Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[CryptoLutheran]

Does this mean theistic evolution is different from atheistic evolution?

Yes. But not in the science, but rather in the metaphysical/philosophical/theological underpinnings. It's the difference between a theistic heliocentrist and an atheistic heliocentrism, a theistic bioanthropology and atheistic bioanthropology; the science is the same; what makes the difference is the deeper underpinnings which have nothing to do with science an all to do with one's philosophical and/or theological outlook. An atheist does not perceive God as the active agency behind, in and through the natural world; the theist does.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[shernren]

Is rain that comes when we pray for it meteorologically different than rain that comes when we don't?

 

[Adoniram]

Many theistic evolutionists propose that there is no conflict with belief in evolution and belief in the fundamental principles of the Christian faith. It is very interesting that atheists themselves are perceptive enough to recognize that there is. If Genesis cannot be trusted to be true, they say, neither can the rest of the Scriptures. Abandoning a literal interpretation of the first pages of the Bible results a faith that is built upon sinking sand. Atheists understand this. It is amazing that some Christians find this such a hard concept to grasp.

Chances are, if you're reading this, you don't believe in the fable of Adam and Eve and the talking snake. You probably think it's a story, created out of ignorance, to explain the origin of life. You probably don't believe that Adam literally ate a fruit, resulting in God expelling him and Eve out of the idyllic Garden of Eden.
In other words, you know that's a myth.
Right so far? So if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it...

• Jesus' major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin.
• Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist)
• Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.

All we are asking is that you take what you know into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you've been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it.

That some Christians are willing to compromise, when no compromise is needed if the scientific evidence is interpreted correctly, is sad.

 

[Mallon]

Abandoning a literal interpretation of the first pages of the Bible results a faith that is built upon sinking sand.

Why? My faith is in Christ, not in a hermeneutic.

 

[gluadys]

The New American Bible has "Of its own accord..." The point of the parable is that the Kingdom of God,like seed,sprouts and grows by the power of God,without human intervention.

And that is exactly what theistic evolutionists believe about evolution. Biodiversity and descent with modification bring about new species by the power of God working through natural means without human intervention. The theory of evolution should not be interpreted to mean nature is self-sufficient.

 

[gluadys]

Does this mean theistic evolution is different from atheistic evolution?

Of course.

Since atheists tend to be materialistic and do not believe anything immaterial even exists, much less an immaterial Creator Spirit, they have to depict natural processes as self-sufficient.

Theists, including Christians, do not depict natural processes as self-sufficient, but as conceived, created and perpetually sustained by God.

Evolution is just one of many such natural processes.

Of course, an atheist and a theist writing up a scientific description of the process itself, would agree on the description. Just as they do when writing up a scientific description of reproduction or erosion or gravitational forces.

 

[gluadys]

Many theistic evolutionists propose that there is no conflict with belief in evolution and belief in the fundamental principles of the Christian faith. It is very interesting that atheists themselves are perceptive enough to recognize that there is.

Why do you assume atheists are perceptive and Christians are not? In fact, the atheist author cited goes wrong right here:

So if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it..

Nope. That's bad theology. Describing an event in a myth doesn't mean the event never happened. Adam, Eve, the talking snake, the forbidden fruit, may all be mythological, but the Fall is not, as we can attest any day when we seen humanity mired in sin.

Myth, as a literary genre doesn't mean "false" as this atheist apparently assumes it does. It is simply a way of choosing how to present a teaching in a way that is memorable. Choosing an image and a story line that gets the point across in a vivid way is not lying about what happened when humanity turned its back on God and gave themselves over to their own ambitions and desires.

If Genesis cannot be trusted to be true, they say, neither can the rest of the Scriptures. Abandoning a literal interpretation of the first pages of the Bible results a faith that is built upon sinking sand. Atheists understand this. It is amazing that some Christians find this such a hard concept to grasp.

First, a literal interpretation is not needed to trust the truth of scripture. Second, atheists love literal interpretations of scripture precisely because they are a foundation of sand for faith. It is not difficult to understand that all of humanity is estranged from God by sin, and that goes back to an original sinful choice in the earliest days of human existence. But if one has to also believe that a physical snake actually talked as well, rather than it being a symbol of temptation--that is easy to ridicule.

That some Christians are willing to compromise, when no compromise is needed if the scientific evidence is interpreted correctly, is sad.

Both nature and scripture need to be interpreted correctly. I have never seen a correct interpretation of nature that agrees with a literal interpretation of scripture or vice versa. If you can show such a thing, by all means, do.

 

[Assyrian]

The New American Bible has "Of its own accord..." The point of the parable is that the Kingdom of God,like seed,sprouts and grows by the power of God,without human intervention.
We know from the Church's teaching on creation and divine providence,as found in the Catechism,that God is the giver of all life,that he is the cause behind all secondary causes,that he is always present everywhere,and that the created world is utterly dependent upon him. The life of seed is spirit from God. So that passage cannot be interpreted as if nature were self-sufficient.

What Mallon said

 

[Assyrian]

Many theistic evolutionists propose that there is no conflict with belief in evolution and belief in the fundamental principles of the Christian faith. It is very interesting that atheists themselves are perceptive enough to recognize that there is.

It is strange you think atheists are the ones who are perceptive here. Isn't the word of God something we need the Holy Spirit to understand?
1Cor 2:14 ISV A person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the things of God’s Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can’t understand them because they are spiritually evaluated. Now you can get Christians who still don't understand what the Spirit of God is telling us through his word, Paul goes on to talk about that very problem in Corinth. But you think it is atheists who have the deep understanding of what God is teaching us in his word. Isn't it more likely that the Christians who agree with the atheists are the one who don't quite get it?

 

[shernren]

It is strange you think atheists are the ones who are perceptive here. Isn't the word of God something we need the Holy Spirit to understand?
1Cor 2:14 ISV A person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the things of God’s Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can’t understand them because they are spiritually evaluated. Now you can get Christians who still don't understand what the Spirit of God is telling us through his word, Paul goes on to talk about that very problem in Corinth. But you think it is atheists who have the deep understanding of what God is teaching us in his word. Isn't it more likely that the Christians who agree with the atheists are the one who don't quite get it?

But you see Assyrian, the atheists agree with them! Of course atheists are perceptive interpreters of Scripture when they agree with creationists and when they don't agree - well, to err is human, isn't it?

 

[Doveaman]

It is not difficult to understand that all of humanity is estranged from God by sin, and that goes back to an original sinful choice in the earliest days of human existence.

Yes, those early humans were the first created humans, Adam and Eve, from whom all other humans descended.

"At the beginning of creation God made them male and female...For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (Mark 10:6, 1 Tim 2:13-14).

But if one has to also believe that a physical snake actually talked as well, rather than it being a symbol of temptation--that is easy to ridicule.

If a donkey can be made to talk, so can a snake.

Theists, including Christians, do not depict natural processes as self-sufficient, but as conceived, created and perpetually sustained by God.

And therefore can be made to talk by the God who conceived, created and perpetually sustains them.

 

[Rochester]

It seems unreasonable to believe the entire universe was created in 144 contiguous hours (6 days) as the bible says.

It also seems unreasonable to believe all this came from nothing at all.

Where does that leave us?

We believe in God and Christ as the reason for our existence. How important can this be in the light of the knowledge that we are sons of God?

My family still believes the earth and entire universe was made in 6 days totaling 144 literal hours. If they don't it shakes the bedrock of the reason to obey the 4th commandment. So they have to affirm what I call an absurd proposition.

I believe God made the entire universe from nothing. I doubt the 144 hour explanation holds water.

 

[Anthony022071]

The problem is not in theistic evolution, but with a quasi-Deist view of God and the universe. This is the view that the world of nature is a mechanism which God invented to run on its own. But is not nature actually the way God does things in the world? Is not the power of natural mechanisms the power of God? What does it mean, for example, that "in Christ all things hold together"? Perhaps it means that Christ as the Word of God sustains the powers of nature. So they don't operate on their own, independent of the power of God.

I agree that the deist view of God and the universe is a problem,but the scientific view of the natural reality,which is naturalistic,is what backs up the
deistic view. If Christians go along with scientific explanations for the origin of life,order,thought and physical existence,then their view of God and nature will in effect be deistic. You can't believe in the naturalistic,mechanistic explanations for those phenomena and also believe in what the Bible,the Church Fathers and medieval theologians,and the Catholic Church teaches about God and the natural world. The naturalistic view of science gives all causation to natural mechanisms and processes. It is true that natural mechanisms are moved by the power of God,in regard to life,order,thought and the coming into being of the physical. As the ancient Greek poet wrote,"In him we live and move and have our being". But science sometimes
proposes mechanisms that have not been seen,as in abiogenesis theory.

The theory of evolution is no different than any scientific theory; it describes the empirical, observable, measurable effect of what God is doing at all times. We call that "natural" because it is neither artificial (requiring human technology) nor surpassing the ordinary (miraculous). But "natural" certainly doesn't mean nature operates "on its own" without God.

The theory of evolution is different from other theories because it is a narrative of natural history,which is not observable or measurable,and its main claims cannot be justified by experimentation. Likewise,chaos theory,abiogenesis theory and quantum mechanics make claims that cannot be justified by experimentation. In these theories,nature is portrayed as operating on its own without God,because the scientific view is methodological naturalism.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, those early humans were the first created humans, Adam and Eve, from whom all other humans descended.

"At the beginning of creation God made them male and female...For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (Mark 10:6, 1 Tim 2:13-14).

Jesus is quoting Genesis 1, not Genesis 2. Unfortunately, in Genesis 1 where it says "God made them male and female", the Hebrew states that He made them men and women. Both plural. And there goes you descended from Adam and Eve.

BTW, in Mark 10 Jesus is also telling us that men wrote the Bible and that they got some parts of it (specifically Deut 24:1) wrong.

Jesus died because we sin. You and I. Not because Adam sinned. And we sin because we make selfish choices and disobey God. That selfishness is there due to natural selection. The "original sin" is in our genes due to how we were created.

 

[lucaspa]

I agree that the deist view of God and the universe is a problem,but the scientific view of the natural reality,which is naturalistic,is what backs up the
deistic view.

What matters is how you view "naturalistic". Is "natural" = without God? Science can't answer the question. It's a limitation of science called Methodological Naturalism (see below for how MN is not "without God")

Now, deists, atheists, and creationists answer the question "Yes!" If something is "natural", then God is absent. Science doesn't tell you that. They got that on their own.

The irony here is that Christians felt that evolution rescued Christianity from deism:
"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

If Christians go along with scientific explanations for the origin of life,order,thought and physical existence,then their view of God and nature will in effect be deistic.

The opposite is true. What you are stating is god-of-the-gaps. God is present only if there is no scientific explanation. And god-of-the-gaps and that natural = without God is the basis for deism and atheism.

You can't believe in the naturalistic,mechanistic explanations for those phenomena and also believe in what the Bible,the Church Fathers and medieval theologians,and the Catholic Church teaches about God and the natural world.

You can believe this and also believe what the Bible, medieval theologians, and the Catholic Church teaches about God and the natural world. None of those use god-of-the-gaps.

In all of those, God sustains the universe. That means that what is "natural" requires God just as much as a miracle.

The naturalistic view of science gives all causation to natural mechanisms and processes.

But the "naturalistic view" is not science. It is a philosophy. Philosophical materialism is not science. Science can only tell you that the natural causes are sufficient as natural causes. IOW, chemistry is a sufficient natural cause for the origin of life. That process does not need God to be a mechanism and put molecules together. But does chemistry work solely on its own? Or is God needed for each and every chemical reaction to happen? That is where God "sustaining" the universe comes in. IOW, for every phenomenon there are two components of the cause: the natural component and the supernatural component. Science is only able to deal with the natural component. It can't even comment on whether there is, or isn't, a supernatural component. Theists believe there is. Deists and atheists believe there isn't.

But science sometimes proposes mechanisms that have not been seen,as in abiogenesis theory.

Oh no. The chemisty has been seen. In fact, I can give you a recipe to make life from non-living chemicals in your kitchen or backyard. You can see it for yourself.

The theory of evolution is different from other theories because it is a narrative of natural history,which is not observable or measurable,and its main claims cannot be justified by experimentation.

Scientific theories do not need justification by experiment. Scientific theories are justified by finding data (observations) that the theory predicts but has not yet been seen. Now, sometimes those new observations can be obtained by experimentation, but there is no requirement for that. Let me give you 3 examples of predictions of future observational data that evolution has made:
1. "scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene." Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science
2. Entomologist Richard Alexander noted the eusociality in insects (wasps, bees, termites) was correlated to social behavior. He used evolution to predict what an eusocial mammal would look like in 1974. Then naked mole rats were discovered. http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality- (read the page for more predictions
3. Common ancestry would predict that genes are not independent creations, but instead would represent historical relationships across taxa. Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed.
"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections." DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997.

Likewise,chaos theory,abiogenesis theory and quantum mechanics make claims that cannot be justified by experimentation. In these theories,nature is portrayed as operating on its own without God,because the scientific view is methodological naturalism.

Yes, science is methodologically naturalistic. But methodological naturalism does not exclude God. In fact, it forbids us from saying "operating on its own without God". MN comes from how we do experiments. Let me illustrate:

Let's say you want to find ALL causes/entities necessary for plant growth. So you go out and get a number of plants. You put them in the following conditions:
1. Sunlight, water, soil, air
2. Sunlight, water, soil, but in a clear box where the air has been pumped out.
3. Sunlight, water, no soil, air.
4. Sunlight, no water, soil, air
5. A darkened box with no sunlight, but with water, soil, air.
This scientific protocol will tell you if these 4 entities/causes are necessary for plant growth. You can add others if you wish but you will follow the same scientific protocol. You always have a control where you know the entity is absent and compare it to an experimental where you know the entity is present.
Now comes the kicker. How about the supernatural or deity? Where is my control for that? Which plant can I point to and say "this one has no supernatural in it?" or "God is not in this plant?" I can't. Therefore I am limited to looking at only material causes that I can set up "controls" for.
Now you know why science is limited to the material. And now you also know why the original statement is so wrong. We can never, as scientists, say that any process we discover is "without God".

Anyone making such a statement is misusing and misrepresenting science for their own religious/philosophical agenda. In this case, you want to portray science as atheistic in order to argue against theistic evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

It seems unreasonable to believe the entire universe was created in 144 contiguous hours (6 days) as the bible says.

It also seems unreasonable to believe all this came from nothing at all.

Where does that leave us?

It leaves us believing that science discovers how God created and that the creation stories in the Bible tell us the Who and why of creation -- theological truths -- and not the how.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

But they are not contradicted by scientific evidence. BTW, you can put the "talking donkeys" in this category.

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.

What we reject are events that are contradicted by scientific evidence: 900 year lifespans, global flood, <20,000 year old earth, 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?

Theistic evolutionists' beliefs are not an oxymoron. This misstatement of those belief is 1) a strawman and 2) possibly an oxymoron.

 

[Mallon]

I agree that the deist view of God and the universe is a problem,but the scientific view of the natural reality,which is naturalistic,is what backs up the deistic view.

lucaspa's response to this is spot on. To say that God is or is not involved with the regular processes of nature that can be investigated scientifically is a philosophical or theological statement that goes beyond the bounds of science. Science is agnostic, not deistic. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[Doveaman]

Jesus is quoting Genesis 1, not Genesis 2. Unfortunately, in Genesis 1 where it says "God made them male and female", the Hebrew states that He made them men and women. Both plural. And there goes you descended from Adam and Eve.

Actually, Jesus is quoting both Genesis 1 and 2 to describe Adam and Eve:

Mark 10:6-7: Jesus said - “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife’”.

Genesis 1:27: “Male and female He created them.”
Genesis 2:24: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife.”

The fact that Jesus quoted Genesis 1 and 2 to describe Adam and Eve shows that Genesis 1 and 2 are describing the same Adam and Eve.

BTW, in Mark 10 Jesus is also telling us that men wrote the Bible and that they got some parts of it (specifically Deut 24:1) wrong.

Why don’t you stop putting words in Jesus’ mouth, will ya?

Jesus died because we sin. You and I. Not because Adam sinned.

I reject your peer-review bible and substitute it for the Holy Bible:

“Sin entered the world through one man...many died by the trespass of the one man...by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man...the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners...For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (Rom 5:12-19, 1 Cor 15:21-22).

And we sin because we make selfish choices and disobey God. That selfishness is there due to natural selection. The "original sin" is in our genes due to how we were created.

Except that this contradicts the Bible verses I quoted above. So, no thanks.

But they are not contradicted by scientific evidence.

So you believe three day old corpses can come to life despite no scientific evidence they can. Great.

BTW, you can put the "talking donkeys" in this category.

So you believe donkeys are capable of talking despite no scientific evidence they can. Great.

 

[Mallon]

But they are not contradicted by scientific evidence.

Doveman doesn't appear to grasp was constitutes scientific evidence, which is why I gave up the discussion.