Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Anthony022071]

But you are also using "natural" to mean "without God". That's the whole god-of-the-gaps thing.

No,I'm not using natural to mean without God. God is with nature.

I was hoping you would read about Methodological Naturalism before you made this statement. There are 2 types of naturalism. One is methodological, and that means that science is limited to looking only at the natural component of causes. The other is philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that only natural exists.
"Science as practiced today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes. Science cannot explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. There is also an independent sort of naturalism, philosophical naturalism, a belief (not science, but belief) that the universe consists only of matter and energy and that there are no supernatural beings, forces, or causes." Eugenie C. Scott in review of Johnsons's book.

I have read much about methodological naturalism. Naturalism per se is not necessarily philosophical. To believe that only nature exists does not amount to philosophy. It does not show any intellectual pursuit of truth,any more than saying "life sucks" or "there is no God".

Science doesn't know whether only the natural exists. Science can only look at the natural, because we can't control for the supernatural.

It doesn't make a difference if science believes or doesn't know if only nature exists. The view of nature is the same either way,and so is the effect upon explanations.

It determines that we can't look for a supernatural component. That's very different than saying "there will not be". There very well may be, but since we never have a natural process where we know the supernatural is missing, science can't know.

To say that we can't look for the supernatural is an unjustifiable determination. Science looks for causation,and if natural causes alone do not have the necessary power to cause a phenomenon,then it is reasonable to assume supernatural power. Science has no problem positing hypothetical mechanisms to fill in the gaps of its theories,but it avoids the question of necessary power.

Do you really want science to be able to say "there will not be a supernatural component"? That means science is going to be able to falsify God. It means that you are only going to be able to put God into gaps that science can't explain. That's a huge restriction on God.

I never said that I wanted science to reject the supernatural.

From you. You just said so above: "there will not be a supernatural component"

That is what MN determines in regard to scientific explanations.

Also, look where you tend to put creationism, such as abiogenesis. You think that is a "gap" that science can't explain. So what do you thinks happens in abiogenesis? God performs a miracle, right?

Science will provide explanations for almost anything in nature,but the explanations are not always logical.

[qoute]I don't know anyone who thinks that evolution rescued Christianity from deism. [/quote]

Did you read the quote? AL Moore did. Let's face it, your circle of who you know just doesn't include those people.
[/quote]

Only someone who is out of touch with devout Christians,has an uncritical bias in favor of scientific explanations,and lacks understanding of the doctrines of creation and providence would say that the theory of evolution rescued Christianity from deism.

Evolution is continuous creation. Continuous creation of new species. Instead, special creation makes continual creation unnecessary and substitutes it with occasional visits by God to create new species. That's deism. It is Special Creation that is deistic; God created all the species and then doesn't have anything else to do with them. I'm afraid you got it backwards.

Continuous creation is a part of Catholic theology of creation,and it refers to God's continual creative activity. Special creation is also part of Catholic theology of creation. God is always involved with the natural world,so his creative acts are not a matter of occasional visits. Deism does not hold that God continues to create species,it holds that God left the natural world to function on its own according to its own laws,like a mechanism.

 

[lucaspa]

Here is the problem; we all have the same evidence – the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars – the facts are all the same.

But creationists deny some of the facts.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently: Because we start with different presuppositions – things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them.

1. Not all interpretations are valid. Some interpretations are either logically invalid or contradicted by some of the facts.
2. The argument that we have different presuppositions does not work. Look at the history. In the early 1800s all naturalists (those who studied nature) were all theists. Not only that, most of them were ministers. And, up until about 1848, all of them were creationists. Between 1848 and 1890 these naturalists stopped being creationists and accepted evolution. They did not change their basic beliefs. They remained theists and those who were ministers remained ministers.

I believe in the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), I have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables me to interpret the evidence of the present.

Is "Word of God" scripture?

Now, are your preconceptions valid? Were the stories of the Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc meant to be taken as you interpret them: literal history? Or were they meant to tell theological messages and do not contain literal history? Perhaps your presupposition is invalid.

You also seem to be ignoring God's other book. You are basing things only on scripture. So your interpretation is missing evidence.

Finally, are your interpretations valid by logic and the evidence?

Those that support evolution, also, have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

First, everyone in this forum is Christian. So we all presuppose God. We all presuppose that God created. We are looking to see if God performed acts of special creation. Whether He did or did not is not a presupposition. It is something to find out. As it happens, after examining the scriptural evidence and the evidence God left us in His Creation, we conclude that the the act of "special" creation is the creation of the universe. So we do have God performing an act of special creation. However, we conclude that species were not specially created. You do know the difference between a presupposition and a conclusion, right?

I can only hope that as I continue to post comments showing my faith:

Remember, this isn't about faith in God. We all have that in this forum. Check my icon; I personally am United Methodist. The question is how did God create. We all agree we believe that God created.

 

[Papias]

Anthony -

Did you respond to my post #80, where I continued our discussion of the Pope's statement, below? I didn't see a response from you on it. If you responded and I missed it in all those posts, could you please let me know you did? Thanks-

Papias

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies ....

(Pope Benedict)

 

[Anthony022071]

So let's get this straight. Let's say I were looking up at a storm, and watching lightning go throughout the sky. I deduce, based on my study of nature, that the path of the lightning is explained by natural causes (and in particular by Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism).

I take it that you would not consider me to be limiting God?

No. The direction of lightning does not necessaily require supernatural power. But the order that we find in the natural world does.

 

[Deaver]

I am looking for a answer I can understand, so I need to make this pretty simple:

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25 NIV)

In versus 24-25 God tells us that he created land creatures “according to their kinds” (in my words that means different species).

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 NIV)

In versus 26-27 God tells us He created man in His image and they would rule over, basically, everything He had created on earth.

If those that support evolution are supporting that God morphed some of the creatures He created in versus 24-25 into man, I have a fundamental problem with that. As a Christian how do you reconcile macroevolution, for lack of a better word, with the Bible.

On the other hand if you are saying the man has evolved from versus 26-27 to modern man, we are in agreement.

 

[Mallon]

As a Christian how do you reconcile macroevolution, for lack of a better word, with the Bible.

The same way Christianity reconciled heliocentrism with the Bible: reject strict scientific concordism in favour of an accommodationist hermeneutic. The Bible isn't a science text.

 

[Deaver]

The same way Christianity reconciled heliocentrism with the Bible: reject strict scientific concordism in favour of an accommodationist hermeneutic. The Bible isn't a science text.

So, are you saying in order for a Christian to accept macroevolution they must reject what the Bible says about creation? If not, please answer my thread you responded to.

 

[KerrMetric]

We are all entitled to our opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. The second of these is something groups like AIG and ICR forget.

 

[Mallon]

So, are you saying in order for a Christian to accept macroevolution they must reject what the Bible says about creation?

Not reject it. Reinterpret it.

Let's explore an analogy: Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun, Deaver?

 

[Mr Dave]

So, are you saying in order for a Christian to accept macroevolution they must reject what the Bible says about creation? If not, please answer my thread you responded to.

And what does the Bible say about creation...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7566143/#post57662328

 

[Deaver]

The same way Christianity reconciled heliocentrism with the Bible: reject strict scientific concordism in favour of an accommodationist hermeneutic. The Bible isn't a science text.

Please…, I know you are not saying the bible promotes geocentricity!

One common argument is that the following scripture supports geocentricity, “It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. (Psalms 19:6 NIV)

Even today we teach our children that “the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west,” and astronomers and navigators use the Earth as a fixed point for purposes of simple observation, expressing distances and directions in relation to it. The weatherman on the evening news often will state that the Sun is going to “rise” at a certain time the following morning and “set” at a certain time the following evening. Why does no one accuse him of scientific error? Because we all are perfectly aware of, and understand, the Copernican view of the solar system, and because we likewise understand that our weatherman is using “phenomenal” language.

Astronomers now know that the Sun moves in a gigantic orbit around the center of the Milky Way galaxy; traveling at 600,000 miles an hour it would take the Sun 230 million years to make just one orbit! It also is believed that our galaxy is moving with respect to other galaxies in the Universe. The Sun’s going forth is indeed from one end of the heavens to the other.

In any case, there is no way to substantiate the claims that the Bible teaches geocentricity, or that it promotes any other anti-scientific concept.

 

[KerrMetric]

or that it promotes any other anti-scientific concept.

Do you want to bet on this one?

 

[philadiddle]

Not reject it. Reinterpret it.

Not reinterpret it, interpret it in it's context to find the intented meaning.

"REinterpret" sounds like concordism, and I know that is not how you interpret it. I'm just nit-picking....

 

[Anthony022071]

Except that what you describe is not what the Pope says. The Pope is quite clear in that statement which parts are views of scientists in the text. Even those, he endorses by repeating them without disagreement. Specifically, you can see from text that the items in blue, below, are the views of the Pope:

The writer does not distinguish those views as his own. I know what the pope's views on evolution theory are from his books "In the Beginning","Truth and Tolerance",and "Credo for Today",and from various quotes of his. In the book "Creation and Evolution",he says that the theory of evolution is not a complete,scientifically proven theory,and that because of the immense time span it covers,it cannot be verified in a controlled environment. He doubts macro-evolution,so he must also doubt that all organsisms have a common ancestor.

After all, a simple repetition of the view of a scientist wouldn't begin with "while there little consensus among scientists.....". By talking about scientists as a separate group, he's clearly talking for himself and not for them.

His comment about scientists does not mean he assents to the scientific account. And why would he not speak of scientists as a separate group? He is not one of them.

Besides, as you know, he's got all kinds of other statements in support of theistic evolution - it's not like that's the only one. He routinely supports the idea of common descent, while also repeating often that evolution is guided by God, as God's way of creating, and is not an atheistic or materialistic process.

The theory of evolution is itself atheistic and materialistic in character,because it proceeds from MN and so it explains the history of organisms as if they came to exist only because of natural processes.
When the pope talks about evolution,he does not usually distinguish between the scientific theory and the mere concept,which can mean any kind of development,or between macro-evolution and micro-evolution,which is really just speciation. So if he supports theistic evolution,it is not an uncritical belief in all the particular claims of evolution theory,as it is with most theistic evolutionists.

 

[Mallon]

Please…, I know you are not saying the bible promotes geocentricity!

Of course it does. The Bible clearly states that the earth does not move (1 Samuel 2:8, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4, Psalm 96:10, 104:5, 93:1) and that the sun does move (Joshua 10:12, Psalm 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Habakkuk 3:11).

Now, do you reject what the Bible says about the movement of the sun around the earth?

 

[Assyrian]

The following is copied, with permission, from www (dot) gotquestions (dot) org.

Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?"

Answer:Genesis 1:1says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages

It is a very reasonable conclusion from scripture based on the Creation account title placed in between the two accounts in Gen 2:4, the completely different style and very different vocabulary used. On the other hand there is nothing in the accounts to suggest they were written by the same author

which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

Yet in Genesis 1 on the sixth day God created animals, man and woman while in Genesis 2 we see the creation of not just animals. man and woman, but also plants and birds, and they are created in a completely different order to the way they were created in Genesis 1 from days three to six,

In Genesis 2, the author

The same author?

steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener.The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

The word for herb is the came on both accounts while the word plant is only used for desert bushes, not agricultural plants (Gen 21:15, Job 30:4&7).

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

No, the text is very clear that God created animals after he saw that the man was alone. It is a very common Hebrew construction used in narratives to show the next event in a sequence of verbs. It is only because some translators like the NIV want to try to reconcile Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 that they fudge the translation. But there is nothing in the text to justify this, the construction is no different from the others in the passage.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

If you consider the two accounts individually, and look at what they actually say, you get two very different sequences of creation. If you want to reconcile them then, it should not be by changing what you have already seen the text actually says. We need to treat the text with respect. The key is the realization that the only reason the two seem to contradict is if you approach scripture with the assumption it is describing literal history, which the text never says. So you have a choice you can try to reconcile the two accounts by changing the plain meaning of the text, or by dropping you presupposition of literalism.

 

[Mallon]

Not reinterpret it, interpret it in it's context to find the intented meaning.

For most creationists, that would entail re-interpretation.

 

[lucaspa]

No,I'm not using natural to mean without God. God is with nature.

But you think God is not with evolution. Do you see the contradiction?

I have read much about methodological naturalism.

I was hoping you read what I wrote at the end of my post before you said anything. Did you? I gave you the nutshell of MN when I showed how it comes out of the way we do science.

Naturalism per se is not necessarily philosophical. To believe that only nature exists does not amount to philosophy.

Pretty much it does. It sets up the condition of ultimate truth: there is nothing but the material. Just like Christianity sets up the ultimate truth: God exists and created the material universe. Both of those provide the basis of their respective philosophies. You can have pursuit of intellectual truth under either of those philosophies. And do.

It doesn't make a difference if science believes or doesn't know if only nature exists. The view of nature is the same either way,and so is the effect upon explanations.

It makes all the difference in the world. "Don't know" is a very different view of nature than "only nature exists". The effect on explanations is also different. Science doesn't try to get the ultimate truth because it can't know the ultimate truth. But if you say "only nature exists" then you have made a statement of ultimate truth.

To say that we can't look for the supernatural is an unjustifiable determination. Science looks for causation,and if natural causes alone do not have the necessary power to cause a phenomenon,then it is reasonable to assume supernatural power.

It's not a "determination". It's a limitation. It's something science cannot do. It cannot directly look for a supernatural component. Science would like to. I personally, wearing my scientist hat, would like to know whether the "natural" component is sufficient or whether we need a supernatural component. But I can't. All I can say is that what we have is sufficient as a material component.

God-of-the-gaps again. This is not reasonable by Christianity. Since God created a complete universe, there are not going to be any gaps.

The corollary to what you said is "if natural causes alone do have the necessary power to cause a phenomenon, then it is reasonable to conclude there is no supernatural power." That is the danger god-of-the-gaps poses to Christianity and God. Your statement says that we can only have supernatural power if natural causes are not sufficient. As soon as we show natural causes are sufficient, then God is gone. It keeps pushing God into a smaller and smaller corner until God is gone altogether.

What I said was that science can't directly test for the supernatural. Look at how we do experiments. Just how are we supposed to test for the supernatural by that method? How can we point to a particular plant and say "God is in that one" but point to another plant and say "God is not in that one". So how do we know whether God is necessary for plant growth (or any "natural" process) or not?

Science has no problem positing hypothetical mechanisms to fill in the gaps of its theories,but it avoids the question of necessary power.

A problem here is that you don't recognize that positing direct action by God is another material cause. By saying "God is necessary to get life from non-life" you are saying God is the material cause of linking molecules together and putting those molecules together as a living cell. Yes, the method is "miracle" but it amounts to a material cause. That makes God a creature of the universe. But God isn't a creature of the universe. God is separate from the universe. So by Christianity what you propose is forbidden. Did you read the quote by Allen? Here, I'll post it again. Please pay close attention:

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenoma in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe."
Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

I never said that I wanted science to reject the supernatural.

You keep rejecting our arguments that show you that science does not reject the supernatural. You keep insisting that science does reject the supernatural even when we show you it does not. Why do you keep doing that if you don't want it to?

lucaspa: From you. You just said so above: "there will not be a supernatural component"

That is what MN determines in regard to scientific explanations.

NO! That is what MN does not do in regard to scientific explanations! MN says we cannot say "there is not a supernatural component". How can you get this so backwards?

Also, look where you tend to put creationism, such as abiogenesis. You think that is a "gap" that science can't explain. So what do you thinks happens in abiogenesis? God performs a miracle, right?

Only someone who already has an uncritical bias in favor of scientific explanations and a lack of understanding of the doctrines of creation and providence and Christian belief would say something so stupid.

So you personally attack Aubrey Moore? That's what this is, a personal attack on someone you don't know. Aubrey Moore was a prominent Anglican minister at the time. You have no basis to say he had "uncritical bias" or "lack of understanding of the doctrines ...." The only basis you have for this is your uncritical hostility to evolution. Evolution does negate deism because God is continually acting in creation instead of just making species one or a few times and then is absent. Remember, deism has an absent God.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

Continuous creation is a part of Catholic theology of creation,and it refers to God's continual creative activity. Special creation is also part of Catholic theology of creation.

But Special Creation of species is not a continual creative activity. Special Creation of species has God make a species and then is absent. Evolution involves continuous creation.

God is always involved with the natural world,so his creative acts are not a matter of occasional visits.

But special creation has only occasional visits! You keep reiterating that God is always involved with the natural world, but you also keep denying that He is involved with evolution.

Deism does not hold that God continues to create species,it holds that God left the natural world to function on its own according to its own laws,like a mechanism.

Right. So it is Special Creation that is deistic. Look at Deaver's posts. God creates species and then they function on their own according to the "laws" of microevolution. Deism.

 

[lucaspa]

Please…, I know you are not saying the bible promotes geocentricity!

It most certainly does. Several times the OT says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable. Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. Notice that none of them are the verse you tried to use. Again you make strawmen of the opposition arguments.

One common argument is that the following scripture supports geocentricity, “It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. (Psalms 19:6 NIV)

I've never heard that argument before. Nor does a Google search reveal it as an argument used.

This verse describes the sun. The sun moves, the earth does not. That's geocentrism.

The Sun’s going forth is indeed from one end of the heavens to the other.

ROFL! That is ingenious, to try to tie the verse to the sun's movements in the galaxy. However, the galaxy is not "the end of the heavens". There are billions of galaxies. So the ingenious attempt is brought to nought by God. Again.

 

[Deaver]

And what does the Bible say about creation.../quote]

I did not read the entire thread where your referenced post was, so the context may have been different. Anyway, I mean no offense by this reply. However, if one understands the Bible to be the inspired word of God, then the creation story is in Genesis 1:1-31. Following that, Genesis 2 is an appendix to the history of the creation, more particularly explaining and enlarging upon that part of the history which relates immediately to man. Genesis the goes on to reveal the intrusion of sin into the world, the catastrophic effects of its curse on the race, and the beginnings of God’s plan to bless the nations through His seed.

Moses, under the inspiration of God, is the author of Genesis. In addition to recording God's creation of the world it also shows His desire to have a people set apart to worship him.

My belief in the inerrancy of Scripture was formed at a time when bold comparisons with the evolutionary framework were not forced upon us in the classroom. However, today many liberal theologians have reevaluated their views of Genesis 1, and altered their assessments in order to accommodate the evolutionary framework. And consequently, in the same manner you described, the Creation account is now stylized as a “myth” or a “hymn.”

I personally struggle with this, as well, because I support God creating and then microevolution of the different species, which I believe is completely in line with cripture. My concern is this could then lead to an “old earth” theory and the slippery slope. However, it is incredibly naïve to think that Christians can use the term “myth” to refer to Genesis 1, and there be not be a devaluated view of the inspiration of scripture.