***Everyone Only*** - Vossler's Theory on Evolution

[Markus6]

To allow discussion on the latest couple of posts in the parallel thread.

That's simple enough, their ideology reflects a modernist world view. The ambiguity of their doctrinal position is actually a telling sign. I have never been able to nail them down on doctrine and all TE would seem to be is an attack of Creationism. My views on the other hand are inextricably linked to essential doctrine. The most important would seem to be the subject of this thread.

Again, TE are a very diverse bunch. They are not necessarily Christian so I'm not suprised that nailing down our doctrine is tough. Now if you want to narrow your view to CE (Christian Evolutionists) I'm sure you're going to find much more common ground. However, considering the diversity of the Christian communities that accept evolution there are still going to be differences. I could say that Creationists are very hard to nail down doctrinally too because there are Muslim Creationists, Jewish Creationists and Christian Creationists. Even within Christian Creationism I'm sure there is a wide variety of doctrine.

Is TE just an attack of Creationism? I think that's heavily overly simplifying the history of the two concepts. It seems akin to saying evolution was just invented to discredit the bible. Creation science didn't really exist at the time evolution was discovered. That started with Henry Morris.

Indeed that empirical mindset does set out to make observations and demonstrate principles, no question about that. Still, the only link I see with TEs is an overt hostility to Creationism, plain and simply. Seminaries were inundated with floods of psuedo theological philosophy in the wake of the modernist movement, starting about 150 years ago. Now they not only dominate the secular science and academics these agnostic views have become the norm in seminaries that train our professional clergy. Jesuits, Anglican ministers and virtually all the leading denominations have made dramatic compromises with the spirit of the age.

Many TEs are not overtly hostile to Creationism. The problem is, if they're not you probably don't hear about them or realise they are TEs. How hostile was Pope JPII to Creationism?

The only thing I see them having in common is a hostility to taking the Scriptures literally, at least in the early chapters of Genesis. They follow a Liberal tradition where the supernatural is not attacked so much as it is simply ignored. When it comes to Genesis in the early chapters they are simply beating the supernatural convictions out of fence sitters.

Rubbish. Most Christian Evolutionists have no problem with the supernatural. I can safely say most of us in here are happy to embrace the miraculous ressurection of Jesus the Christ. We simply don't think the early chapters of Genesis should be taken literally having studied them. We also think scientific study can show us God's handiwork and so should be considered.

You have always seemed like a fair minded and nonjudgmental person so it pains me to say this. Many of them are probably not Christians in any real sense, they have just put their philosophy into theological terminology. Think about it, did you ever get more then a passing remark with regards to supernatural events in Scripture. The New Testament actually has credibility in academics as being historically verifiable, bibliographical testing being the single strongest scientific/academic line of evidence. TEs could care less and that tells me that their focus is not Christian, it's secular.

More rubbish. I am a Christian in the very real sense that Jesus died on the cross to save me from sins and grant me life eternal. Any other suggestion I find insulting.

Treating the Fall of Adam and Eve as myth is either nonchristian or heresy. They are historical figures, our first parents, and the reason for the sin of humanity, or Moses and Paul both lied. You could say they were mistaken or misunderstood but skepticism about Adam and Eve being our original parents and the source of original sin was unknown in Christian theism until 150 years ago with the modernist movement, aka Liberal Theology.

It's worth pointing out that many CEs accept a literal, historical Adam and Eve. As someone how, probably, doesn't I don't think Moses or Paul lied. Am I a nonchristian or a heretic?

Vossler the truth is that they are not promoting a Christian world view. They claim they do but I have seen too many of them ruthlessly and relentlessly attack Christians and side with atheists without flinching. In five years I have heard the Gospel from only one and he was clueless about the scientific issues involved.

I have decided I dislike the word 'worldview'.

You have seen "many of us" do things and so can safely say that all of us are not promoting a Christian worldview? That's an unfounded generalisation. I hope I never attack Creationists (the seemingly synonymous use of 'Christian' here was telling). I may attack their ideas in debate and I may agree with some of the ideas of atheists in debate too. However, at the end of the day my bond with another Christian, regardless of their origins view, is far stronger than my bond with an atheist as it is in Christ.

I have never heard the gospel from you, or any of the other Creationists in this forum. That doesn't suprise me as this forum is principally for debating origin issues. I'm interested to hear what the "scientific issues involved" are.

Your theory is fine, it squares with the Scriptures nicely. You are wondering why it does not square with TE and the answer is simple and obvious. They simply don't have a theology to measure their views against. Secular humanism never does, that's why I don't post on here much anymore. I have given up the hope that TE is a Christian Theology, it's a red in tooth and claw Darwinism in sheep's clothing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I am not a secular humanist, or a darwinist, or any other words you want to add 'ist' on to the end of to make them sound like I am not a Christian. I am a Christian.

Vossler,

I think this was a good theory. I definitely believe that satan is a part of the equation in that he has lied to some people who have accepted and continued the lie of evolution and TE. However, what it does come down to is "You shall have no other gods before me." (Ex 20:3, ESV) What the TEs are doing is making a god to form their idea of what they want God to be. They end up committing idolity thus breaking this commandment.

Nor am I an idolator. God is complicated, lots of Christians have very different views of him. This doesn't not mean that every Christian who doesn't agree with me is commiting idolatry.

 

[shernren]

When Moses descended from Sinai and found the Israelites worshiping a golden calf, he ordered the idol destroyed and the idolaters punished. He did not order all cows in the Israelite camp to be slaughtered and that from then on cows would be as haram (unclean) as pigs. Just because cows can be worshiped (falsely) does not mean they should not be allowed to exist or play their proper role in creation and community.

I don't know if creationists really think through the ramifications of calling evolution "an idol". No idol man ever worshiped for long was wholly fabricated from falsehood; every idol must have some grain of truth in it. That is why idolatry is so easy and attractive: we get the truth we can live with, and replace the rest with lies. But the single, distorted, over- or underemphasised truth, is integral to idol-making. (No counterfeiter ever made yellow triangular four-dollar bills.)

Suppose evolution is an idol. But that must presuppose the truth of evolution! Nobody ever worshiped something that didn't exist. Createdness is the first thing an idol requires. We can worship trees and birds and fishes and animals; we can worship demons and angels (and yes, I believe they exist, "secular humanist" that I am); we can worship money, entertainment, sex, power, technology; most of the time we end up worshiping ourselves. But who ever worshiped a fictional idea? I don't know of anyone from the Church of Four-sided Triangles. And this is why made-up religions always strike us as unnecessarily juvenile and comical (think the FSM, the IPU, or Jedi); we know deep down inside that the things they "worship" aren't real, aren't created, and that they simply can't be worshiping those things themselves.

But yes, suppose evolution is an idol. What is the truth in it? What is the truth that people like Dawkins and the militant atheists have found and wrapped up in lies? The truth, certainly, is that the world can be known empirically; indeed, that the world must be known empirically. Here is something the creationists must forget to make their worldview work. Empirical investigation has revealed that the world, if it did not actually grow over many billions of years to harbor life that has evolved over billions of years, certainly looks a whole lot like it did. Furthermore God's rationality has ensured that the world, created as it has been, has a rationality of its own to which the human mind is in part (if not in whole, and certainly requiring much practice and further thought) attuned.

Of course, the militant atheists go on to forget that even that must be revealed. The idol is that empiricism needs no roots; that empiricism is all there is, and within such a system there is no room for God. The truth is that this world is investigable; the further truth (without which empiricism becomes the idol) is that even the investigability of this world is given, something we did not dictate.

But has not creationism made an idol of revelation - and of the idea that revelation must be intellectual, in particular? "Our interpretation of the Bible reveals that the universe is six thousand years old. Therefore any physical evidence to the contrary must either be wrong or misinterpreted." This denies the fact that God has given to the world the propensity to be investigable by the senses. More pointedly, it denies or undermines the fact that God's pinnacle of revelation, Jesus, was given in a form investigable by the senses. After all, why did the Word need to become Flesh? If all man needs is ideas, why should God not give man ideas and leave it at that? (Given creationist rhetoric about evolution's lies being the fundamental lie of humanity it sure sounds a lot like creationism's truthful ideas are the fundamental cure for humanity. Their rhetoric never makes sense to someone like me, who grew up in a culture where evolution was utterly irrelevant whether to militant Muslims or apathetic materialist Buddhists.)

Why send Jesus? Why should He insist that Thomas actually touch the wounds? (If He said it, shouldn't that be enough for him?) Why bread and fish that people can actually eat? Why should the final symbol of Jesus' ministry be the bread and wine, physical, material, created things that we can actually touch and taste, instead of simply a liturgy like any other old religion has? And when the Pharisees saw Jesus, they said to themselves: "Our interpretation of the Bible reveals that the Messiah would certainly not act like Jesus is acting. Therefore any physical evidence to the contrary must either be wrong or misinterpreted." Perhaps they would have done better to believe what they saw?

Evolution can become an idol; creationism can become an idol. It is one thing to destroy golden calves; but God forbid that we go on to never eat another steak!

 

[vossler]

I don't know if creationists really think through the ramifications of calling evolution "an idol". No idol man ever worshiped for long was wholly fabricated from falsehood; every idol must have some grain of truth in it. That is why idolatry is so easy and attractive: we get the truth we can live with, and replace the rest with lies. But the single, distorted, over- or underemphasised truth, is integral to idol-making. (No counterfeiter ever made yellow triangular four-dollar bills.)

I would just add that no one that I know of believes evolution is 'wholly fabricated from falsehood'. If that were true then it could never have the effect it does nor stood for as long as it has. No there are truths to the evolutionary thought processes and it is those truths that make it so credible and appealing. Evolution fits your description quite well, we get the truth that change occurs and then we are able to extrapolate that truth by conjecture and speculation to associate that change to the idea of common ancestry. You throw in a lot of scientific terms and formulas and the next thing you know, voila, you've got yourself an idol to worship. You've now taken a single truth, distorted it and created yourself an idol.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm sorry. How exactly is defining your science with formulas and developing terms that easily reference terms developing an idol? Do you suppose that Baal worshipers had formulas?

I should think that resisting investigation into the unknown in favor of tradition and authority is more akin to idol worship.

 

[Mallon]

You throw in a lot of scientific terms and formulas and the next thing you know, voila, you've got yourself an idol to worship.

So how does this differ from what creation 'science' is trying to do?

 

[busterdog]

Originally Posted by Mark Kennedy

You have always seemed like a fair minded and nonjudgmental person so it pains me to say this. Many of them are probably not Christians in any real sense, they have just put their philosophy into theological terminology. Think about it, did you ever get more then a passing remark with regards to supernatural events in Scripture. The New Testament actually has credibility in academics as being historically verifiable, bibliographical testing being the single strongest scientific/academic line of evidence. TEs could care less and that tells me that their focus is not Christian, it's secular.
​

More rubbish. I am a Christian in the very real sense that Jesus died on the cross to save me from sins and grant me life eternal. Any other suggestion I find insulting.

Here we go again.

The man has not used words like "jerk" or "thief." He has speculated that, as I would suggest, a "luke warmness" that wraps human principle in religious words for SOME TEs. As a general proposition, no body of believers should dare to reject that hazard as a problem for them.

If all of the law and the prophets speak of Jesus, how many of those can one reject before one has rejected one's "first love?"

As a general proposition, this is absolutely fair game.

Unfortunately, you confuse a "nonchristian" belief with being a heretic or unbeliever. The latter is a judgment of the entire soul, and the former of a particular belief. How is it not fair to say that a type of belief tends to lead many a man toward his ruin? No one said all are so ruined or must be ruined. So, how is that insulting to any particular person?

YECs have their faults too and some tend toward the "nonchristian" as a result. Mark has not suggested otherwise.

 

[Melethiel]

Here we go again.

The man has not used words like "jerk" or "thief." He has speculated that, as I would suggest, a "luke warmness" that wraps human principle in religious words for SOME TEs. As a general proposition, no body of believers should dare to reject that hazard as a problem for them.

If all of the law and the prophets speak of Jesus, how many of those can one reject before one has rejected one's "first love?"

As a general proposition, this is absolutely fair game.

Unfortunately, you confuse a "nonchristian" belief with being a heretic or unbeliever. The latter is a judgment of the entire soul, and the former of a particular belief. How is it not fair to say that a type of belief tends to lead many a man toward his ruin? No one said all are so ruined or must be ruined. So, how is that insulting to any particular person?

YECs have their faults too and some tend toward the "nonchristian" as a result. Mark has not suggested otherwise.

He has not said that "some beliefs are nonchristian."
Read this again:

Many of them are probably not Christians in any real sense

 

[gluadys]

If all of the law and the prophets speak of Jesus, how many of those can one reject before one has rejected one's "first love?"

In my experience there is no need to reject any of the law and the prophets. But creationists insist that rejecting their way of reading them is equivalent to rejecting scripture.

It's not and never has been.

 

[busterdog]

In my experience there is no need to reject any of the law and the prophets. But creationists insist that rejecting their way of reading them is equivalent to rejecting scripture.

It's not and never has been.

Begging the question then, about which of us is rejecting a part of our Lord by rejecting the proper meaning of the Word.

Everything Mark said is fair game.

 

[gluadys]

Begging the question then, about which of us is rejecting a part of our Lord by rejecting the proper meaning of the Word.

Everything Mark said is fair game.

I don't think any of us is rejecting scripture. But I do think it is rejecting the Word to reject one's brothers and sisters in Christ over a matter of interpreting scripture.

I think we should note too, that it is not so much the meaning of the scriptural passage that is at issue, but the deeper hermeneutical principles. Does one agree or disagree with the sentiment of Vossler's signature, for example? Does one agree or disagree with such a hermeneutical principle overriding the observation of created nature--also, never let us forget, an expression of the Word?

 

[Markus6]

Begging the question then, about which of us is rejecting a part of our Lord by rejecting the proper meaning of the Word.

Everything Mark said is fair game.

Does 'fair game' mean you agree with it? Do you also think that many of us are not Christian in any real sense and that our views are more secular than Christian? Do you not see how saying such things is divisive and counter productive to a meaningful discussion on the topic?

"Proper meaning of the Word" = my interpretation. I think rejecting or accepting Jesus is something far deeper than agreeing with someone's interpretation of every part of the bible.