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

[oncelost]

It seems to me that TEs advocate a theory of the origin of all of life's forms that makes no appeal to God. In fact, they vehemently oppose any reference to God as a player in the unguided process responsible for all life's common ancestry. They maintain that no respectable scientist would ascribe an intelligent cause to the extremely, extremely ordered composition of DNA. They say that God is neither evident nor necessary in a theory of the origin of life and life's forms.

So, where's the theistic part of TE come in? Regarding the theory of evolution, what's the difference between Theistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution?

It seems the descriptive theistic is totally unrelated to the object evolution. I understand that TEs say that evolution and their faith are perfectly consistent. But, argue that. Don’t mislead folks with an attractive, but meaningless title. Why not have subforums for Female Evolutionists, Libertarian Evolutionists and German Evolutionists? Why not call it what it is: Evolution. Not Theistic Evolution.

 

[laconicstudent]

The "Theistic" part comes in when we believe that God used the Big Bang and Evolution as a tool. Its a purely theological modifier. The physical theory is identical. I kind of agree though, its a bit redundant. I don't call it "Theistic Evolution" myself, I just say "Evolution".

 

[Mallon]

It seems to me that TEs advocate a theory of the origin of all of life's forms that makes no appeal to God. In fact, they vehemently oppose any reference to God as a player in the unguided process responsible for all life's common ancestry. They maintain that no respectable scientist would ascribe an intelligent cause to the extremely, extremely ordered composition of DNA. They say that God is neither evident nor necessary in a theory of the origin of life and life's forms.

So, where's the theistic part of TE come in? Regarding the theory of evolution, what's the difference between Theistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution?

It seems the descriptive theistic is totally unrelated to the object evolution. I understand that TEs say that evolution and their faith are perfectly consistent. But, argue that. Don’t mislead folks with an attractive, but meaningless title. Why not have subforums for Female Evolutionists, Libertarian Evolutionists and German Evolutionists? Why not call it what it is: Evolution. Not Theistic Evolution.

Out of curiosity, do you believe in gravity or theistic gravity?

 

[philadiddle]

It seems to me that TEs advocate a theory of the origin of all of life's forms that makes no appeal to God. In fact, they vehemently oppose any reference to God as a player in the unguided process responsible for all life's common ancestry. They maintain that no respectable scientist would ascribe an intelligent cause to the extremely, extremely ordered composition of DNA. They say that God is neither evident nor necessary in a theory of the origin of life and life's forms.

So, where's the theistic part of TE come in? Regarding the theory of evolution, what's the difference between Theistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution?

It seems the descriptive theistic is totally unrelated to the object evolution. I understand that TEs say that evolution and their faith are perfectly consistent. But, argue that. Don’t mislead folks with an attractive, but meaningless title. Why not have subforums for Female Evolutionists, Libertarian Evolutionists and German Evolutionists? Why not call it what it is: Evolution. Not Theistic Evolution.

I agree that the term can be misunderstood. In chat forums where we debate origins calling myself a TE lets people know that I'm not in the Richard Dawkins camp, where I think evolution has disproven God. Evolution is the science and theism is the teleology behind it.

 

[sfs]

It seems the descriptive theistic is totally unrelated to the object evolution. I understand that TEs say that evolution and their faith are perfectly consistent. But, argue that. Don’t mislead folks with an attractive, but meaningless title. Why not have subforums for Female Evolutionists, Libertarian Evolutionists and German Evolutionists? Why not call it what it is: Evolution. Not Theistic Evolution.

When I'm writing a scientific paper, I do call the process evolution. When I'm describing my position on creation to other Christians, many of whom think evolution = atheism and Christianity = creationism, I call my position theistic evolution, since the combination of the two words conveys important information to them. It's not an ideal phrase, but it does the job better than the bare word "evolution" does.

We don't have forums for female, libertarian or German evolutionists because there aren't large groups who think females, libertarians and Germans cannot accept evolution, or who think that all good female, libertarian Germans should attack evolution.

 

[crawfish]

It seems to me that TEs advocate a theory of the origin of all of life's forms that makes no appeal to God. In fact, they vehemently oppose any reference to God as a player in the unguided process responsible for all life's common ancestry. They maintain that no respectable scientist would ascribe an intelligent cause to the extremely, extremely ordered composition of DNA. They say that God is neither evident nor necessary in a theory of the origin of life and life's forms.

So, where's the theistic part of TE come in? Regarding the theory of evolution, what's the difference between Theistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution?

It seems the descriptive theistic is totally unrelated to the object evolution. I understand that TEs say that evolution and their faith are perfectly consistent. But, argue that. Don’t mislead folks with an attractive, but meaningless title. Why not have subforums for Female Evolutionists, Libertarian Evolutionists and German Evolutionists? Why not call it what it is: Evolution. Not Theistic Evolution.

TE believes that God is the creator and sustainer of all things. We believe that He is fully capable of supernatural work, yet that He used the natural as the tool for creation. We believe this because God's work is revealed through nature and nature indicates strong evidence of evolution and a non-literal creation story.

Atheist evolutionists regard evolutionary change as random. We regard evolutionary changes as intended.

 

[laconicstudent]

TE believes that God is the creator and sustainer of all things. We believe that He is fully capable of supernatural work, yet that He used the natural as the tool for creation. We believe this because God's work is revealed through nature and nature indicates strong evidence of evolution and a non-literal creation story.

Atheist evolutionists regard evolutionary change as random. We regard evolutionary changes as intended.

Emphasis mine, I'd simply like to qualify this as being a theological point, not a disagreement with science. God obviously worked through Natural Selection, not in spite of it.

 

[philadiddle]

We regard evolutionary changes as intended.

Emphasis mine, I'd simply like to qualify this as being a theological point, not a disagreement with science. God obviously worked through Natural Selection, not in spite of it.

Yes, evolution is a natural system but unlike the atheists we apply Aristotle's fourth cause to it; Telos.

 

[laconicstudent]

Of course, I just felt compelled to clarify.

 

[oncelost]

When I'm describing my position on creation to other Christians, many of whom think evolution = atheism and Christianity = creationism, I call my position theistic evolution, since the combination of the two words conveys important information to them. It's not an ideal phrase, but it does the job better than the bare word "evolution" does.

Okay. Then why not call it Christian Evolution or Bible-believing Evolution? Wouldn't that more squarely address your critics. I guess I still find TE a little misleading. I guess I'm a Theistic Lawyer with Theistic Kids and enjoy Theistic Gardening and Theistic Woodworking.

 

[crawfish]

Okay. Then why not call it Christian Evolution or Bible-believing Evolution? Wouldn't that more squarely address your critics. I guess I still find TE a little misleading. I guess I'm a Theistic Lawyer with Theistic Kids and enjoy Theistic Gardening and Theistic Woodworking.

Some of prefer the term "Evolutionary Creationism".

 

[crawfish]

Some of my posts are appearing in front of the posts I'm replying to...have I evolved some super-power?

 

[oncelost]

TE believes that God is the creator and sustainer of all things. We believe that He is fully capable of supernatural work, yet that He used the natural as the tool for creation. We believe this because God's work is revealed through nature and nature indicates strong evidence of evolution and a non-literal creation story.

Does TE limit the scientific explanation of origins to natural causes? Hypothetically, is there any evidence that would convince a TE that the origin of human life is best explained by intelligent design? What evidence would make a good TE scrap the common ancestry notion?

 

[laconicstudent]

Okay. Then why not call it Christian Evolution or Bible-believing Evolution? Wouldn't that more squarely address your critics. I guess I still find TE a little misleading. I guess I'm a Theistic Lawyer with Theistic Kids and enjoy Theistic Gardening and Theistic Woodworking.

Because Theistic Evolution doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Christianity specifically. It is a belief held by Muslims as well. Why on Earth would you assume it is somehow exclusive to Christianity?

 

[laconicstudent]

Does TE limit the scientific explanation of origins to natural causes?

Yeah.

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

A scientific study, and a refutation of all the studies positively proving it that have been published over the course of the past 150 years.

 

[sfs]

Okay. Then why not call it Christian Evolution or Bible-believing Evolution? Wouldn't that more squarely address your critics. I guess I still find TE a little misleading.

Because I didn't make up the name. Lots of things have names that are not perfect as literal descriptions, but we use them anyway because they're already widely known. That way communication can occur.

 

[gluadys]

Does TE limit the scientific explanation of origins to natural causes?

Yes.

Hypothetically, is there any evidence that would convince a TE that the origin of human life is best explained by intelligent design?

Don't need any convincing. We believe natural causes are part of an intelligently designed universe. We believe divine intelligence uses the natural causes it designed to design more things. We see differentiating between natural causes and intelligent design as misleading and unnecessary.

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

The usual suspects: bunnies in the Cambrian, a six-limbed mammal.

 

[oncelost]

Because Theistic Evolution doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Christianity specifically. It is a belief held by Muslims as well. Why on Earth would you assume it is somehow exclusive to Christianity?

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.

 

[oncelost]

The usual suspects: bunnies in the Cambrian, a six-limbed mammal.

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?

 

[laconicstudent]

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.

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.