Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[BondiHarry]

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?

So we should dismiss what God says about the flood and other 'miracles' and believe what our own feeble minds, reasoning and interpretation of what look like facts to us suggest?

 

[Doveaman]

Indeed, if the waters of the Flood could not leave sediments, how could they have drowned people?

If the fire could not burn the three men, how could it burn the soldiers?

God allowed the fire to burn the soldiers, but He did not allow it to burn the three men.

God allowed the waters to drown the people, but He did not allow it to leave sediments.

 

[Doveaman]

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 you have no reason to believe they did not view them as historical events. You are just offering an unsupported opinion. What you offer is your opinion, but you offer no reason for anyone to accept it as fact. Jesus and Paul certainly didn’t give the impression that it was just a theological point. They gave the impression they were using actual historical events to make the point, just as Jesus did here:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

“It will be just like this at the coming of the Son of Man.” (Luke 17:26-30).

Was Jesus just making a theological point about Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, or was He using an actual historical event to make the point?

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.

Nor could you verify the claim simply by relying only on what people said over 2000 years ago. If 121 people came to you today and told you a three day old corpse came to life this morning would you believe them? So why do you believe Jesus' corpse came to life over 2000 years ago?

The Flood mechanism may have been miraculous, but the devastation it would have left in its wake would have been enormous and unmistakable.

But there were three men immerse in fire and it left no devastation on them. In the same way, the earth could have been immersed in water and it left no devastation on it. The difference in size doesn’t matter to God.

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 the body of the earth immersed in water any different from the bodies of men immersed in fire?

We know how to identify floods in the sedimentary record and we don't see any evidence for a single worldwide flood.

That’s why God encourages us to walk by faith and not by sight. Relying on sight will lead to delusion which causes us to doubt God’s given word.

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it." (Gen 3:6).

Relying on sight and not on faith in God's given word leads to delusion.

Maybe you believe God miraculously wiped away all geological evidence for the Flood after the fact, and I can't argue with that.

Maybe I believe there was never any geological evidence in the first place. The purpose of the flood was to purify the earth of sin's corruption, not devastate the earth itself. The waters came and did what it had to do, then it returned to its former place.

Most "scientific creationists" would disagree with you on that one, though.

According to Jesus, in matters of theology, the few are usually right.

 

[Mallon]

But you have no reason to believe they did not view them as historical events. You are just offering an unsupported opinion. What you offer is your opinion, but you offer no reason for anyone to accept it as fact. Jesus and Paul certainly didn’t give the impression that it was just a theological point. They gave the impression they were using actual historical events to make the point, just as Jesus did here:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

“It will be just like this at the coming of the Son of Man.” (Luke 17:26-30).

Was Jesus just making a theological point about Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, or was He using an actual historical event to make the point?

What Jesus thought about the historicity of these events is immaterial -- what matters is what his audience thought about these events because these are the people he was relating to. And who was Jesus' audience? Ancient near eastern people. And what did ancient near eastern people believe? They believed that the earth was once flooded in its entirety, that conception was akin to gardening, that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was covered by a solid dome, etc. It's all there in the Bible. I'm perfectly happy to admit that many of Jesus' followers believed the Flood account actually happened. Then again, they also thought that the earth did not revolve around the sun. If you're going to argue that we ought to blindly believe everything the ANE people did despite physical evidence to the contrary, then you also ought to accept their ancient cosmology. Otherwise, you're being inconsistent.

As for your belief that God miraculously wiped away all evidence that the Flood ever happened (or that the Flood never left any evidence in the first place???), that's your prerogative. And if you think that belief puts you in the righteous minority, more power to ya. I can't argue with you if you're not going to accept evidence that is contrary to what you believe.

 

[Doveaman]

What Jesus thought about the historicity of these events is immaterial

It would not be immaterial if the event actually happened. Some believe it did. You don’t.

-- what matters is what his audience thought about these events because these are the people he was relating to. And who was Jesus' audience? Ancient near eastern people. And what did ancient near eastern people believe? They believed that the earth was once flooded in its entirety,

It makes perfect sense that the ancients would believe in an ancient global flood if there was in fact an ancient global flood. You should give the ancients a little more credit for their beliefs in ancient events, especially when the ancient events they believed in were ancient just like them.

that conception was akin to gardening, that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was covered by a solid dome, etc. It's all there in the Bible. I'm perfectly happy to admit that many of Jesus' followers believed the Flood account actually happened. Then again, they also thought that the earth did not revolve around the sun.

You should also give the God-inspired authors of the flood account a little more credit for their recordings. They were not as dumb as you would have us believe, especially when God was the one inspiring them to do the recordings.

If you're going to argue that we ought to blindly believe everything the ANE people did despite physical evidence to the contrary, then you also ought to accept their ancient cosmology. Otherwise, you're being inconsistent.

I reject this statement since this is not my argument. You are the one who is being inconsistent by ignoring the Danial fire event and its resulting effects or lack there of.

My argument is that God tells us to walk by faith and not by sight (to trust in His given word and not trust in scientific observations) because God is quite capable of performing events that scientific evidence cannot explain.

As for your belief that God miraculously wiped away all evidence that the Flood ever happened (or that the Flood never left any evidence in the first place???), that's your prerogative. And if you think that belief puts you in the righteous minority, more power to ya. I can't argue with you if you're not going to accept evidence that is contrary to what you believe.

The evidence I see is a similar event involving fire that left no evidence and evidence to the contrary. So the flood event is not unique in this regard. It’s believable based on that similar fire event that left no evidence and evidence to the contrary.


And you did not tell me why you believe a three day old corpse came to life. Is it only based on hearsay and rumor?

 

[Mallon]

It makes perfect sense that the ancients would believe in an ancient global flood if there was in fact an ancient global flood.

It also makes sense that they would have many flood accounts given that they all lived on flood plains.

Another thing the ancients all believed in was a solid dome above the earth ("firmament"). Do you similarly think it makes "perfect sense" that they all believed in this firmament because it actually exists?

You should give the ancients a little more credit for their beliefs in ancient events, especially when the ancient events they believed in were ancient just like them.

You should also give the God-inspired authors of the flood account a little more credit for their recordings. They were not as dumb as you would have us believe, especially when God was the one inspiring them to do the recordings.

Of course I give God and His inspired writers credit. But I don't credit them for writing something they never intended to write -- a post-Enlightenment, newspaper-style account with no theological depth.

I reject this statement since this is not my argument.

Of course you reject that statement because it shows how completely inconsistent your position is.

My argument is that God tells us to walk by faith and not by sight (to trust in His given word and not trust in scientific observations) because God a quite capable of performing events that scientific evidence cannot explain.

Do you believe there is a solid dome above the earth? Or have you allowed modern science to influence your faith in the existence of the firmament?

 

[granpa]

for those of you who havent figured it out, the firmament is the manifold of space that resulted from the big bang.

 

[Mallon]

for those of you who havent figured it out, the firmament is the manifold of space that resulted from the big bang.

That's not how the Bible describes it.

 

[granpa]

like so many other parts of the bible its ambiguous.
it can be looked at in many different ways.

 

[Mallon]

like so many other parts of the bible its ambiguous.
it can be looked at in many different ways.

So what about the passages that describe the firmament as "hard as a mirror cast of bronze" (Job 37:18) and "sparkling like ice" (Ezekiel 1:22). What about the part where the birds are said to fly along the firmament (Genesis 1:20)? How do you square that with your interpretation of the firmament as "the manifold of space that resulted from the big bang"?

 

[Doveaman]

Do you believe there is a solid dome above the earth? Or have you allowed modern science to influence your faith in the existence of the firmament?

If there is no conflict between the modern science and scriptures then the modern science can be accepted. But modern science can sometimes be misleading since science is simply a fallible human interpretation of facts. This is why those interpretations are not always correct and are often falsified.

Modern science has interpreted those facts to mean there was no global flood. If modern science were able to examine Daniel's three friends after they came out of the fire they would have found zero evidence for the fire and evidence to the contrary, and would have concluded they were not immersed in fire for the very same reason they conclude the earth was not immersed in water.

We cannot accept one event (immersion in fire resulting in zero evidence and evidence to the contrary) as being possible while rejecting the other event (immersion in water resulting in zero evidence and evidence to the contrary) as not being possible. We must be consistent. We either accept both events, or we reject both events.

 

[Mallon]

If there is no conflict between the modern science and scriptures then the modern science can be accepted. But modern science can sometimes be misleading since science is simply a fallible human interpretation of facts.

Bible interpretation is also a fallible human construct.

We cannot accept one event (immersion in fire resulting in zero evidence and evidence to the contrary) as being possible while rejecting the other event (immersion in water resulting in zero evidence and evidence to the contrary) as not being possible. We must be consistent. We either accept both events, or we reject both events.

You're creating a false dichotomy. Is there evidence that the miracle of fire immersion didn't happen as described? No. Therefore, we can accept it. Is there evidence that the Flood miracle didn't happen as described? Yes. Therefore, we can reject it (or rather, reinterpret it).

 

[Doveaman]

Is there evidence that the miracle of fire immersion didn't happen as described? No. Therefore, we can accept it.

Is there scientific evidence that such a fire immersion can happen as described? No. Therefore, we have no scientific reason to accept it.

Is there evidence that the Flood miracle didn't happen as described? Yes. Therefore, we can reject it (or rather, reinterpret it).

Any scientific method used against the flood miracle can also be used against the fire miracle because both events produced the same results: zero evidence and evidence to the contrary. This zero evidence and evidence to the contrary is all that scientists have to work with to determine whether or not an event actually happened.

If you are to be consistent and you are going to use science to dispute the flood then that same science must also be used to dispute the fire. And science tells us that a fire that results in zero evidence and evidence to the contrary is not possible. But we do know that such a fire did happen as described in Daniel.

 

[Anthony022071]

Theistic evolution is oxymoronic insofar as the theory of evolution itself is naturalistic,and so it portrays organisms in such a way that there is no need for divine power to be creating them and moving their processes. Nature is portrayed as self-creating and self-sufficient. Because the theory makes God unnecessary to the natural world,it is illogical for a Christian to believe in it.
Theistic evolution accepts the theory without criticism,and puts a theistic
spin on it,saying,"God created all life,and the theory of evolution shows how he did it". But actually,the theory does not allow for God to be doing anything,because it has natural "mechanisms" and processes doing everything by their own power.

 

[Assyrian]

Theistic evolution is oxymoronic insofar as the theory of evolution itself is naturalistic,and so it portrays organisms in such a way that there is no need for divine power to be creating them and moving their processes. Nature is portrayed as self-creating and self-sufficient. Because the theory makes God unnecessary to the natural world,it is illogical for a Christian to believe in it.
Theistic evolution accepts the theory without criticism,and puts a theistic
spin on it,saying,"God created all life,and the theory of evolution shows how he did it". But actually,the theory does not allow for God to be doing anything,because it has natural "mechanisms" and processes doing everything by their own power.

So why do you think Jesus taught us to pray Matt 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread, when he also said that grain grows through natural processes? Mark 4:26 And he said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. 27 He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. 28 The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come."

 

[gluadys]

Theistic evolution is oxymoronic insofar as the theory of evolution itself is naturalistic,and so it portrays organisms in such a way that there is no need for divine power to be creating them and moving their processes. Nature is portrayed as self-creating and self-sufficient. Because the theory makes God unnecessary to the natural world,it is illogical for a Christian to believe in it.
Theistic evolution accepts the theory without criticism,and puts a theistic
spin on it,saying,"God created all life,and the theory of evolution shows how he did it". But actually,the theory does not allow for God to be doing anything,because it has natural "mechanisms" and processes doing everything by their own power.

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.

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.

 

[Anthony022071]

So why do you think Jesus taught us to pray Matt 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread, when he also said that grain grows through natural processes? Mark 4:26 And he said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. 27 He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. 28 The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come."

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.

 

[Mallon]

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.

If you believe God to be present everywhere, and in control of even secondary causes, then how do you square that with your earlier statement?

the theory of evolution itself is naturalistic,and so it portrays organisms in such a way that there is no need for divine power to be creating them and moving their processes. Nature is portrayed as self-creating and self-sufficient. Because the theory makes God unnecessary to the natural world,it is illogical for a Christian to believe in it.

In one instance, you say that natural explanations exclude God, and in another, you state that they do not.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

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.

So is God present in natural phenomenon or not? You can't on the one hand say that a natural explanation of natural phenomenon excludes God and therefore must be rejected and then on the other say that God is present and active in natural phenomenon.

Why is God active in, say, the movement of the stars and the birth of children (which we can explain through purely naturalistic means) but can't be active in the evolutionary process?

Why put a box around the Almighty like this?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

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.

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.

Does this mean theistic evolution is different from atheistic evolution?