Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by Marvin Knox
"Any system of belief concerning origins that includes death and pain existing before the fall of the first Adam is spiritually bankrupt."

Spiritual death, to be sure. But not physical death. That would be absurd since, even in the literal reading, there was cell death and plant death before the Fall.

Where does it say anything about cell and plant death before the Fall - much less the death of animals and humans (or would it be hominids or some such drivel?)?

Originally Posted by Marvin Knox
"Theistic evolution is not acceptable to a Bible believing Christian on so many levels they should be evident to anyone with the Spirit of God indwelling them IMO."

So... logically, there shouldn't be any Bible-believing TEs. And yet there are! You've made a mistake, somewhere.

I said that this kind of compromise in doctrine is not acceptable.

Ideally, there should be no one who so compromises correct doctrine - because the Bible is very clear that the truth is otherwise.

Because of liberal compromise with the ideas of the world there are indeed those who believe T.E.

That is unacceptable to God IMO.

I didn't make a mistake. People who compromised by believing T.E. make the mistake.

Some compromise on a number of doctrines. Those things include such things as abortion and homosexuality.

Those compromisers are in my terminology "liberals". They bring the plain words from God's word into line with what the world teaches. They may do this to fit in. They may do it because they believe that the world's view is more correct than the plain teaching of God's Word.

Either way it is liberalism running amuck in the Church of God IMO.

T.E. and other compromises with the evolutionary thought of the world is just the same. It is liberalism on display in Christ's body and it ought not to be.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally Posted by Marvin Knox
"Any system of belief concerning origins that includes death and pain existing before the fall of the first Adam is spiritually bankrupt."



Where does it say anything about cell and plant death before the Fall - much less the death of animals and humans (or would it be hominids or some such drivel?)?

Originally Posted by Marvin Knox
"Theistic evolution is not acceptable to a Bible believing Christian on so many levels they should be evident to anyone with the Spirit of God indwelling them IMO."

They were permitted to eat of the various trees in the garden, including the Tree of Life. That's cell and plant death. Besides that, the death they died was enabled by restricting them from the Tree of Life. The natural reading of the text says that they were mortal apart from that tree. Last, even though the curse for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was that they would die that day, they clearly didn't physically die, that day. They went on to have children and died hundreds of years later.

This all seems very plain, like it ought to be common ground between the various interpretations. Maybe there are nuances I'm missing?

I said that this kind of compromise in doctrine is not acceptable.

Ideally, there should be no one who so compromises correct doctrine - because the Bible is very clear that the truth is otherwise.

Because of liberal compromise with the ideas of the world there are indeed those who believe T.E.

That is unacceptable to God IMO.

I didn't make a mistake. People who compromised by believing T.E. make the mistake.

Some compromise on a number of doctrines. Those things include such things as abortion and homosexuality.

Those compromisers are in my terminology "liberals". They bring the plain words from God's word into line with what the world teaches. They may do this to fit in. They may do it because they believe that the world's view is more correct than the plain teaching of God's Word.

Either way it is liberalism running amuck in the Church of God IMO.

T.E. and other compromises with the evolutionary thought of the world is just the same. It is liberalism on display in Christ's body and it ought not to be.

It's not a compromise in doctrine. In what way is TE a compromise?
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It's not a compromise in doctrine. In what way is TE a compromise?
It's not something you find as plain sense in the scripture.

The plain sense teaches something else.

You have to bring a theory you learned from the world into the scripture to come up with something like TE.

Lots of people who bring the worlds reasoning into the scriptures can "make it fit". Many with sound doctrine can't prove them wrong exactly These people can even make compelling arguments for the sense of it all.

But it is not what the scripture teaches plainly and when interpreted only with itself.

You are interpreting scripture against what is the plain sense and you are interpreting it by what you learned from the teachers of your adopted theory.

As I have said from the beginning. Knock yourself out if you can't manage the faith to believe exactly what scripture teaches.

I just wouldn't teach it to someone else since then you will incur the more harsh judgment due to those who teach.

That's the way I see things anyway.

I am unconvinced by evolutionary evidence.

I'm perfectly happy with what the Bible teaches plainly.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's not something you find as plain sense in the scripture.

The plain sense teaches something else.

You have to bring a theory you learned from the world into the scripture to come up with something like TE.

Lots of people who bring the worlds reasoning into the scriptures can "make it fit". Many with sound doctrine can't prove them wrong exactly These people can even make compelling arguments for the sense of it all.

But it is not what the scripture teaches plainly and when interpreted only with itself.

You are interpreting scripture against what is the plain sense and you are interpreting it by what you learned from the teachers of your adopted theory.

As I have said from the beginning. Knock yourself out if you can't manage the faith to believe exactly what scripture teaches.

I just wouldn't teach it to someone else since then you will incur the more harsh judgment due to those who teach.

That's the way I see things anyway.

I am unconvinced by evolutionary evidence.

I'm perfectly happy with what the Bible teaches plainly.

TE is contrary to your interpretation of Genesis, but it is unrelated to mine. By unrelated I mean that if evolution were overturned tomorrow, my interpretation of Genesis would remain the same as it is now.

Again, it's worth observing that your interpretation of Genesis seems less "plain" than mine. You don't accept physical death before the transgression, even though it's pretty unambiguous. To someone who came to the text anew, the plain reading would tell them the death described in the text is spiritual. This is also more consistent with Paul's discussion of life and death in his letters.

What you're saying sounds pious, and (as I said before) I have no doubt you sincerely believe what you are saying, but you're making stuff up to make the gospel harder than it is. This is a sort of, "who can believe the weirdest thing?" contest and calling that "stronger faith." How does the passage about teachers impact that?
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
TE is contrary to your interpretation of Genesis, but it is unrelated to mine. By unrelated I mean that if evolution were overturned tomorrow, my interpretation of Genesis would remain the same as it is now.

Again, it's worth observing that your interpretation of Genesis seems less "plain" than mine. You don't accept physical death before the transgression, even though it's pretty unambiguous. To someone who came to the text anew, the plain reading would tell them the death described in the text is spiritual. This is also more consistent with Paul's discussion of life and death in his letters.

What you're saying sounds pious, and (as I said before) I have no doubt you sincerely believe what you are saying, but you're making stuff up to make the gospel harder than it is. This is a sort of, "who can believe the weirdest thing?" contest and calling that "stronger faith." How does the passage about teachers impact that?


I say that TE is not a concept that comes natural to the narrative in Genesis.

I say that those who teach it brought it into the narrative from what they learned in the world.

I don't see the death of animals or man in the story at all. I see that God wanted man to live forever and He made provision for that to be the case. It was as a result of the fall that that provision was taken away because of sin - not before. Of course the immediate death was spiritual. No one says otherwise. But the result was a curse that passed the necessity of physical death down to all men.

Of course perhaps you believe that there is an evolutionary path to the man Adam. I don't really know about your beliefs there. If that is the case it goes against the clear narrative even more than anything I could come up with.

If you bring the world's theories into the Bible and change the plain sense of the words - it has the effect of undermining the authority of scripture as it stands.

Somewhere down the line it will effect one's literal view of the authority of scripture concerning other things like gay issues and abortion issues. Things that really matter are eventually at stake - things concerning salvation sooner or later.

It is largely in regard to that tendency toward natural liberal flow that I believe the real danger lies.

You and I are at the point where we must agree to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I say that TE is not a concept that comes natural to the narrative in Genesis.

I say that those who teach it brought it into the narrative from what they learned in the world.

I don't see the death of animals or man in the story at all. I see that God wanted man to live forever and He made provision for that to be the case. It was as a result of the fall that that provision was taken away because of sin - not before. Of course the immediate death was spiritual. No one says otherwise. But the result was a curse that passed the necessity of physical death down to all men.

Of course perhaps you believe that there is an evolutionary path to the man Adam. I don't really know about your beliefs there. If that is the case it goes against the clear narrative even more than anything I could come up with.

If you bring the world's theories into the Bible and change the plain sense of the words - it has the effect of undermining the authority of scripture as it stands.

Somewhere down the line it will effect one's literal view of the authority of scripture concerning other things like gay issues and abortion issues. Things that really matter are eventually at stake - things concerning salvation sooner or later.

It is largely in regard to that tendency toward natural liberal flow that I believe the real danger lies.

You and I are at the point where we must agree to disagree.

Well, as I said before, my TE-ness has nothing to do with my interpretation of Genesis. I don't think very much of your post applies.

However, you have said that you don't see death of animals or men in the story. Does this mean you have changed your perspective on cell and plant death?

Beyond that, recall that one of my points applied to humans and animals: the Tree of Life. It seems like such a blatant part of the story, and God seems so concerned that it be withheld from the people after they sin -- like it had something to do with their immortality. You don't see human or animal death as part of the design of the world, but I'm not clear how you have gotten around the Tree of Life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

2consider

Active Member
Sep 2, 2015
143
66
63
✟11,120.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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
1. If you can't believe the Genesis account, then you really can't believe anything the bible says.

2 Actually the bible does mention these things. From parallel universe to the fact that everything is made from subatomic particles invisible to the naked eye, it's all in the Bible.


3. These are not compatible. The bible makes it clear that we are a special creation, and that god is a personal god. Evolution counters the idea that we are a special creation and that god is a personal god.

4. Natural processes are the creation of god.

5. See #4

6. Why do I care what B.B. Warfield accepts? Not all creationists are fall into the two categories. I happen to be Libertarian.

7. Darwin was wrong, or so it seems. With so little scientific evidence for evolution, why would anyone be an evolutionist of any type?
 
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,011
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟38,822.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I like the general trend of this thread.

I'm not sure where these 'go' but a couple contributions:

Even Creationists when doing arithmetic: They NEVER say "God says 2 + 2 = 4"

My observation: God cannot be seen in a test tube or equation. Which does not qualify as evidence of non-existence.
 
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,011
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟38,822.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
1. If you can't believe the Genesis account, then you really can't believe anything the bible says.
Just so I know, is this the old threat that I'm going to Hell if I don't accept what you say?

Just checking; I've been told this before; God does not corroborate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

2consider

Active Member
Sep 2, 2015
143
66
63
✟11,120.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don't have any say on whether you go to hell or not, so it isn't about what I say.

As for the rest of your response, it seems totally senseless. Nothing in the comment you quoted do I mention going to hell, so there's a disconnect here. No one has threatened you, or at least I haven't. But I don't know the sanity or intelligence of the people you associate with, so who knows what you've been told.

You say you've been told this before, what have you been told before? The subject of your comment is completely missing.
I can tell you this, belief in creation won't save you, and belief in evolution won't send you to hell. If this is what you've been threatened with, they were wrong.

I didn't tell you anything, I asked a question. The question that you quoted was, if you can't believe the genesis account, can you really believe anything the bible says. That question is in part to remind people, we don't have the right to pick and choose which parts of the bible we're going to believe. If I can't accept that the genesis account is accurate, then can I accept that Jesus died for my sins? How could I know which parts to believe and which not to believe.

If someone lies to you, trust is weakened. To the best of my knowledge, there are no lies in the bible, but I know with 100% certainty (some) scientists lie. I know with 100% certainty, some of what was presented as fact in textbooks was incorrect. I also know with 100% certainty, the people that decide what goes into textbooks know what they are printing is incorrect. I should exchange a book with no discernible lies for a book with verifiable falsehoods printed in it?
 
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

jamesbond007

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 26, 2018
1,080
280
Sacramento
✟118,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well, as I said before, my TE-ness has nothing to

do with my interpretation of Genesis. I don't think very much of your post applies.

However, you have said that you don't see death of animals or men in the story. Does this mean you have changed your perspective on cell and plant death?

Beyond that, recall that one of my points applied to humans and animals: the Tree of Life. It seems like such a blatant part of the story, and God seems so concerned that it be withheld from the people after they sin -- like it had something to do with their immortality. You don't see human or animal death as part of the design of the world, but I'm not clear how you have gotten around the Tree of Life.

>>W: They were permitted to eat of the various trees in the garden, including the Tree of Life. That's cell and plant death. Besides that, the death they died was enabled by restricting them from the Tree of Life.<<

Death by being eaten is different from death from longevity. Adam and Eve were permitted to eat fruits, vegetables and meat by dominion. I don't think they were even allowed to die by accident, but we don't exactly know how. We don't know in detail how paradise worked except it was a beautiful, wonderful garden created by God the creator.
 
Upvote 0

frogoon234

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2019
476
72
Lexington Park
✟5,839.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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

Maybe i misread something you wrote. But a couple of Christian's i know including Hank Henigraff believe in an old earth and i believe the KJV, Arabic (NAV) and the hebrew Bible have enough flexibility in the language used to allow for this. I don't believe the Genesis stories have to be dismissed as parables. Does that seem plausible to you? Perhaps i'll reread your post to see if i missed something. I also believe evolution does not necessarily contradict the KJV (and it doesn't necesarily confirm it either).
 
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

I am a theistic evolutionist and I DO take the Genesis creation stories as history. I agree with the YECs that ditching historicity is a big mistake. If we make everything that makes us uncomfortable ahistorical, then why not do that to the resurrection, which is the most uncomfortable thing in Scripture? I disagree with the young-earthers where they tie the word of God to a false view of science.

I take the view that the Genesis 1 are days of proclamation. God proclaimed what the creation would be like, but didn't actually create things at that moment. Genesis 1 was the pre-temporal planning for the universe. Each proclamation has the statement 'and it was so'. That phrase was added by the human writer. For instance. God didn't say "Let there be light and it was so." He said, "Let there be light" and the writer told his readers, "and it was so" and thus the actualization of these proclamations could be billions of years after the big bang--which began with energy.

Genesis 2 is billions of years after Gen 1 and I believe God took an evolved ape and turned him into Adam and Eve.

2. Evolutionary creationists do not believe that biological evolution is mentioned in the Scriptures; it isn't.

I believe it is. When the Bible says: "Let the earth produce living creatures" is precisely referencing evolution. If say, "let my son mow the lawn" I am not the one mowing the lawn; he is. Similarly when God orders the earth to produce living animals, it is the earth doing the work (yes, at the order of God), and this sure sounds like what evolution did. The earth produced living creatures. That most of us would agree on.

7. Evolutionary creationists do not hold the works of science or scientists to be inscrutable, absolute truth.

I have heard this far too many times over the years. The problem I have with this statement is that my fellow theistic evolutionists never seem to actually disagree with anything science says. To say it isn't absolute truth is a throwaway position in my view because it costs nothing and you can still believe everything that science claims. I remember asking a Christian TE who was a strong advocate of anthropogenic global warming what would happen if you put a thermometer above an airconditioner exhaust fan, where all the hot air comes out. His adherence to the popular view would not let him say that the thermometer temperature would rise. Why? Because I had shown him picture after picture of national weather service thermometer stations next to airconditioning exhaust fans! If he admitted that, he would have to re-think his climate warming belief. Yes, this isn't an issue of theistic evolution so here is one.

In the 1990s, I presented on the ASA list loads of comparative anatomy data supporting the idea that Neanderthals interbred with early modern humans in Europe. At that time, the prevailing view was that there was no Neanderthal-human interbreeding and not a single TE I knew would go along with the bone data--all of them believing that Neanderthals were not human. DNA data proved what the bone data showed, but what I learned was that too many TE's are trying to please their fellow scientists rather than actually following the data. In this regard, I don't think TE is that much different than YEC. I will say a couple of people with long memories have emailed me over the past few years to say that I had been correct. that made me feel bad actually. Why is it that so many TE's won't say much more than what is the theory du jour?
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
63
LOS ANGELES
✟11,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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


". 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."

If you take them seriously, why the need to change what the Scriptures clearly say just in order to please Atheists? The Atheists just love people who side with them and attack the word of God.. Genesis clearly says that God created the universe and all that is in it in 6 literal 24 hour days, there are ZERO Hebrew Scholars who dispute that fact.. There are over 100 examples of scientific evidence that support God's word as written in Genesis (He was the only one there!) so why the need to change it? It clearly says that God created everything to being forth after its kind Right from the beginning.. Why the need to be an Oval-Earther?

Age of the earth - creation.com


"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist


"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.
Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth,


"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—
the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).


"The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.'"

Frank Zindler
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
63
LOS ANGELES
✟11,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am a theistic evolutionist and I DO take the Genesis creation stories as history. I agree with the YECs that ditching historicity is a big mistake. If we make everything that makes us uncomfortable ahistorical, then why not do that to the resurrection, which is the most uncomfortable thing in Scripture? I disagree with the young-earthers where they tie the word of God to a false view of science.

I take the view that the Genesis 1 are days of proclamation. God proclaimed what the creation would be like, but didn't actually create things at that moment. Genesis 1 was the pre-temporal planning for the universe. Each proclamation has the statement 'and it was so'. That phrase was added by the human writer. For instance. God didn't say "Let there be light and it was so." He said, "Let there be light" and the writer told his readers, "and it was so" and thus the actualization of these proclamations could be billions of years after the big bang--which began with energy.

Genesis 2 is billions of years after Gen 1 and I believe God took an evolved ape and turned him into Adam and Eve.



I believe it is. When the Bible says: "Let the earth produce living creatures" is precisely referencing evolution. If say, "let my son mow the lawn" I am not the one mowing the lawn; he is. Similarly when God orders the earth to produce living animals, it is the earth doing the work (yes, at the order of God), and this sure sounds like what evolution did. The earth produced living creatures. That most of us would agree on.



I have heard this far too many times over the years. The problem I have with this statement is that my fellow theistic evolutionists never seem to actually disagree with anything science says. To say it isn't absolute truth is a throwaway position in my view because it costs nothing and you can still believe everything that science claims. I remember asking a Christian TE who was a strong advocate of anthropogenic global warming what would happen if you put a thermometer above an airconditioner exhaust fan, where all the hot air comes out. His adherence to the popular view would not let him say that the thermometer temperature would rise. Why? Because I had shown him picture after picture of national weather service thermometer stations next to airconditioning exhaust fans! If he admitted that, he would have to re-think his climate warming belief. Yes, this isn't an issue of theistic evolution so here is one.

In the 1990s, I presented on the ASA list loads of comparative anatomy data supporting the idea that Neanderthals interbred with early modern humans in Europe. At that time, the prevailing view was that there was no Neanderthal-human interbreeding and not a single TE I knew would go along with the bone data--all of them believing that Neanderthals were not human. DNA data proved what the bone data showed, but what I learned was that too many TE's are trying to please their fellow scientists rather than actually following the data. In this regard, I don't think TE is that much different than YEC. I will say a couple of people with long memories have emailed me over the past few years to say that I had been correct. that made me feel bad actually. Why is it that so many TE's won't say much more than what is the theory du jour?

" I disagree with the young-earthers where they tie the word of God to a false view of science."

Could you please give a few examples of "False View of Science" That Less-Old Earth Creationists hold?

Here are 100 examples of scientific evidence to support Less Old Earth Creationism (LOEC)

6 - 10 thousand years is a LONG time!

Age of the earth - creation.com
 
Last edited:
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

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
63
LOS ANGELES
✟11,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe i misread something you wrote. But a couple of Christian's i know including Hank Henigraff believe in an old earth and i believe the KJV, Arabic (NAV) and the hebrew Bible have enough flexibility in the language used to allow for this. I don't believe the Genesis stories have to be dismissed as parables. Does that seem plausible to you? Perhaps i'll reread your post to see if i missed something. I also believe evolution does not necessarily contradict the KJV (and it doesn't necesarily confirm it either).

"I also believe evolution does not necessarily contradict the KJV"

I guess it depends of what the word "Evolution" means..

If it means that all flora and fauna on planet Earth slowly descended from a single common ancestor
over the course of 3 billion years that somehow emerged from dead matter (TOE) then It seem to contradict Genesis completely in nearly every way imaginable doesnt it?

A lot of people use the word "evolution" to describe the phenomenon of Variation Adaptation or Speciation which is what man has always observed
(Scientific Method) of which the genetic information was already present in the genomes of each and every created kinds from the beginning..

But that is not Evolution.. There is no such thing as biological evolution, it is a fairytale straight from the prince of the power of the air himself..

WWW.EVOLUTIONFAIRYTALE.COM
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
63
LOS ANGELES
✟11,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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


"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."

This appears to be nothing more than a galactic sized straw man.. Here are more for the collection!

Just because the word Leprechaun isnt in the Bible doesnt mean that Leprechauns dont exist!

Just because it doesnt say in the Bible that the moon is made of green cheese doesnt mean it ISNT!!

This is just a distraction... The only thing that matter is what God SAID about the creation of the universe..

It clearly says in Genesis that God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days.. That leaves the fairytale of Evolutionism OUT in the cold...

BTW. All of the scientific evidence supports Gods word as well..
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
63
LOS ANGELES
✟11,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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


"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."

Then I guess EVERYTHING is compatible with "EC" !! Why not simply believe Gods word the way it was written? That God created man in his own image during the same creation week consisting of 6 literal 24 hour days? Why the need to monkey around with Gods holy word by inventing various "Planet of the Apes" science fiction novels about "long ago and far away" just to please Atheists? Besides, there is no evidence to support the fairytale of Evolutionism so why the need to believe it?
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
63
LOS ANGELES
✟11,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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

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.

"4. Evolutionary creationists believe that God is equally capable of creating through natural processes like evolution as He is through supernatural ones"

Highly IRRELEVANT!! It matters ZERO what Gods capabilities" are!! (Omnipotence) All that DOES matter is how God SAID he created the universe and ultimately man! (Incidentally, all of the scientific evidence happens to support Gods word as well!!

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)
 
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

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
63
LOS ANGELES
✟11,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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

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.

The whole fairytale of Evolutionism has ZERO to do with science so when you claim that you dont hold a "scientific position" you are severely understating the situation. When you claim that some "god" used evolution, surely it is some other "god" then the Judeo Christian God of the Bible as The God of the Bible claims to have created EVERYTHING in 6 literal 24 hour days... That leaves no time for evolution....

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)
 
Upvote 0