How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[The Lady Kate]

But in the minds of militant atheists, there's no essential difference between TE's and creationists

There are no militant atheists in this discussion... How about talking to us?

 

[Mallon]

But in the minds of militant atheists, there's no essential difference between TE's and creationists (to quote PZ Myers):

And in the mind of fundie neocreationists, there's no difference between evolutionary creation and atheism. Both extremes are wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

But in the minds of militant atheists, there's no essential difference between TE's and creationists (to quote PZ Myers):

If you define creationism as "A world made by God", then theistic evolution is, technically speak, a version of creationism. It is very different to young earth creationism, and very similar to non-theistic evolution. But the argument can be made that the addition of God into theistic evolution makes it a form of creationism.

 

[gluadys]

But in the minds of militant atheists, there's no essential difference between TE's and creationists (to quote PZ Myers):

The quote from PZ Myers illustrates his own ignorance of some of the differences between ID and TE. He says of TEs, for example, that

They're just creationists who accept evidence and readily back off from specific claims about their creator god, but they still place faith in unwarranted assumptions about the existence and interventions of a supernatural being, they just tuck it into the gaps in our knowledge.

But this god-of-the-gaps approach is just what TEs reject about the ID approach. We do not find it acceptable to tuck God into the gaps in our knowledge, but prefer to see God in the full light of what we do know.

If you define creationism as "A world made by God", then theistic evolution is, technically speak, a version of creationism. It is very different to young earth creationism, and very similar to non-theistic evolution. But the argument can be made that the addition of God into theistic evolution makes it a form of creationism.

Yes, of course, given the definition above TEs are creationists. In fact one of our peeves is that the term has been coopted to refer mainly, if not only, to young-earth creationists. ALL Christians are creationists.

That is why I prefer the term "evolutionary creationist" to "theistic evolutionist". I support reclaiming the label "creationist" for ALL Christians (and others with believe in a Creator), not limiting it to those who uphold a particular interpretive version of how God created.

That said, scientifically, theistic evolution is not "very similar to" non-theistic evolution. It is identical to non-theistic evolution. After all, no scientific theory tells us God does not exist or is not active in nature. So theists and non-theists can and do work with the identical scientific theory of evolution, just as they do with other scientific theories. There is no "theory of theistic evolution" that contrasts with a "theory of non-theistic evolution". The theory of evolution is neither theistic nor non-theistic. It is scientific and that means agnostic in relation to God and the super-natural.

So it is incorrect to say that TEs "add God" to the theory of evolution. God is not a scientific hypothesis and we do not propose to say "here is where we add God to evolution." In fact, our thinking is that one does not need to "add God" to evolution because God is already there whether one knows it or not, whether one believes it or not.

We do not need to wrestle with the science of evolution or change it, but we do need to recognize that the fact of evolution necessitates a new way of looking at our theology and making sure it is still correct and relevant. Can we still say "God creates"? (Yes!) Can we still preach a gospel of salvation? (Yes!) Has evolution shown the basics of the faith to be incorrect? (No!) How do we help committed Christians incorporate new facts like evolution into their worldview and still keep that worldview Christian? That is the challenge.

 

[Tiberius]

That is why I prefer the term "evolutionary creationist" to "theistic evolutionist". I support reclaiming the label "creationist" for ALL Christians (and others with believe in a Creator), not limiting it to those who uphold a particular interpretive version of how God created.

I've heard the term "Old Earth Creationism" used for this.

That said, scientifically, theistic evolution is not "very similar to" non-theistic evolution. It is identical to non-theistic evolution.

I disagree. Aren't you saying that God had a part in it? Non-theistic evolution says no such thing. You can't take something, add an entity and then claim it remains unchanged.

After all, no scientific theory tells us God does not exist or is not active in nature.

Science says nothing about God, and God plays no part in science. I'm not sure how you can add God into science.

So theists and non-theists can and do work with the identical scientific theory of evolution, just as they do with other scientific theories. There is no "theory of theistic evolution" that contrasts with a "theory of non-theistic evolution".

The contrast is that you say God is required for one, but not the other.

The theory of evolution is neither theistic nor non-theistic. It is scientific and that means agnostic in relation to God and the super-natural.

So then why the use of the terms "theistic evolution" and "non-theistic evolution"? Just say that you accept evolution, without the prefix?

So it is incorrect to say that TEs "add God" to the theory of evolution. God is not a scientific hypothesis and we do not propose to say "here is where we add God to evolution." In fact, our thinking is that one does not need to "add God" to evolution because God is already there whether one knows it or not, whether one believes it or not.

If you do not "add God", then from whence does the "theistic" part of "theistic evolution" come from?

Isn't the whole idea of theistic evolution just adding God into something that works perfectly well without him?

 

[gluadys]

I've heard the term "Old Earth Creationism" used for this.

No, old-earth creationists are like young-earth creationists in respect to evolution. i.e. they reject evolution. They differ in that they accept the geological age of the earth.

I disagree. Aren't you saying that God had a part in it? Non-theistic evolution says no such thing. You can't take something, add an entity and then claim it remains unchanged.

You are assuming that non-theistic evolution excludes God. It doesn't. Science is neutral with respect to God. Since non-theistic evolution does not exclude God, there is no need for the theist to add God. One's personal beliefs about God does not change the science of evolution any more than it changes the science of relativity.

Science says nothing about God, and God plays no part in science. I'm not sure how you can add God into science.

We don't. Belief in God is our theological position. We hold that evolutionary theory in no way compromises our theological position that God is the Creator of all things.

The contrast is that you say God is required for one, but not the other.

No, we would say that God is just as much required for non-theistic evolution as for theistic evolution. But this is a theological position, not a difference in scientific approach. By the same token an atheist would say that God (being an illusion) is just as absent from theistic evolution as from non-theistic evolution. And that is also a theological position, not a scientific approach.

So then why the use of the terms "theistic evolution" and "non-theistic evolution"? Just say that you accept evolution, without the prefix?

Believe you me, that is exactly what most TEs would prefer to do. To speak of "theistic evolution" is as redundant as to speak of "theistic gravitation" or "theistic photosynthesis". The term has been forced by the rampant association of evolution with atheism. It is a reminder that science is indeed neutral with respect to God and therefore a theist may accept the science of evolution on the same basis as accepting gravity or photosynthesis. Does our Christian belief "add God" to the theory of relativity or the process of photosynthesis? Do we need special Christian textbooks on physics or botany to account for these? Of course not! No more do we need special textbooks for evolutionary biology. Yet from a Christian viewpoint God is not absent from gravity or photosynthesis any more than from evolution.

If you do not "add God", then from whence does the "theistic" part of "theistic evolution" come from?

As I said from the perception (promoted both by atheists and believers) that evolution is necessarily atheistic rather than neutral with respect to God. Theistic evolution is not a special scientific position. It is a theological stance that insists on the theological neutrality of evolution and therefore that evolution is as acceptable to a Christian view of the world as any other science.

Isn't the whole idea of theistic evolution just adding God into something that works perfectly well without him?

The whole idea of theism (not restricted to the topic of evolution) is that nothing works perfectly well without God. That is as true of chemistry as of evolution.

 

[Mallon]

I disagree. Aren't you saying that God had a part in it? Non-theistic evolution says no such thing. You can't take something, add an entity and then claim it remains unchanged.

I agree with everything gluadys has said in response to this, but just to interject: evolutionary creation ("theistic evolution") and atheistic evolution are scientifically the same thing because the methods used to infer either are same. Both use methodological naturalism, and both therefore reach the same conclusions about how evolution happens.
Where these positions differ is not on scientific grounds, but on theological grounds: does evolution occur apart from God or not? Science cannot answer such a question. Therefore, atheistic evolution is no more welcome in the science classroom than theistic evolution because both are non-scientific positions. The only evolution that should be taught in the public classroom is one that is agnostic about the existence of God because science itself is agnostic.

 

[Meelahd]

While the Bible may teach us certain Scientific things it is not meant to be a book of Science. Evolution has a long way to go unlike what many strong headed scientists believe, but that does not mean it is not a legitimate science.

 

[Tiberius]

Given that this is a Christians Only section, I'd like to propose that we take this particular area of discussion to a section that allows for such debate. Agreed?

 

[Mallon]

What's there to debate?

 

[LightSeaker]

Given that this is a Christians Only section, I'd like to propose that we take this particular area of discussion to a section that allows for such debate. Agreed?

Leave the thread here. It belongs right where it is because the discussion IS a Christian discussion.

.

 

[Mick116]

Given that this is a Christians Only section, I'd like to propose that we take this particular area of discussion to a section that allows for such debate. Agreed?

I for one would be quite happy for any debate on this topic to remain here. Alternatively, you could just rephrase your "debate" as a series of questions, which I believe is perfectly acceptable (e.g. rather than "evolution is necessarily atheistic because...", try "is evolution necessarily atheistic considering that...?").

 

[marlowe007]

If you define creationism as "A world made by God", then theistic evolution is, technically speak, a version of creationism. It is very different to young earth creationism, and very similar to non-theistic evolution. But the argument can be made that the addition of God into theistic evolution makes it a form of creationism.

TEs are creationists despite their adherence to evolution. Most of them believe the big bang was a supernatural event, and that the cosmos is intelligently designed. That's what separates them from the naturalistic non-theists.

 

[JusSumguy]

---

-

 

[Tiberius]

Leave the thread here. It belongs right where it is because the discussion IS a Christian discussion.

.

My point was that this is a Christians only section, and I am an atheist. A discussion like this that is getting fairly "serious" might not be appreciated in this section. That's why I suggested the move.

 

[JusSumguy]

My point was that this is a Christians only section, and I am an atheist. A discussion like this that is getting fairly "serious" might not be appreciated in this section. That's why I suggested the move.

Not to worry, we can take it....


-

 

[John 10:10]

But then again, God can’t be in the science textbooks as God is not scientific. If God and TE did appear in the textbooks, I would cry ‘foul’.

You say when we study science, we must leave God out of this study. But if you are believer in God, He declares this in Psa 19:1-2,

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Therefore, when anyone studies “the glory of God” and “the work of His hands,” one MUST include God in understanding His glory and His creation work. Many of the first scientists who began to study the wonders of the universe and life on earth were believers in God, many being devout Christians. They did not leave God out of understanding how we came to exist and how God sustains that which He created.

But science today somehow believes that it must be Godless in stating what it believes is fact, both present and past tense. This may be true when science delves into “some” of the wonders of God’s creation, such as nuclear fission as an atom splits apart. Man has been able to take this fact and design nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. But saying that science “has determined” as fact that life evolved over time, with or without God, from one species to another to another to where it is today is nothing but a pseudo- science and a deception of what true God science is all about.

It’s as simple and as difficult as that!

 

[Mallon]

But science today somehow believes that it must be Godless in stating what it believes is fact, both present and past tense.

You would have to ignore most of what was said in this thread to reach that conclusion.

 

[Tiberius]

You say when we study science, we must leave God out of this study. But if you are believer in God, He declares this in Psa 19:1-2,

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Therefore, when anyone studies “the glory of God” and “the work of His hands,” one MUST include God in understanding His glory and His creation work. Many of the first scientists who began to study the wonders of the universe and life on earth were believers in God, many being devout Christians. They did not leave God out of understanding how we came to exist and how God sustains that which He created.

But science today somehow believes that it must be Godless in stating what it believes is fact, both present and past tense. This may be true when science delves into “some” of the wonders of God’s creation, such as nuclear fission as an atom splits apart. Man has been able to take this fact and design nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. But saying that science “has determined” as fact that life evolved over time, with or without God, from one species to another to another to where it is today is nothing but a pseudo- science and a deception of what true God science is all about.

It’s as simple and as difficult as that!

Science is not out to disprove God, nor is it deliberately trying to ignore God. Science deals only with what is testable, verifiable and repeatable. God does not fit into that category. Thuis science says nothing about him.

 

[gluadys]

You say when we study science, we must leave God out of this study. But if you are believer in God, He declares this in Psa 19:1-2,

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Therefore, when anyone studies “the glory of God” and “the work of His hands,” one MUST include God in understanding His glory and His creation work. Many of the first scientists who began to study the wonders of the universe and life on earth were believers in God, many being devout Christians. They did not leave God out of understanding how we came to exist and how God sustains that which He created.

They did not leave God our of our understanding, but they did not include anything other than natural explanations in their science either. It is possible, even desirable, to behold the glory of God in what science reveals even though God is not deemed to be a "necessary hypothesis".

But saying that science “has determined” as fact that life evolved over time, with or without God, from one species to another to another to where it is today is nothing but a pseudo- science and a deception of what true God science is all about.

It’s as simple and as difficult as that!

Yes, it is as simple and as difficult as that, with one modification. Science has determined what you claim that science has not determined.

It may be comforting to you to believe otherwise, but that does not change the reality.