Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I can honestly say that I don't think I've met an anti-evolutionary creationist on this forum who actually understands the position of evolutionary creation. It seems that misconceptions about our position abound. Therefore, I thought it might be helpful if we started a thread that dispels the fallacies about what it is that we believe. Maybe we can point others to it when they err in their characterization of us (maybe make this a sticky thread?). I picture this thread as a numbered list that we can all contribute to and I'll add everyone's contributions to the first post, starting with my own (if you have any additions or changes you'd like to make to any of the contributions, please let me know):

Misconceptions about evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution)

1. The fact that evolutionary creationists do not accept the Genesis creation stories as historical accounts does not mean that we do not take the Scriptures seriously. The Bible is a mix of parable, poetry, historical narrative, and many other types of literary genres. We must approach each book and each genre with humility and with open hearts and minds, and not try apply the same blanket interpretation to all parts of the Bible. Despite the fact that we do not accept the creation stories are historical accounts, we maintain that God is the Creator of all and that He ordained and sustains everything in the universe, as professed by the Nicene Creed. The opening chapters of Genesis profess invaluable teachings about the fallen nature of man, the compassion of God, the promise of a Saviour, the relationship of man with God and nature, and the sanctity of marriage.

2. Evolutionary creationists do not believe that biological evolution is mentioned in the Scriptures; it isn't. However, just because the Bible doesn't make mention of evolution doesn't mean that evolution is false. The Scriptures do not mention germs, heliocentrism, or atoms, either, and yet Christians have come to accept all of these.

3. There is no single evolutionary creationist position about the existence of Adam and Eve. Some ECs accept that Adam and Eve were historical people from which we are all descended. Others believe that Adam and Eve represent the human race. These positions are all compatible with evolutionary creation.

4. Evolutionary creationists believe that God is equally capable of creating through natural processes like evolution as He is through supernatural ones. Simply because a natural process like evolution (or gravity, or conception, or weather) can be described without reference to the supernatural doesn't mean that God is not involved. The Bible is clear that God is capable of working through both natural and supernatural processes. We do not limit God's actions to one or the other.

Evolutionary creationists affirm that the ordinary processes of nature are a normal and constant field of God's activity. They recognize that authors who describe natural processes without naming God are being neutral about God working through nature, not excluding God from nature. Science qua science is not able to affirm or deny the power of God to act through nature and reflects this limitation by a neutrality of silence which ought not to be interpreted as an expression of atheism.

5. Evolutionary creationists recognize that evolutionary creation is not a scientific position. In other words, science cannot be used to show that the evolution of biodiversity was brought about via God's sustaining hand. Note that this is NOT the same as saying that evolutionary theory is not scientific; it is. Our position is a theological one that argues that God used the scientific process of evolution to create biodiversity.

6. Evolutionary creationists are not all theologically liberal. The beliefs of ECs run the gamut from conservative to liberal Christianity. Even one of the founders of Christian fundamentalism, B. B. Warfield, accepted evolution.

7. Evolutionary creationists do not hold the works of science or scientists to be inscrutable, absolute truth. The ideas of evolution, geochronology, the Big Bang theory, physics, everything has come a long way since they were proposed. Showing Darwin had a bad idea about something or was wrong in something will have no effect, as he may very well be wrong in one aspect but right in another. There is no magical cornerstone that will pull all of theistic evolution down around everyone's ears, no holy prophets of science whose words you can disprove to prove the whole idea false. Ideas stand on their own merits, not on the character of their originator, nor on the words of their originator, but on what they have become through use, time, and change. And that time and change that refines and corrects ideas is not a threat to true ideas, nor the truth of God
 
Last edited:

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
This might help keep the ball rolling:

10 dangers of theistic evolution

The very first sentence in this article reminds me of one misconception:

Not mentioning God is equivalent to supporting atheism. Gitt's formula for evolution (Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.) is labeled "atheistic" even though it says nothing about God one way or another.

Evolutionary creationists would not call a definition atheistic unless it says plainly that God is not involved. Anti-evolutionary creationists assume that if God is not mentioned, atheism is implied. They don't make allowances for a middle position.

I think this relates to the whole notion assumed by both atheists and anti-evolution creationists that "natural" means "God is not involved."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
475
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟63,625.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The very first sentence in this article reminds me of one misconception:

Not mentioning God is equivalent to supporting atheism. Gitt's formula for evolution (Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.) is labeled "atheistic" even though it says nothing about God one way or another.

Evolutionary creationists would not call a definition atheistic unless it says plainly that God is not involved. Anti-evolutionary creationists assume that if God is not mentioned, atheism is implied. They don't make allowances for a middle position.

I think this relates to the whole notion assumed by both atheists and anti-evolution creationists that "natural" means "God is not involved."

As has been mentioned before, AiGs definition makes Esther an atheistic book.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟22,892.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
The very first sentence in this article reminds me of one misconception:

Not mentioning God is equivalent to supporting atheism. Gitt's formula for evolution (Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.) is labeled "atheistic" even though it says nothing about God one way or another.

Evolutionary creationists would not call a definition atheistic unless it says plainly that God is not involved. Anti-evolutionary creationists assume that if God is not mentioned, atheism is implied. They don't make allowances for a middle position.

I think this relates to the whole notion assumed by both atheists and anti-evolution creationists that "natural" means "God is not involved."
Gluadys, I think your point kinda ties into point #4 up there, no? Would you be interested in re-writing #4 to incorporate your thoughts?

Glad to see this thread is starting to get some attention!
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I had the same thought. I'll give it a try.


How is this?

4. Evolutionary creationists believe that God is equally capable of creating through natural processes like evolution as He is through supernatural ones. Simply because a natural process like evolution (or gravity, or conception, or weather) can be described without reference to the supernatural doesn't mean that God is not involved. The Bible is clear that God is capable of working through both natural and supernatural processes. We do not limit God's actions to one or the other.

Evolutionary creationists affirm that the ordinary processes of nature are a normal and constant field of God's activity. They recognize that authors who describe natural processes without naming God are being neutral about God working through nature, not excluding God from nature. Science qua science is not able to affirm or deny the power of God to act through nature and reflects this limitation by a neutrality of silence which ought not to be interpreted as an expression of atheism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
37
✟13,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Theistic evolutionists do not hold the works of science or scientists to be inscrutable, absolute truth. The ideas of evolution, geochronology, the Big Bang theory, physics, everything has come a long way since they were proposed. Showing Darwin had a bad idea about something or was wrong in something will have no effect, as he may very well be wrong in one aspect but right in another. There is no magical cornerstone that will pull all of theistic evolution down around everyone's ears, no holy prophets of science whose words you can disprove to prove the whole idea false. Ideas stand on their own merits, not on the character of their originator, nor on the words of their originator, but on what they have become through use, time, and change. And that time and change that refines and corrects ideas is not a threat to true ideas, nor the truth of God.

I came up with this one both reading through a current thread and remembering a huge, long thread I had with someone who I think was called archaeologist a looooong time ago.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
475
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟63,625.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I came up with this one both reading through a current thread and remembering a huge, long thread I had with someone who I think was called archaeologist a looooong time ago.

Metherion
Coincidence! I was looking through some old old threads the other day and found some by archaeologist! Was it this one you were remembering, or perhaps this one? Wow those were the days...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums