Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

[HarleyER]

ok. I've read the essay you've presented from Matthew Dowling.

Now, here is an article some time back by Mano Singham, and I think he does a decent job of describing the intrinsic, conceptual problems with asserting that Intelligent Design, or even Creation Science, is science and not pseudo-science. The article is a little on the older side now, but it gets at the heart of the problem. Of course, it's also not the last word on this debate and there is so very much more that could be added from my sources. But for now, this article will suffice as an ice-breaker ...

... where I.D. is concerned, we're in an open, ongoing discussion, despite what Philosophical Naturalists or Philosophical Design advocates may want to aver for otherwise:

Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent Design Debate​

Singham, Mano. "Philosophy is essential to the intelligent design debate." Physics Today 55, no. 6 (2002): 48-50.​

Ok. I've read the article you provided. There are some issues with the points that Mr. Singham's makes, but we'll just bat these points around and, quite frankly, I'm not an expert in the nuances of these issues.

My point is that those who are the experts, who could provide alternative views, are being silenced. I.D. people are not published in Physics Today so they can't respond to Mr. Singham's four points. Here is another article from Physics Today just a few months after they published Mr. Singham's article.

Intelligent Design Tangles Science and Religion​

Intelligent Design Tangles Science and Religion

Examination of humans and other life forms clearly shows that the designs in nature, although marvelous, are not intelligent. They show evidence of random mutat

pubs.aip.org

​

Again, the negative slant of connecting science and religion. At least since 2002, for twenty-two years, Physics Today has not published ONE article that provides a favorable view on I.D. This only proves what I stated that Christian scientists, who might provide alternate explanations are being silence and discredited. This is happening with Climate Change. Same thing. If you don't believe in global warming, you're a "Climate Denier" and you will not be published. If you cannot publish, then you perish. Simple rule.

Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the Internet we wouldn't even hear about I.D from these scientists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok. I've read the article you provided. There are some issues with the points that Mr. Singham's makes, but we'll just bat these points around and, quite frankly, I'm not an expert in the nuances of these issues.

My point is that those who are the experts, who could provide alternative views, are being silenced. I.D. people are not published in Physics Today so they can't respond to Mr. Singham's four points. Here is another article from Physics Today just a few months after they published Mr. Singham's article.

Intelligent Design Tangles Science and Religion​

Intelligent Design Tangles Science and Religion

Examination of humans and other life forms clearly shows that the designs in nature, although marvelous, are not intelligent. They show evidence of random mutat

pubs.aip.org

​

Again, the negative slant of connecting science and religion. At least since 2002, for twenty-two years, Physics Today has not published ONE article that provides a favorable view on I.D. This only proves what I stated that Christian scientists, who might provide alternate explanations are being silence and discredited. This is happening with Climate Change. Same thing. If you don't believe in global warming, you're a "Climate Denier" and you will not be published. If you cannot publish, then you perish. Simple rule.

Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the Internet we wouldn't even hear about I.D from these scientists.

It is the height of logical inconsistency to admit on one hand that you don't understand the nuances of the issues involved, but on the other to all too firmly assert that the kick-back among the secular crowd "proves" that there is persecution.

No, I'm going to save the term "persecution" for when I see Christians being banished from their own countries of birth, beaten in the streets for their faith, sent to prison for expressing peaceably their faith, and/or martyred.

But to say that being criticized and prohibited from publishing in secular journals and book houses for particular reasons specific to science isn't really "persecution." For you to claim that it is is an inflation of the term. And additionally.....................and here's the kicker, EVEN IF secular scientists concede to the conceptual measures that some design is present here or there, those markers don't in any direct way point to the God of the Bible. As you should already know, Skeptics bring in the obvious counter explanation that, for all anyone knows, it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster(s) who came to earth and created the earliest life forms. (Skeptics love that Meme!!)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok. I've read the article you provided. There are some issues with the points that Mr. Singham's makes, but we'll just bat these points around and, quite frankly, I'm not an expert in the nuances of these issues.

My point is that those who are the experts, who could provide alternative views, are being silenced. I.D. people are not published in Physics Today so they can't respond to Mr. Singham's four points. Here is another article from Physics Today just a few months after they published Mr. Singham's article.

Intelligent Design Tangles Science and Religion​

Intelligent Design Tangles Science and Religion

Examination of humans and other life forms clearly shows that the designs in nature, although marvelous, are not intelligent. They show evidence of random mutat

pubs.aip.org

​

Again, the negative slant of connecting science and religion. At least since 2002, for twenty-two years, Physics Today has not published ONE article that provides a favorable view on I.D. This only proves what I stated that Christian scientists, who might provide alternate explanations are being silence and discredited. This is happening with Climate Change. Same thing. If you don't believe in global warming, you're a "Climate Denier" and you will not be published. If you cannot publish, then you perish. Simple rule.

Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the Internet we wouldn't even hear about I.D from these scientists.

And yes, I quickly read your return article by Jim A. Van Vechten. All it does is question the finality of atheistically leaning evolutionary theorizing; that same questioning is something I'm more than happy to do and always have done.

By the way, are you familiar with the difference between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism?

 

[HarleyER]

It is the height of logical inconsistency to admit on one hand that you don't understand the nuances of the issues involved, but on the other to all too firmly assert that the kick-back among the secular crowd "proves" that there is persecution.

No, I'm going to save the term "persecution" for when I see Christians being banished from their own countries of birth, beaten in the streets for their faith, sent to prison for expressing peaceably their faith, and/or martyred.

But to say that being criticized and prohibited from publishing in secular journals and book houses for particular reasons specific to science isn't really "persecution." For you to claim that it is is an inflation of the term. And additionally.....................and here's the kicker, EVEN IF secular scientists concede to the conceptual measures that some design is present here or there, those markers don't in any direct way point to the God of the Bible. As you should already know, Skeptics bring in the obvious counter explanation that, for all anyone knows, it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster(s) who came to earth and created the earliest life forms. (Skeptics love that Meme!!)

It's not inconsistent to say I don't believe in evolution based upon what a bunch of secular scientists tell me. I've been around the block. And even in your article, the author admits that they don't have all the answers but are making assumptions. And, yes, it is persecution if you cannot publish you will not be accepted into various groups or keep your job at universities. Livelihoods is at stake. It is no different than some Chinese who accept Christ who will lose their job and housing. History tells us Nicodemus was kicked out of the synagogue for simply believing in Christ. Same exact thing. This is what Christ warned us of.

I don't believe you can prove one way or the other in the existence of God through science and genetic markers. But to try to argue that genetics proves evolution, well, that's a total fabrication made up by "scientists" who can't even tell if a person is a boy or a girl. Perhaps if they looked at their DNA.

Unfortunately, Christians take this dribble as gospel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not inconsistent to say I don't believe in evolution based upon what a bunch of secular scientists tell me. I've been around the block. And even in your article, the author admits that they don't have all the answers but are making assumptions. And, yes, it is persecution if you cannot publish you will not be accepted into various groups or keep your job at universities. Livelihoods is at stake. It is no different than some Chinese who accept Christ who will lose their job and housing. History tells us Nicodemus was kicked out of the synagogue for simply believing in Christ. Same exact thing. This is what Christ warned us of.

I don't believe you can prove one way or the other in the existence of God through science and genetic markers. But to try to argue that genetics proves evolution, well, that's a total fabrication made up by "scientists" who can't even tell if a person is a boy or a girl. Perhaps if they looked at their DNA.

Unfortunately, Christians take this dribble as gospel.

And unfortunately, some Christians also think that the term "evolution" itself somehow conceptually PRECLUDES God's involvement, when it does no such thing. If they do so, it is often because they not only have a misconception about the term itself, but also as to how mainstream science works (by which I mean to refer to the application of Methodological Naturalism).

Anyway. The upshot of it all is this: personally, as a Christian, there is nothing in my theology requiring me to insist that other Christians interpret the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the same way I do. If other Christians read those chapters and feel the 'need' to interpret those more literally, then that's fine by me as long as they don't begin to start throwing mud balls at me. If they do, all I'll do in return is suggest some additional reading material (books or journal articles) they might engage and see if they can clearly refute it.

In fact, as a starter, I might suggest they read something like:

Hoffmeier, James K., Gordon John Wenham, and Kenton Sparks. Genesis: History, fiction, or neither?: Three views on the Bible’s earliest chapters. Zondervan Academic, 2015.​

 

[sfs]

You say you're a follower of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I take you at your word. But what exactly are you basing your faith on? A flawed document that you believe might not be true in spots?

Ultimately, I'm basing it on God. I take the Bible seriously because it points me to God, even though yes, it's a flawed document -- I don't believe in God because of some kind of prior faith in the Bible. What would be the basis for that faith? That certainly doesn't resemble Biblical notions of faith. When gentile responded to Paul's preaching and started to follow Christ, what were they basing their faith on? On an infallible book, or on the preaching of a fallible human?

If we want to believe it's like "Of Mice and Men" or "Great Expectations", or even the Book of Mormons, then we have nothing to base our faith on.

Those are the only two choices you see? Inerrant or fiction? You've never learned anything important from a fallible but pretty accurate book?

 

[HarleyER]

Ultimately, I'm basing it on God. I take the Bible seriously because it points me to God, even though yes, it's a flawed document -- I don't believe in God because of some kind of prior faith in the Bible. What would be the basis for that faith? That certainly doesn't resemble Biblical notions of faith. When gentile responded to Paul's preaching and started to follow Christ, what were they basing their faith on? On an infallible book, or on the preaching of a fallible human?

Those are the only two choices you see? Inerrant or fiction? You've never learned anything important from a fallible but pretty accurate book?

I certainly learned a lot from this conversation.

 

[HarleyER]

And unfortunately, some Christians also think that the term "evolution" itself somehow conceptually PRECLUDES God's involvement, when it does no such thing. If they do so, it is often because they not only have a misconception about the term itself, but also as to how mainstream science works (by which I mean to refer to the application of Methodological Naturalism).

Anyway. The upshot of it all is this: personally, as a Christian, there is nothing in my theology requiring me to insist that other Christians interpret the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the same way I do. If other Christians read those chapters and feel the 'need' to interpret those more literally, then that's fine by me as long as they don't begin to start throwing mud balls at me. If they do, all I'll do in return is suggest some additional reading material (books or journal articles) they might engage and see if they can clearly refute it.

In fact, as a starter, I might suggest they read something like:

Hoffmeier, James K., Gordon John Wenham, and Kenton Sparks. Genesis: History, fiction, or neither?: Three views on the Bible’s earliest chapters. Zondervan Academic, 2015.​

Is this one of the books you recommend? It is no wonder you hold the views you do. I find it difficult to read material by writers like Sparks (one of the three views) who doesn't believe there was a Garden of Eden, no tree of life, no world wide flood, etc. It boggles my mind how Christians can simply disregard or dismiss parts of the scriptures as myths or stories made up. It is no wonder Christianity is in the state it is in when Christians doesn't know what God states.

Here is a review of this book by The Gospel Coalition-hardly a radical publication.

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters​

by JASON S. DEROUCHIE​

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters

There is no true Christian unity apart from common surrender to the historic Jesus of Scripture. And this Jesus affirmed the historicity of Genesis 1–11.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Unfortunately, a young earth model is not included in the three views.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is this one of the books you recommend? It is no wonder you hold the views you do. I find it difficult to read material by writers like Sparks (one of the three views) who doesn't believe there was a Garden of Eden, no tree of life, no world wide flood, etc. It boggles my mind how Christians can simply disregard or dismiss parts of the scriptures as myths or stories made up. It is no wonder Christianity is in the state it is in when Christians doesn't know what God states.

Here is a review of this book by The Gospel Coalition-hardly a radical publication.

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters​

by JASON S. DEROUCHIE​

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters

There is no true Christian unity apart from common surrender to the historic Jesus of Scripture. And this Jesus affirmed the historicity of Genesis 1–11.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Unfortunately, a young earth model is not included in the three views.

Yes, that is one of the Christian books among dozens upon dozens upon dozens I have, or have read, that I recommend.

What I find funny is that you say you think it is no wonder I hold the views I do, when you don't know the half of it. Fellow Christians who have a penchant to criticize and "warn others about me" should really be thanking the Lord that I'm not an anti-christian atheist. With as much as I know, I'd be one of the worst ones if I were. As it is, I live and let live as long as other Christians don't start punking me. If they do, then they should know not to swim in the intellectual ocean of education ...

But as it is, and in a similar fashion to what @sfs has stated in his latest posts just above, Jesus still worked in my life to bring me to Him, even if I have a very different Epistemological outlook on how the Bible is to be assessed as historical and as to how it can even "be" the Word of God.

So, with that, I'll just say, be blessed in your own faith in Christ and maybe, if you get a chance, consider putting a dash of Romans 14 salt on the issue of Evolution.

 

[sfs]

Note that none of this has anything to do with evolution. I accept evolution because it is by far the best explanation for a wide range of empirical data. I don't think the Bible is inerrant or expresses a single theology because I've read the Bible. One can believe in an inerrant Bible and still accept evolution.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Note that none of this has anything to do with evolution. I accept evolution because it is by far the best explanation for a wide range of empirical data. I don't think the Bible is inerrant or expresses a single theology because I've read the Bible. One can believe in an inerrant Bible and still accept evolution.

And I would say the same thing as you.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

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

After reading your points about what you believe Evolutionary Creationism is based upon, I would say you hit the nail on the head. I don't see anything I disagree with. Not that I'm a expert in the Evolutionary Creationism subject but these points are the same as my belief of Evolutionary Creationism. I will point out though that archeologist, historians, paleontologist and of evolutionist always point out that the reason they can't absolutely state that Darwinian Evolution is a fact is because they don't have enough of the fossil record to prove it. They say alot of the fossils don't exist because the environment was not right to create them. They need to dig up more fossils that would prove their theory. Until then, it's just a theory.

So unlike Darwinian Evolution which could be totally rewritten if some unknown fossils are dug up that put a serious obstacle in their theory, Evolutionary Creationism plays it safe for those "anything can happen" scenarios. Evolutionary Creationist can handle Darwinian Evolution, Six Day Creation Theory, Alien Creation Theory, God Creation Theory and any other type of creation theory. So my point being for this last section is - be awake because "anything CAN happen" and know what side is the right (God's) side to be on.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is this one of the books you recommend? It is no wonder you hold the views you do. I find it difficult to read material by writers like Sparks (one of the three views) who doesn't believe there was a Garden of Eden, no tree of life, no world wide flood, etc. It boggles my mind how Christians can simply disregard or dismiss parts of the scriptures as myths or stories made up. It is no wonder Christianity is in the state it is in when Christians doesn't know what God states.

Here is a review of this book by The Gospel Coalition-hardly a radical publication.

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters​

by JASON S. DEROUCHIE​

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters

There is no true Christian unity apart from common surrender to the historic Jesus of Scripture. And this Jesus affirmed the historicity of Genesis 1–11.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Unfortunately, a young earth model is not included in the three views.

Right. ................ and there's a number of reasons why a young earth model is not included in this specific book, mainly because it's not a book about evolutionary issues. Apparently, you didn't notice this necessary point before you "wrote it off" and made a hasty conclusion about what you thought its contents are. You failed to consider the context of "why" this is the case, which is strange because I'd think that for someone intelligent like yourself, the contexts should be clear.

In other words, this Three Views book on the nature of the writing of the book of Genesis is a book about critical literary and historical analysis, and it is not addressing the same topic (the earth sciences) that other books in the same series by the same publisher address, with those other books being:

Moreland, James Porter, and John Mark Reynolds. Three views on creation and evolution. Zondervan, 1999.​

​

Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah Haarsma, Stephen C. Meyer, and Stanley N. Gundry. Four views on creation, evolution, and intelligent design. Zondervan Academic, 2017.​

​

Both of the additional books above DO have representatives of Young Earth Creationism. So, it's time for you to reassess your evaluations about the books I'm suggesting you pay attention to.

 

[sfs]

I will point out though that archeologist, historians, paleontologist and of evolutionist always point out that the reason they can't absolutely state that Darwinian Evolution is a fact is because they don't have enough of the fossil record to prove it. They say alot of the fossils don't exist because the environment was not right to create them. They need to dig up more fossils that would prove their theory. Until then, it's just a theory.

I realize that this is old, but I missed it before. I'm afraid you have a mistaken understanding of the situation. First, much the best evidence for common descent (which is what is usually meant by 'evolution' around here) comes from genetics, not from fossils. Other evidence comes from biogeogrphy (the geographic distribution of species) and from comparative anatomy and physiology. Second, you misunderstand what scientists mean by a theory. It doesn't mean that the idea is unproven -- it just means that it's an explanation for some set of observations. Common descent explains a huge range of observations from multiple fields of science, which means it's a theory. It's also a fact that all known species are descendants of some small set of ancestral life forms. (In the same way, the germ theory of disease explains a lot of observations about infectious diseases, so it's a theory -- but it's also a fact that germs cause disease.)