Help me to understand Theistic Evolution

[WolvesChristian]

I was always taught that creation was true, evolution was a lie. But since moving away from my very conservative church, and becoming much more liberal in my interpretation of The Bible, I have found myself doubting creation.

But I don't understand evolution and I am not sure what Theistic evolution teaches or how it sits with Genesis.

Your help would be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[crawfish]

I was always taught that creation was true, evolution was a lie. But since moving away from my very conservative church, and becoming much more liberal in my interpretation of The Bible, I have found myself doubting creation.

But I don't understand evolution and I am not sure what Theistic evolution teaches or how it sits with Genesis.

Your help would be appreciated. Thank you.

That's a pretty big question. The term "theistic evolution" is a bit of a misnomer, because most of us have no faith in the absolute truth of evolution. What we feel is that the bible is not a scientific or historical text; at times, it uses the understanding of the times to communicate a spiritual message. Thus, it may say things that conflict with what we know, but the basic message is still the same as it was originally and still valid.

TE's are all over the map in their beliefs. I can only explain my beliefs. Genesis 1:1-2:3, for instance, is not a blow-by-blow description of the creation of the universe, but a story utilizing the "scientific" - and I use that term loosely - understanding of the time from the Egyptian/Babylonian cultures to explain God's and man's place in creation. As such, I believe we should not use the text in any way to try and make scientific claims.

 

[Dannager]

I was always taught that creation was true, evolution was a lie. But since moving away from my very conservative church, and becoming much more liberal in my interpretation of The Bible, I have found myself doubting creation.

But I don't understand evolution and I am not sure what Theistic evolution teaches or how it sits with Genesis.

Your help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Well, first, it's important to understand that the idea of Theistic Evolution isn't a teaching at all. It's just a term that describes someone who believes in God and also happens to accept evolutionary theory. Most TEs understand Genesis as being primarily allegorical in nature and designed to illustrate man's relationship with God, rather than actually describing the creation of the world (which would have relatively little theological value).

There are a number of good places to start learning about evolution. I really like UC Berkeley's website on the subject ( http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ ). While you're reading up on it, please do ask questions of us. We'll do our best to clear up any confusion you might have. Coming off of years of being told "Evolution is a lie," can be pretty tough, but it says a lot of good things about you that you're willing to explore the unfamiliar like this.

 

[gluadys]

I was always taught that creation was true, evolution was a lie. But since moving away from my very conservative church, and becoming much more liberal in my interpretation of The Bible, I have found myself doubting creation.

But I don't understand evolution and I am not sure what Theistic evolution teaches or how it sits with Genesis.

Your help would be appreciated. Thank you.

One of the basics is to distinguish "creation" from "creationism".

By "creation" I mean that God created and the universe is a creation. It is not something that exists infinitely on its own, but depends on God for its existence.

By "creationism" I mean the belief that the creation accounts in Genesis are an objective description of the mechanics of creation. In short, they not only tell us that God created, but also, in physical and potentially scientifically verifiable forms, how God created.

Theistic evolution (aka evolutionary creationism) affirms creation but does not affirm creationism.

To a greater or lesser extent we see the creation accounts as literature, not history or science.

Here is a good basic introduction to TE (as 'evolutionary creationism')
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

I think evolutionary creationism is probably easier to understand than evolution.

Raised in the environment you were, you have probably acquired a lot of stuff you "know" about evolution that simply is not so. Unlearning what you think you know about evolution will be at least as important as learning more about evolution.

I think this is one of the best primers on what evolution is:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

This may be of help in understanding what evolution is not:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whatevoisnt.html

 

[WolvesChristian]

Thanks for your help and the links! I'll let you know how I'm getting along.

 

[tntsue]

Hi

Wow...I've found Creationism to be very scientific..A difference I see (among MANY differences) is that Creationists begin with the word of God to begin research issues of origin and THEN scientifically see if there is evidence to prove it....Evolutionists seems to make up or come up with some theory (such as missing link, or creatures evolving out of their "kind", dinosaurs are extinct, dinosaurs extinct before man came onthe scene) and THEN try to create reasons this could possibly be true instead of using scierntific facts to prove their theories.

Interestingly enough God's Word is being found to be very scientifically correct...Amazing that the Creator should know a little about His Creation.

thanks for letting me share..remember men in these days "willfully forget that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, BEING FLOODED WITH WATER...2Peter3-6) emphasis in this post on 5,6.

A big evolution theory now is that the flood was only a local flood.


Please don't through the baby out with the bathwater when ist comes to your research ....continue to look at what is happening in Creationist veiws today too....you may be pleasantly surprised.

Your sis in Christ
Susie

 

[birdan]

Wow...I've found Creationism to be very scientific..A difference I see (among MANY differences) is that Creationists begin with the word of God to begin research issues of origin and THEN scientifically see if there is evidence to prove it....

I'd suggest you read up on the methodology and philosophy of science. Finding evidence that fits a foregone conclusion (while rejecting evidence that doesn't fit) is not scientific, it's 'science apologetics'.

Evolutionists seems to make up or come up with some theory (such as missing link, or creatures evolving out of their "kind", dinosaurs are extinct, dinosaurs extinct before man came onthe scene) and THEN try to create reasons this could possibly be true instead of using scierntific facts to prove their theories.

Again you seem to have a misunderstanding. Science collects physical data / evidence and then attempts to come up with a coherent and consistent explanation of the data. There is no pre-conceived conclusion that the evidence has to explain - science will go where the evidence leads. (All of this is within a naturalistic context, which is the only context in which science can be successful.)

So, science does not 'make up some theory'. Rather, by looking at the body of evidence available, science comes up with the best explanation for all the evidence. Creation science, on the other hand, does not have as its goal an explanation for how nature works. Its goal is to provide 'plausible deniability' to the results of science, to keep a literal reading of Genesis viable.

 

[crawfish]

Hi

Wow...I've found Creationism to be very scientific..A difference I see (among MANY differences) is that Creationists begin with the word of God to begin research issues of origin and THEN scientifically see if there is evidence to prove it....Evolutionists seems to make up or come up with some theory (such as missing link, or creatures evolving out of their "kind", dinosaurs are extinct, dinosaurs extinct before man came onthe scene) and THEN try to create reasons this could possibly be true instead of using scierntific facts to prove their theories.

Just to let you know, you've got the scientific method completely wrong. Theories are NOT guesses popped up out of thin air; they are devised and revised from gathering observed evidence and coming up with a model for explaining them. Nothing gets acceptance to the theory stage without huge amounts of supporting evidence.

And, it should be noted, the vast amount of Christian Science is NOT done to support the biblical view, but to poke holes in the evolutionary view. Sometimes, the evidence they use to poke the holes is not even internally consistent; but that does not matter to them as long as they can cast doubt.

 

[Mallon]

Wow...I've found Creationism to be very scientific..A difference I see (among MANY differences) is that Creationists begin with the word of God to begin research issues of origin and THEN scientifically see if there is evidence to prove it

Do you think that accepting evidence that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible and rejecting evidence that doesn't agree is an honest thing to do? Do you think it's a very scientific approach?

 

[gluadys]

Hi

Wow...I've found Creationism to be very scientific.

Hi, Susie

Glad you joined us.

A difference I see (among MANY differences) is that Creationists begin with the word of God to begin research issues of origin and THEN scientifically see if there is evidence to prove it....Evolutionists seems to make up or come up with some theory (such as missing link, or creatures evolving out of their "kind", dinosaurs are extinct, dinosaurs extinct before man came onthe scene) and THEN try to create reasons this could possibly be true instead of using scierntific facts to prove their theories.

Actually, you have beautifully described why creationism is not science.

Creationism starts with a conclusion (that a passage in scripture interpreted literally is also empirically true i.e. true in nature.) Then it cherry picks from nature the evidence that seems to support that conclusion while ignoring the evidence that does not seem to agree. This is not science.

Science does not begin with a conclusion. It begins with observing nature and asking questions. Why do we see what we see? It develops tentative explanations and then (very important) tests those explanations by going back to nature and seeing if they work well.

So, in a sense it is correct to say scientists "create reasons" why their observations could be true. This is the stage of forming hypotheses. But the important thing is that a hypothesis must include a prediction that would show that it is false and it must be tested to see if it is in fact false. Only when a hypothesis has been well-tested and shown to work with the data of nature i.e. to be a good and reliable model of nature, is it accepted as a scientific theory.

A big evolution theory now is that the flood was only a local flood.

That is not an evolutionary theory. That is geology. And it is not a new theory. It has been around for nearly two centuries. In fact, it was well accepted by many Christian geologists in the early 1830's. Darwin included a book about it in the reading material he took with him as a young naturalist on the Beagle, well before he formulated the theory of evolution.

You might like to read this history of how geologists, many of them Christian, came to conclude that the flood was local.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

Please don't through the baby out with the bathwater when ist comes to your research ....continue to look at what is happening in Creationist veiws today too....you may be pleasantly surprised.

I think you will find that most TEs are well aware of what is happening in Creationist circles. But if you think we are overlooking something, feel free to draw it to our attention.

 

[InTheCloud]

The issue that would help people like the OP is to find book that teach a non literal understanding of Genesis and how that sits theologically with that science knows of the World.
In my country most christians are either Roman Catholic or Pentecostals. The Pentecostals are mostly creationists. The Catholics are mostly theistic evolutionists and I was able to buy in RCC libraries good books on Creation theology for a world that largely accepts evolution. Sadly most of them is Spanish but German biologist Karl Schmitz Mooreman and Catholic Priest James Salmon book, Creation Theology in a Evolutionary World are available in English.
Also French Jesuit Priest and paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin books, a pioneer of theistic evolution theology in the 1920s are well known in English.
I guess that Anglicans and Lutherans and more liberal evangelicals in the US and UK must have done something similar.
Why not start a book tread?

 

[tntsue]

Scientifically a missing link between man and monkey has never been found , if you want to be honest...also those skulls (resembling ape foreheads)and bones of cromagnum man have proven to be actually the skull of a very Old, possibly arthritic individual!! Remember, according to the Word of God....man lived hundreds of years longer before the flood.

BTW...Although all evidence of a 'missing link' has ALWAYS proved false or a hoax.....they will put images of 1/2 human images in museums thus trying to give credence to the evolution theory. To me this is lying.

Missing link is unbiblical....The Word says God created species to produce after their kind. For example...birds will produce birds...crossbreedings have happened but they produce sterile offspring...not some new creation that will evolve again.

We will discuss mutations here in a future posts...Let's do our research and renew our minds!

Psalm 139:14 NKJ
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.

 

[tntsue]

Scientifically a missing link between man and monkey has never been found , if you want to be honest...also those skulls (resembling ape foreheads)and bones of cromagnum man have proven to be actually the skull of a very Old, possibly arthritic individual!! Remember, according to the Word of God....man lived hundreds of years longer before the flood.

BTW...Although all evidence of a 'missing link' has ALWAYS proved false or a hoax.....they will put images of 1/2 human images in museums thus trying to give credence to the evolution theory. To me this is lying.

Missing link is unbiblical....The Word says God created species to produce after their kind. For example...birds will produce birds...crossbreedings have happened but they produce sterile offspring...not some new creation that will evolve again.

We will discuss mutations here in a future posts...Let's do our research and renew our minds!

Psalm 139:14 NKJ
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.

I will be glad create a list of resources and I appreciate response to this thread...

 

[gluadys]

The issue that would help people like the OP is to find book that teach a non literal understanding of Genesis and how that sits theologically with that science knows of the World.

...

Why not start a book tread?

Good idea. Here is a short list that turned up with the key words "evolution" & "theology" on Amazon


The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology by Denis Edwards

Creation, Evolution and Meaning (Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology) by Robin Attfield

Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope: Theology and Science in Creative Mutual Interaction by Robert John Russell and Carl S. Helrich

Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World by Michael Dowd

Evolution and Eden: Balancing Original Sin and Contemporary Science by Jerry D. Korsmeyer

Then, of course, there are such classics as Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.

 

[gluadys]

Scientifically a missing link between man and monkey has never been found , if you want to be honest...also those skulls (resembling ape foreheads)and bones of cromagnum man have proven to be actually the skull of a very Old, possibly arthritic individual!!

It appears your information is sadly outdated.

BTW...Although all evidence of a 'missing link' has ALWAYS proved false or a hoax.....they will put images of 1/2 human images in museums thus trying to give credence to the evolution theory. To me this is lying.

It also seems your conception of evolution is sadly outdated.

Missing link is unbiblical....The Word says God created species to produce after their kind. For example...birds will produce birds...crossbreedings have happened but they produce sterile offspring...not some new creation that will evolve again.

Cross-breeding is not necessary to evolution and only a few new species have their origin in cross-breeding--mostly plants.

Most evolution does not involve cross-breeding. Rather the reverse. Most evolution involves the separation of populations, not combining them.

Psalm 139:14 NKJ
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.

Amen. Evolution is IMO one of the marvellous works of God.

 

[Mallon]

BTW...Although all evidence of a 'missing link' has ALWAYS proved false or a hoax.....they will put images of 1/2 human images in museums thus trying to give credence to the evolution theory. To me this is lying.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that you're not a scientist, and that you probably aren't qualified to gauge the merits of particular claims made about evolutionary science. If that is the case, then how can you be sure that you're not the one being lied to? Because many of the claims that you've just made are demonstrably false, yet have been repeated by special creationists for years.

Even Christians can lie.

 

[InTheCloud]

Profesional creationists had made a living lying to non scientists. Can some one lie for Jesus, is that not a sin?

Good list Gluadys.
I going to Finding Darwins God and A Day Without Yesterday (the Bio of Father Georges Lemaitre, of the Big Bang theory), to my list.
And the God of Evolution and Evolution and Eden.
I what to see who TE theology looks like from a non RCC Christian and from a Jewish perspective.

 

[shernren]

Here's a good overview and study in the historical science-Christianity relationship: http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html

 

[birdan]

The issue that would help people like the OP is to find book that teach a non literal understanding of Genesis and how that sits theologically with that science knows of the World.
In my country most christians are either Roman Catholic or Pentecostals. The Pentecostals are mostly creationists. The Catholics are mostly theistic evolutionists and I was able to buy in RCC libraries good books on Creation theology for a world that largely accepts evolution. Sadly most of them is Spanish but German biologist Karl Schmitz Mooreman and Catholic Priest James Salmon book, Creation Theology in a Evolutionary World are available in English.
Also French Jesuit Priest and paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin books, a pioneer of theistic evolution theology in the 1920s are well known in English.
I guess that Anglicans and Lutherans and more liberal evangelicals in the US and UK must have done something similar.
Why not start a book tread?

Here is a series of thoughtful essays on theistic evolution, science, and faith:
essays.asp