evidence of the resurrection; and 2. there is no testimonial evidence for a six day creation and contrary science.

Based upon the argument that God speaks through creation and historical witness, the inconsistency is allegedly removed. I find that logic forced and not consistent with scripture. Of course, forced logic is not absent logic.

But, we are not saved by consistency.

Could you please site me the scientific paper that states that God cannot raise whom so ever God wishes from the dead? I seem to have missed that one...

 

[shernren]

We have done this a number of time. Science says that dead guys named Lazarus don't come back from the dead. The Gospel says raised him. Science says planets need billions of years to form. Genesis says it takes a day. I find it inconsistent not to apply the samr reasoning in both cases.. And. yes, I understand that the TE position distinguishes between "miracles" on the basis of the evidence as in: 1. there is testimonial evidence of the resurrection; and 2. there is no testimonial evidence for a six day creation and contrary science.

Based upon the argument that God speaks through creation and historical witness, the inconsistency is allegedly removed. I find that logic forced and not consistent with scripture. Of course, forced logic is not absent logic.

But, we are not saved by consistency.

Really now. Let's lay out the logic. Tell me which step is inconsistent.

Axiom: If the state of the world as it is today is different from the state it would be in given a particular singular event, then that constitutes evidence against the event.

Premise 1: The state of the world as it is today is no different from the state it would be in given that Jesus rose from the dead at a singular point in history.
Conclusion 1: There is no evidence against the resurrection.

Premise 2: The state of the world as it is today is different from the state it would be in given that it was created rapidly and recently and was recently globally deluged.
Conclusion 2: There is evidence against a rapid, recent creation and a recent global flood.

So where are we being inconsistent? Is the axiom wrong? (But it is used every moment every day.) If not, then don't the conclusions follow naturally from the premises?

 

[metherion]

I really like how shernren put it.

I always thought of it this way: God can do what science says can't happen. God can (since God can do anything), but DID NOT do what science says didn't happen.

So it's really a case of can't versus didn't. God can do what science says can't be done, but God didn't do what science says He didn't do.

Science says a person can't be raised from the dead. Doesn't mean God didn't do it. No long-term measurable repercussions to say it didn't happen.

Science says the world didn't get created in 6 days 6000 years ago. Means God didn't do it. Long-term measurable repecussions say it didn't happen.

Science says a normal person can't heal a sick Roman's slave just by saying that he is healed from a distance away. Doesn't mean He didn't. No long-term repercussions to say otherwise.

Science says the world didn't get deluged in a global flood of (pun intended) Biblical proportians. Means it didn't happen. Long-term measurables say it didn't happen.

So, see the trend?

Metherion

 

[busterdog]

Could you please site me the scientific paper that states that God cannot raise whom so ever God wishes from the dead? I seem to have missed that one...

Or you could quit lying about it, either would do.

..

 

[busterdog]

I think there's a misunderstanding. Science doesn't say that Lazarus didn't come back from the dead. If scientists were able to examine him before and after, it would have a strange paradox on its hands. I suppose that it wouldn't be able to explain the paradox, but it would know that it had a paradox.

There is a nice college in Hamilton, NY where my Dad spent a lot of money for me to learn that resurrection can't happen, scientifically speaking. Somebody needs to break the news to them and everyone else since Bultman.

Does it matter that I learned it in the Phil & Relig.? No. The grounds for it are essentially scientific grounds.

 

[Assyrian]

You should get your dad to ask for his money back. Sorry busterdog, the amount of money your dad spent on educating you does not count as scientific evidence.

As far as I know there has never been any scientific research into whether or not an omnipotent incarnate deity is capable of raising people from the dead. All science has ever studied is ordinary human beings using normal human processes.

We can conclude, scientifically, that either the accounts of resurrection are wrong, or Jesus was not an ordinary human being using normal human abilities. But surprise surprise, they knew all that in the first century.

 

[Willtor]

There is a nice college in Hamilton, NY where my Dad spent a lot of money for me to learn that resurrection can't happen, scientifically speaking. Somebody needs to break the news to them and everyone else since Bultman.

Does it matter that I learned it in the Phil & Relig.? No. The grounds for it are essentially scientific grounds.

I haven't read Bultmann, yet, but if he said that science precludes the resurrection the fault lay with him, not with science or the resurrection. I'm sorry your dad spent a lot of money on something that is refuted by the simplest of arguments but I'm not going to concede this point. Even if I became an Atheist I would never make such an argument.

 

[busterdog]

You should get your dad to ask for his money back. Sorry busterdog, the amount of money your dad spent on educating you does not count as scientific evidence.

As far as I know there has never been any scientific research into whether or not an omnipotent incarnate deity is capable of raising people from the dead. All science has ever studied is ordinary human beings using normal human processes.

We can conclude, scientifically, that either the accounts of resurrection are wrong, or Jesus was not an ordinary human being using normal human abilities. But surprise surprise, they knew all that in the first century.

I think you guys are being a bit cagey. If you limit you definition of scientific inquiry to what actually appears in grant proposals, you can avoid the problem.

At college they talked about having a "modern" or "informed" worldview. That is a worldview informed by science. In most hospitals, the trained scientists put a sheet on your face when your heart stops. They tend not to wait for the cadaver to get up and they might try to medicate you involuntarily if you have that expectation. I don't think there is much need to debate whether I am correct in describing this as science. The great majority of academics in the West certainly think it is a worldview informed by modern science.

However, if you do want to redefine science you way, I am game -- only if we can say that science has not examined a literal six day creation. If you are going to remove some fields from the realm of scientific inquiry (as in, whether God exists and what He does), you kind of have a rather limited basis to opine on many matters, and we all know there is lots of opining about such things. Why then would you exclude ID from schools? Just because science can't talk about God or because ID is wrong?

Are we talking past one another?

Medical diagnosis of incurable illness is a science. A divine miraculous recovery is known in the trade as "magical thinking" and is considered error. Now some doctors do not think this way, for sure. Some studies have happened. But, you do have a clash of beliefs in this area, one of which is a scientifically based exclusion of the idea of divinely mediated miracles. In an area that murky, why must you insist that the exclusion of God and miracles is not a scientific principle? How about if we define it as a majority or minority position in science? And, if a patient faced with incurable illness tends to think ill of their chances, what is that believe most consistent with -- science, religion or what? Could be either or a mixture. But, for many a scientific worldview fits the bill and gives them pessimism. Is that too fuzzy or vague, what? I don't get your problem?