Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Doveaman]

Are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

On the one hand, as a theist, they believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence: virgin gives birth, water becomes wine, dead comes to life, etc., etc., etc.

On the other hand, as an evolutionist, they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence: 900 year lifespans, global flood, talking donkeys, etc., etc., etc.

They believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence, and they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence.

Therefore, are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

 

[mwood30]

Are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

On the one hand, as a theist, they believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence: virgin gives birth, water becomes wine, dead comes to life, etc., etc., etc.

On the other hand, as an evolutionist, they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence: 900 year lifespans, global flood, talking donkeys, etc., etc., etc.

They believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence, and they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence.

Therefore, are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

You narrowly define the two categories, then ask a question presuming your overly narrow definitions are true.

I happen to believe in theistic evolution because of the evidence not in spite of it. Creationists ignore the fossil evidence that shows steady evolution. Non-theistic evolutionists ignore the anthropic principle and other real world problems inherent in a non-theistic view.

Non-theistic evolutionists invent a religious ideology centered on infinite parallel universes. That's religion, not science. They do so to reject the anthropic principle. They do so to reject the evidence.

I believe anything other than theistic evolution is untenable in light of all that is known in science to date.

 

[Mallon]

The reason that I, as an evolutionary creationist, don't accept a global flood or creation ex nihilo is because there is convincing evidence from God's creation to the contrary (just as there is convincing evidence contrary to the Bible that the earth does NOT rest on pillars, that it is NOT stationary, and that it is NOT flat). There is, on the other hand, no good evidence to the contrary that Jesus died and rose from the dead -- in fact, I think the evidence is in favour of such an event having happened. It has nothing to do with picking and choosing what we like to believe, as you imply. And it certainly has nothing to do with oxymorons.

 

[Doveaman]

I happen to believe in theistic evolution because of the evidence not in spite of it.

Okay, so you are motivated by your interpretation of the evidence. Fine.

Creationists ignore the fossil evidence that shows steady evolution.

I didn’t know bones evolved steadily.

Non-theistic evolutionists ignore the anthropic principle

Do you believe the universe evolved for man to exists?

 

[Doveaman]

The reason that I, as an evolutionary creationist,

I was told in another similar thread that “scientific creationism” is an oxymoron. Do you agree.

don't accept a global flood

Do you believe Noah spent so much time building his enormous boat just to escape a local flood?

or creation ex nihilo is because there is convincing evidence from God's creation to the contrary

I'm sure the universe was made from something, but what was that something made from?

(just as there is convincing evidence contrary to the Bible that the earth does NOT rest on pillars, that it is NOT stationary, and that it is NOT flat).

I don’t think these were meant to be scientific statements to be falsified. So scientifically falsifying these claims does not falsify the author’s intent. The ground I’m standing on is flat. I know this because the ball on the floor is not rolling.

There is, on the other hand, no good evidence to the contrary that Jesus died and rose from the dead –

There is no good scientific evidence Jesus died and rose from the dead either.

in fact, I think the evidence is in favour of such an event having happened.

What scientific evidence is that exactly?

 

[mark kennedy]

Are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

On the one hand, as a theist, they believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence: virgin gives birth, water becomes wine, dead comes to life, etc., etc., etc.

On the other hand, as an evolutionist, they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence: 900 year lifespans, global flood, talking donkeys, etc., etc., etc.

They believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence, and they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence.

Therefore, are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

You have to understand how evolution is defined and why. Evolution as it is argued on these boards is based on naturalistic assumptions where God is never regarded as the cause. It is false to suppose that we can assume a priori that all life descended from primordial bacteria and God's miraculous interposition at the same time. Good luck getting theistic evolutionists to make a clear statement regarding miracles because they will be constantly focusing attention elsewhere.

You ask about miracles and you get some vague reference to fossils and a categorical rejection of creation ex nihilo. Why? They will tell you is because of the evidence even though evidence for the Christian faith specifically focuses on God's signs, miracles and mighty deeds throughout redemptive history.

Whether or not theistic evolution is an oxymoron depends on how you define both those terms. In liberal theology and modernism miracles are neutralized by reducing them to an abstraction with no bearing on physical reality or natural phenomenon.

The distinction between the truth of faith and the truth of science leads to a warning directed to theologians not to use recent scientific discoveries to confirm the truth of faith. ...The theory of quantum mechanics and the principle of indeterminacy have had this effect. Immediately religious writers use these insights for confirmation of their own ideas of human freedom, divine creativity and miracles. But there is no justification for such a procedure at all... The physical theories have no direct relation to the infinitely complex phenomenon of human freedom, and the emission of power in quantums has no direct relation to the meaning of miracles. Theology, in using physical theories in this way, confuses the dimension of science with the dimension of faith. The truth of faith cannot be confirmed by the latest physical or biological or psychological discoveries -- as it cannot be denied by them. (Paul Tillich)​

How very different from traditional Christian theism that does not deny the relevance of the evidence but instead appeals to it:

In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." Testimony of the Evangelists, Simon Greenleaf)​

Try being specific, try asking them if they believe in the resurrection and why. The incarnation, ascension the miracle of the new birth being crucial issues that are almost completely absent in these discussions.

The Gospel includes historical events, confirmed by the clear testimony of eye witnesses, who experienced the miracles that ushered in God's revelation recorded in Scripture. The Bible is primary source evidence or it is a book of fables and poetic hyperbole.

This is my point, if they accept that God has, in fact, acted in time and space then they should have a criteria for what constitutes viable proof. Apart from this comprehensive admission of miracles happening in time and space faith is reduced to the level of self-serving fantasy and clearly, theistic evolution becomes nothing more then semantic double talk.

It's not an oxymoron except in your mind. The problem is that you may well have a different definition in mind for what theistic means. The creation is inextricably linked to both the resurrection and new birth, they are all the same miracle. I've seen how they define miracles and God and if it's based on naturalistic assumptions it's a categorical rejection of miracles. You can expect only diversions and ambiguity, if you can nail them down on this by asking straightforward questions you will be the first.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mallon]

I was told in another similar thread that “scientific creationism” is an oxymoron. Do you agree.

It is. Even the founder of scientific creationism -- Henry Morris -- admitted that in his book Scientific Creationism.

I don’t think these were meant to be scientific statements to be falsified.

And I don't believe that the Genesis creation accounts were meant to be scientific statements, either.

What scientific evidence is that exactly?

No scientific evidence. Historical evidence. Check out N.T. Wright's work on the matter.

 

[mwood30]

Okay, so you are motivated by your interpretation of the evidence. Fine.
I didn’t know bones evolved steadily.
Do you believe the universe evolved for man to exists?

Yes, I believe the whole big bang was set off with precise calculation to result in human beings who are capable to simultaneously interact with the physical world and quantum field (in which God lives). This is how God found a way to make a physical creation that could one day commune with him.

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe in the big bang, God spoke and BANG, there it was. Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[granpa]

Are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

on the contrary, those who reject evolution are missing the whole point of genesis.
Life is evolving to have life more abundant by becoming more like God.

 

[Doveaman]

The Gospel includes historical events, confirmed by the clear testimony of eye witnesses, who experienced the miracles that ushered in God's revelation recorded in Scripture. The Bible is primary source evidence or it is a book of fables and poetic hyperbole.

I couldn't agree with you more.

“For we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Cor 5:7).

Science (the study of the nature and the behavior of the material and physical universe based on observation, experiment, and measurement) is by its very nature a “walk” that is by “sight”. Therefore, we do not allow science to determine the “faith” by which we “walk”.

It’s as if the verse above is saying that relying on “faith” and “sight” at the same time is an oxymoron.

 

[Doveaman]

It is. Even the founder of scientific creationism -- Henry Morris -- admitted that in his book Scientific Creationism.

Does that oxymoron include “Evolutionary Creationism” too, or is that something different?

And I don't believe that the Genesis creation accounts were meant to be scientific statements, either.

That would depend on your personal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, wouldn’t it?

No scientific evidence. Historical evidence. Check out N.T. Wright's work on the matter.

Historical evidence must be consistent with scientific evidence, should it not?

Don’t you reject the idea of Noah’s historical global flood because it is not consistent with scientific evidence?

What scientific evidence do you have that a virgin can give birth or a dead man can rise?

I know you said that for the global flood there is evidence to the contrary. The same can be said of a corpse. All the evidence we have about corpse is against the possibility that a corpse can rise. But yet you believe at least one did. Why is that?

Why do you reject the idea of a global flood because of scientific evidence to the contrary, but yet you accept the idea that a corpse can rise despite scientific evidence to the contrary?

Ask any scientist in the world about a corpse and they will tell you that a corpse cannot rise as Jesus did.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, I believe the whole big bang was set off with precise calculation to result in human beings who are capable to simultaneously interact with the physical world and quantum field (in which God lives).

I didn’t know heaven (in which God lives) is a physical field.

Just so you know, there is a rapidly growing number of scientists who consider the big bang to be a falsified idea and are abandoning the idea because they consider it ridiculous: An Open Letter to the Scientific Community.

This is how God found a way to make a physical creation that could one day commune with him.

“God found a way”?

Aren’t you being presumptuous to think that the big bang is the only method God found and could have used?

 

[Assyrian]

I couldn't agree with you more.

“For we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Cor 5:7).

Science (the study of the nature and the behavior of the material and physical universe based on observation, experiment, and measurement) is by its very nature a “walk” that is by “sight”. Therefore, we do not allow science to determine the “faith” by which we “walk”.

It’s as if the verse above is saying that relying on “faith” and “sight” at the same time is an oxymoron.

Then again, if Paul meant faith in literalism there, I don't think he would have said this after a long metaphor about our bodies being tents.

2Cor 5:1 For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling,
3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked.
4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened--not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,
7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[BondiHarry]

Are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

No, if you're talking about micro-evolution. If you're talking about macro-evolution and the belief that species evolved from common ancestors then yes as God has declared in Genesis that He brought forth living creatures after their kind (example Genesis 1:24)). Horse kind (or cow kind or cat kind etc.) were created with their dstinct characteristics in place.

On the one hand, as a theist, they believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence: virgin gives birth, water becomes wine, dead comes to life, etc., etc., etc.

These are not supported by science as we understand it but then our knowledge to date is quite limited and there likely are a great many things we don't know we don't know (to borrow a line from Donald Rumsfeld) but we believe because God has said they are so and we have faith in His word (nor is it the blind faith we are often accused of having; it is faith born from the confidence that what God says is true because things we can examine of His word are shown to be true and we find things we cannot prove at all also happening exactly as God says they will).

On the other hand, as an evolutionist, they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence: 900 year lifespans, global flood, talking donkeys, etc., etc., etc.

There are many who profess their faith in Christ yet show they don't really have faith because they dismiss those things which God says which seem foolish to them. I do believe in the virgin birth, the parting of the Red Sea, Noah and the flood, Jesus walking on water, His death and resurrection, the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit etc. because God is quite capable of doing things that are quite beyond man's ability to understand.

They believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence

Because God said they are so and we Christians walk by faith and not by sight

and they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence.

Perhaps we have a better appreciation of the limits of man's science than secular scientists do. They start with a flawed premise which is man can understand reality solely by our senses, the tools we make to amplify our senses and our reason given sufficient time to apply these. We know our natual senses of sight, smell and hearing miss a great deal of what is actually going on around us so what of things that may be going on around us that we have no ability to sense like the spiritual?

Therefore, are theistic-evolutionists’ beliefs an oxymoron?

If we are going to coin a term like 'Theistic evolution' IMO it should simply be believing what God has said, verifying what we can by our reason and senses and accepting by faith that those things we cannot prove are true (and this is again faith in what God has said). Although there may be similarities between different kinds of creatures (leading to the erroneous belief they had a common ancestor) the fossil record as readily supports a belief that animal types came into being with their distinct characteristics in place. If this is so it explains the horrendous 'gaps' between one species and their presumed ancestor species.

 

[Mallon]

Does that oxymoron include “Evolutionary Creationism” too, or is that something different?

Evolutionary creationism is a metaphysical belief about a scientific theory. Scientific creationism is the belief that the Bible speaks to modern scientific concerns. They're very different.

That would depend on your personal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, wouldn’t it?

Certainly. And since you asked what theistic evolutionists believe, I'm telling you.

Historical evidence must be consistent with scientific evidence, should it not?

Yep. But given that we don't have Jesus' body, it's difficult to make any scientific statements about it. Instead, we must rely on historical evidence.

What scientific evidence do you have that a virgin can give birth or a dead man can rise?

None, because again, we do not have access to the bodies of either Mary or Jesus. We can't extrapolate the likelihood of these events from what we know normally happens at conception or at death because the miraculous events you described are singularities.

I know you said that for the global flood there is evidence to the contrary.

Yep.

The same can be said of a corpse.

Except you can't because the only corpse that has risen from the dead is that of Jesus, and you do not have access to it. You're right in saying that corpses don't normally rise from the dead, but Jesus' resurrection was not a normal event and left no evidence for us to test. The Flood, on the other hand, should have left evidence for us to test, but there is none to be found.

 

[Doveaman]

Evolutionary creationism is a metaphysical belief about a scientific theory. Scientific creationism is the belief that the Bible speaks to modern scientific concerns. They're very different.

I suppose it depends on how you choose to define it. If scientific creationism is defined as the belief that the Bible speaks to modern scientific concerns, then evolutionary creationism can be defined as the belief that the Bible speaks to modern evolutionary concerns.

Certainly. And since you asked what theistic evolutionists believe, I'm telling you.

But why would you believe the Genesis creation account was not meant to be interpreted literally? Christ and the Apostles certainly referred to those events as though they were literal.

Jesus said: “At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6).

Paul said: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman.” (1 Tim 2:13-14).

Yep. But given that we don't have Jesus' body, it's difficult to make any scientific statements about it. Instead, we must rely on historical evidence

But we do have other dead bodies we can test to determine the accuracy of the historical claim. This is no different from scientists building a scaled model of Noah’s ark to see if it would float. If it doesn’t, this data serves as falsification of the historical claim.

If we have no way to test a historical claim, then we can believe anything just because someone said it happened. Do you believe Jesus rose only because someone said He did? Jesus is not the only person in history who is said to have risen.

The Flood, on the other hand, should have left evidence for us to test, but there is none to be found.

If the flood was miracle why must it leave evidence?

Dan 3:22-27:

“The king's command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego...So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.”

Notice that the fire destroyed those men who were standing nearby, but left zero evidence on the men who were actually in the fire: Lack of evidence for fire.

Also notice that everything we would not expect to find on the three men – intact skin, intact hair, intact robes – was actually found on the three men: Evidence to the contrary.

Why is a global flood miracle any different?

 

[Mallon]

I suppose it depends on how you choose to define it. If scientific creationism is defined as the belief that the Bible speaks to modern scientific concerns, then evolutionary creationism can be defined as the belief that the Bible speaks to modern evolutionary concerns.

Not at all. Evolutionary creationism emphatically states that the Bible doesn't speak to any scientific concerns. It is based on an accommodationist hermeneutic, not a concordist one like YECism. That's the fundamental difference between the two positions.

But why would you believe the Genesis creation account was not meant to be interpreted literally?

We've had major discussions about this in recent threads. Please feel free to check them out.

Christ and the Apostles certainly referred to those events as though they were literal.

Jesus said: “At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6).

Paul said: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman.” (1 Tim 2:13-14).

Christ and the Apostles cited the creation stories to make a theological point, but that doesn't mean they viewed them as historical events. Similarly, I might cite Aesop's fable about the grasshopper and the ant to make a point about saving up for hard times, but that doesn't mean I believe in talking grasshoppers and ants.

But we do have other dead bodies we can test to determine the accuracy of the historical claim.

The problem is that Jesus specifically is the one who was said to have miraculously risen from death -- you would need his body to scientifically verify the claim that he rose from the dead. You couldn't verify the claim by looking at the bodies of Bruce, Annie, and Todd because these people weren't the ones said to have risen from death.

If the flood was miracle why must it leave evidence?

The Flood mechanism may have been miraculous, but the devastation it would have left in its wake would have been enormous and unmistakable. We know how to identify floods in the sedimentary record and we don't see any evidence for a single worldwide flood. Maybe you believe God miraculously wiped away all geological evidence for the Flood after the fact, and I can't argue with that. Most "scientific creationists" would disagree with you on that one, though.

 

[solarwave]

I believe in miracles that make sense and don't go against science and I disagree with ones that seem more like myths and metaphor.

 

[shernren]

If the flood was miracle why must it leave evidence?

Dan 3:22-27:

“The king's command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego...So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.”

Notice that the fire destroyed those men who were standing nearby, but left zero evidence on the men who were actually in the fire: Lack of evidence for fire.

Also notice that everything we would not expect to find on the three men – intact skin, intact hair, intact robes – was actually found on the three men: Evidence to the contrary.

Why is a global flood miracle any different?

I'm not sure if you're getting your own argument.

The miracle was that Daniel's friends were saved from the flames. The evidence for the miracle was precisely that their bodies weren't harmed, their clothes weren't singed, there was no smell of fire on them ...

If Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego had been hauled out of the furnace as so many tiny chunks of charcoal, and Daniel had insisted that God had miraculously saved them, then that would be a miracle without physical evidence.

If Jesus had insisted that the multitudes had been fed, but only the first seven people in the row had had something to eat and everyone else had an empty stomach, then that would be a miracle without physical evidence.

If Jesus said He had turned water into wine, but nobody had the faintest taste of grape in their cups, then that would be a miracle without physical evidence.

If Peter had said Jesus was alive, but there was still a dead corpse in the tomb, then that would be a miracle without physical evidence.

You see? The whole point of (physical) miracles is to change some condition or another in our physical world. To do so, they must by definition leave some kind of physical change, which can then be analyzed as physical evidence. The crippled cannot walk without physically strong bones and muscles, the blind cannot see without physically functioning eyes and nerves, and the sick cannot be healed without the physical absence of tumors and pathogens.

So why would we expect God to flood the world with magic water that leaves no physical remains of its presence? That's not how He killed the Egyptians. Indeed, if the waters of the Flood could not leave sediments, how could they have drowned people?