Call it what it is: Evolution. Not Theistic Evolution.

[Mallon]

Out of curiosity, do you believe natural phenomena occur to the exclusion of God, oncelost?

 

[oncelost]

Because that is science: Purely naturalistic. I think the people who demand that God led evolution in ways contrary to nature or created ex nihilo to be the ones putting God in a box. They limit him to their own misunderstandings and personal interpretations without ever admitting they might be wrong.

I might be wrong. Might you?

 

[oncelost]

Out of curiosity, do you believe natural phenomena occur to the exclusion of God, oncelost?

Of course not. God created our natural world. It is a fallen, very imperfect natural world. That's why my friend died of cancer. Our four-dimentional perception of reality and 3 pound brain is incapable of fully understanding a God of far more dimentions and who is eternal. We are very finite. He is infinite. God exists apart from his our natural world and ultimate reality is so much more than it.

If he wanted to use evolution to create all we see today, he could have. If he wanted to create it such that Genesis and all the geneologies in the Gospels are accurate history, he could have. If he wanted to do it another way altogether, he could have. I try to think of it in terms of which way is most consistent with the evidence and squares best with scripture.

BTW, this may be best for another post, but how do TEs interepret Genesis and the geneologies in the Gospels?

I take great satisfaction in knowing that we Christians are all on the same side when His kingdom comes. I feel that evolution was a great stumbling block in my faith several years ago. I would hate for it to be a stumbling block for others, especially including (selfishly enough) my kids.

 

[laconicstudent]

I might be wrong. Might you?

Yes, but I've noticed that Creationists don't do a very good job of proving their statements.

I have actually admitted to being wrong. Once I said that "atoms" weren't mentioned in the Bible and Catzrfluffly immediately pulled up several verses. I was wrong.

On the other hand, Creationists tend to simply violate parsimony trying to come up with wild hypothesis for why they can't be wrong, and invoke arguments to authority by using the Bible in a scientific discussion.

 

[oncelost]

Yes, but I've noticed that Creationists don't do a very good job of proving their statements.

I have actually admitted to being wrong. Once I said that "atoms" weren't mentioned in the Bible and Catzrfluffly immediately pulled up several verses. I was wrong.

On the other hand, Creationists tend to simply violate parsimony trying to come up with wild hypothesis for why they can't be wrong, and invoke arguments to authority by using the Bible in a scientific discussion.

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[laconicstudent]

I'll take that as a yes.

Um. Yeah. I was just being ridiculously verbose. :o

 

[Mallon]

Of course not.

Great! Many neocreationists behave as though the natural world unfolds apart from God, and that He is only active in supernatural events. This is partly why they describe evolution as "random" and "godless", even though the Bible tells us that God is in charge of both random and natural phenomena. So you're right: theistic evolution is a stupid term, as is theistic gravity or theistic electromagnetism. But there are so many neocreationists and atheists out there who presume that evolution is godless, that the term becomes a necessary polemic against the false dichotomy that God either created supernaturally or He didn't create at all.

BTW, this may be best for another post, but how do TEs interepret Genesis and the geneologies in the Gospels?

Numerology, not historical. The genealogies don't even agree. The Jews were obviously more interested in numerology than history. I think we need to accept that.

I feel that evolution was a great stumbling block in my faith several years ago.

I'm very sorry to hear that. It was a challenge for me also. I've come to realize that the problem isn't with evolution itself, but with the unwarranted assumptions (e.g., concordism) we bring to the Bible.

 

[laconicstudent]

If he wanted to use evolution to create all we see today, he could have. If he wanted to create it such that Genesis and all the geneologies in the Gospels are accurate history, he could have. If he wanted to do it another way altogether, he could have. I try to think of it in terms of which way is most consistent with the evidence and squares best with scripture.

Hallelujah for another sane human being amidst the madness!

 

[philadiddle]

What evidence would make a good TE scrap the common ancestry notion?

It would be tough for just one piece of evidence to sway me. It would be like asking me what it would take to get me to scrap our heliocentric view of our solar system. There's so much evidence for evolution one piece of evidence can't trump all the rest. There would have to evidence that contradicts it such as bunnies in the cambrian, AND a better explanation for the evidence we see.

 

[laconicstudent]

It would be tough for just one piece of evidence to sway me. It would be like asking me what it would take to get me to scrap our heliocentric view of our solar system. There's so much evidence for evolution one piece of evidence can't trump all the rest. There would have to evidence that contradicts it such as bunnies in the cambrian, AND a better explanation for the evidence we see.

^^This

 

[gluadys]

You say that because you know there are none. Honestly, if you found that, are you sure you wouldn't be able to fit that into your idea of evolution?

Yes, I am sure.

The point is not only that they don't exist, but why they can't exist given the evolutionary history of the earth.

 

[crawfish]

Of course not. God created our natural world. It is a fallen, very imperfect natural world. That's why my friend died of cancer. Our four-dimentional perception of reality and 3 pound brain is incapable of fully understanding a God of far more dimentions and who is eternal. We are very finite. He is infinite. God exists apart from his our natural world and ultimate reality is so much more than it.

If he wanted to use evolution to create all we see today, he could have. If he wanted to create it such that Genesis and all the geneologies in the Gospels are accurate history, he could have. If he wanted to do it another way altogether, he could have. I try to think of it in terms of which way is most consistent with the evidence and squares best with scripture.

Consider this: If God wanted to create something to be discoverable by man, then it would necessarily have to be natural. IF God intends us to discover the universe around us then its creation was a natural occurrence.

BTW, this may be best for another post, but how do TEs interepret Genesis and the geneologies in the Gospels?

TE's generally believe that the accounting of history begins in Genesis 12 with Abraham. There are three genealogies in verses before that: Genesis 4, 5 and 10. In Genesis 4, a literal reading of the meanings behind the names of the descendants of Cain shows a progression away from God; the meanings behind the names of the descendants of Seth shows a promise of the coming Messiah. The meanings behind the names of Genesis 10 shows a tie to all nations in the surrounding areas of ancient Israel. It's an interesting study to undertake. There are no other genealogies in scripture that have this level of symbolism contained within them.

I take great satisfaction in knowing that we Christians are all on the same side when His kingdom comes. I feel that evolution was a great stumbling block in my faith several years ago. I would hate for it to be a stumbling block for others, especially including (selfishly enough) my kids.

I have seen the opposite; as one becomes more familiar with the ideas and evidence behind evolution, non-evolutionary creationism itself becomes the stumbling block. The problem is that both anti-evolutionists and "new atheists" are the most vocal groups, and both are pushing evolution as a substitute for religion. This is a false dichotomy. In the end, we Christians must accept that scripture is far more ambiguous than most of us would like it to be in this area.

 

[gluadys]

Okay, that's a good point I guess. But, TE really doesn't have anything to do with theism specifically. It only says 1) that we don't consider God when we explore origins, 2) when naturalistic science settles on a theory of origin of life, we go with that because we will not consider any supernatural causes, 3) we'll only consider God insofar as he is outside the naturalistic scientific theory. It seems like your putting God in a box. If you are exploring ultimate reality, why limit yourself to naturalism for theories of origin.

Not really. We have never said God could not use miraculous events to create life and evolve new species. Only that the evidence strongly suggests that he did not.

Many YECs, however, do seem to put God's activity in the box of miracles and deny God's active presence in the working of nature. There is a tendency among them to treat natural process as "godless"---just as atheists do.

 

[Willtor]

You say that because you know there are none. Honestly, if you found that, are you sure you wouldn't be able to fit that into your idea of evolution?

I know that responding to this goes back a couple pages, but...

Kind of. It would become like Newtonian physics, I suspect. Evolution (as we understand it, now) is so well attested that it would still be a useful model that applies in most circumstances. It would still be taught in high school. But research would be progressing in a different direction. In some sense, evolution would lose its teeth in that biological life doesn't hold to quite as simple and powerful a model as we think it does, now. Evolution would be a special case.

On the other hand, I can't see AIG and ICR stopping their campaign against science once that happens. So I'm not clear on how it would change anything from the perspective of YEC/TE debates.

 

[dies-l]

Theistic evolution strikes me a little more than a rhetorical label. Like many rhetorical labels, it is an attempt to correct or balance the rhetoric of the opposing position. Thus, because evolutionism is incorrectly labeled by some Theistic anti-evolutionists and and some atheistic evolutionists as an atheistic belief system, some Theists who accept evolution feel it necessary to modify their acceptance of evolution as "theistic" to distance themselves from this commonly embraced misconception. IOW, if evolution were not routinely labelled as an atheistic philosophy or belief, then there would be no valud reason for the phrase "theistic evolutionist" as the label "evolutionist" would not be perceived as having any bearing on whether or not the bearer of the label believes in God.

 

[Cabal]

Theistic evolution strikes me a little more than a rhetorical label. Like many rhetorical labels, it is an attempt to correct or balance the rhetoric of the opposing position. Thus, because evolutionism is incorrectly labeled by some Theistic anti-evolutionists and and some atheistic evolutionists as an atheistic belief system, some Theists who accept evolution feel it necessary to modify their acceptance of evolution as "theistic" to distance themselves from this commonly embraced misconception. IOW, if evolution were not routinely labelled as an atheistic philosophy or belief, then there would be no valud reason for the phrase "theistic evolutionist" as the label "evolutionist" would not be perceived as having any bearing on whether or not the bearer of the label believes in God.

^ This.

I'm quite willing to accept that I'm a creationist, as TE is still a form of creationism by definition; however so much guff has come from creationists over the last while that I'm disinclined to do so.

Additionally, maybe we could all just call each other what we all are commonly - Christians - rather than splitting things up into a hierarchy based largely on as you say, rhetorical terms.

Although if you put a gun to my head and asked me to pick "Theistic Evolutionist" or "Evolutionary Creationist" I'd still go with the former, as it puts God first