A model that makes a number of (confirmed) predictions about H/He ratios, cosmic ray background, etc.
That's true, at least so I've heard. Einstein actually predicted that the universe
Fine. But in that case we'd have to talk about theistic physics and theistic chemistry. My concern is that using that term may suggest to people that evolution as a model isn't enough to explain the origin of species, and God had to intervene to fix things up. That's not the case.
I believe in divine providence. That implies that the specific ways things develop are as he wants. But I think in most cases that occurs in accordance with natural law.
I would agree up to the point, not of the origin of species but rather the origin of life. There are three words for God's creative work in Genesis one translated 'created', 'made' and 'set' which are all terms indicating God doing what only God can do. The word for create is used of the origin of the universe once, life in general once, and three times for the creation of man. The word, (
H1254 בָּרָא bara'), is always used of miraculous creation:
TO CREATE
bara˒ (בָּרָא, 1254), “to create, make.” This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can “create” in the sense implied by bara˒. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary)
Thus the conflict with Darwinian evolution which is:
He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Darwin)
It should be noted that there is a difference between evolution as a phenomenon in nature and the 'theory of evolution' which is little more then a presupposition of naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. What we are talking about here isn't science itself or even evolutionary biology but rather a philosophy of natural history which is in conflict with the historical narrative of Genesis.
Yes to them all. Science and God are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Science is a way of interpreting how God did something. The idea that the earth is only 6000 years old is absurd, but many Christians fail to consider the deeper interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. When the description of creation is presented in increments of "days" who is to say that to our omniscient, omnipresent creator, time has no meaning. Therefore a "day" to God could be several billion years to us. And, to your question of Neanderthals, we merely need to look at how species evolve. Human beings as a whole species have changed physically over the last several hundred years based off environmental and geographic factors. Simple look at the average height and weight of someone living in SE Asia compared to someone in Western Europe or the US. Humans continually adapt to the environment at hand, but that is exactly how God designed us to be.
That's all well and good but the New Testament witness concerning creation dovetails with the Creation account of Genesis in no uncertain terms. Darwinian evolution and Creationism differ on the basis of time and the point of origin. Obviously, after the original creation of the universe it can unfold according to God's design and purposes, There's no real indication that God is micromanaging celestial mechanics in any ongoing way. God can intervene but who knows when or how much. The biggest difference between Darwinism and Creation is the timeline, gradual changes over time by exclusively naturalistic means vs. miraculous creation of life 6000 years ago.
In order for theistic evolution to be discernibly different from deism and Darwinian evolution God must have created something by divine fiat. The difference is simply the point of origin, evolution is a living theory, it only happens after life has started. Thus the title of the forum, Origins Theology.
And most theistic evolutionists would say the same. A typical definition is theistic evolution is the belief that God used the process of evolution to create living things.
Your opposition to the term "theistic evolution" seems to involve a bit of a straw man.
Theistic evolution has never really been opposed to the principle of divine intervention, the natural order is still subject to God's sovereign will. That's why someone like Francis Collins affirms the miracles of the New Testament yet rejects a miraculous creation by divine fiat 6000 years ago. It seems the real issue remains just how and when God gets involved.
I've puzzled over this for years and spent a lot of time wondering how the Genesis account is reconcilable to the Darwinian concept of naturalistic evolution. You can't force a naturalistic explanation into the Genesis account, since the narrative has no direct comparison needed for a figurative interpretation. What you could do, if you were being thoughtful, is to start to question how the revelation of creation was received.
The only thing I can figure is the perhaps and I do mean, perhaps, God showed Moses what transpired and Moses related what happened according to what he saw. The phrase, 'there was evening and morning the first day, second day...etc'. Moses sees a sequence, the same way a lot of prophets saw a vision, he is just relating what he saw. At the end of the sequence he sees a setting sun, thus the end of a normal day. Maybe, and I do mean maybe, Moses is just relating what he saw and building the narrative the best he could.
There's no strawman here, just some difficulty with the passage. Were this an isolated text it wouldn't be a problem but the New Testament witness doesn't suggest anything naturalistic about creation, the natural order has it's origin in the work of God. In theistic evolution God doesn't even get credit for the design but that could be dismissed as a reaction to Natural Theology being based on the 'contrivances' of William Paley or the 'irreducible complexity' arguments of Intelligent Design proponents. A strawman is a fallacy that abandons logic and beats up on an argument not being used. Creation and Intelligent Design are dealing with real world scenarios from a philosophy of natural history that rejects God as cause categorically.
Grace and peace,
Mark
