Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

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

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.

Completely irrelevant to anything...

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

More irrelevancy....

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."

(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Edwin Wright
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
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.
On the other hand, neither can science demonstrate that it knows how life evolved.
 
Upvote 0

SkovandOfMitzae

Active Member
Apr 17, 2022
257
70
35
Southeastern USA
✟8,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
On the other hand, neither can science demonstrate that it knows how life evolved.

are you referring to abiogenesis or to basal forms ever changing due to genetic mutations and divergent traits?
 
Upvote 0

SkovandOfMitzae

Active Member
Apr 17, 2022
257
70
35
Southeastern USA
✟8,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
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.

Completely irrelevant to anything...

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

More irrelevancy....

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."

(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)
Why are those things irrelevant to the discussion?
 
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
are you referring to abiogenesis or to basal forms ever changing due to genetic mutations and divergent traits?
I talking about any (alleged) evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. No one can know how any of those transitions took place ... therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works.
 
Upvote 0

SkovandOfMitzae

Active Member
Apr 17, 2022
257
70
35
Southeastern USA
✟8,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
I talking about any (alleged) evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. No one can know how any of those transitions took place ... therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works.

i guess I just don’t see the logic in that. We see the development of morphological divergence between evolving species that also just happens to align with the right geological strata which is further supported by the genetic tree of life.
So when we do something like work backwards towards a specific place, and then work through their layers we see the relationships. Same way we do with living species.

For example when I look at other humans I can tell we see species . When I look at Neanderthals I can tell they are closely related species in the same genus as us. When I look at a chimpanzee I can see a lot of physical and social similarities. When we do genetic studies we see a lot of the same stuff. We even see specific genes that we share. Then when I look at monkeys I can see we see similar, but a bit different. I notice they have tails but we and chimps don’t. I also notice we have a tail bins. Then when I look at something like dogs I can tell we are not that closely related. But we are both mammals. Plenty of scientific evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
i guess I just don’t see the logic in that. We see the development of morphological divergence between evolving species that also just happens to align with the right geological strata which is further supported by the genetic tree of life.
So when we do something like work backwards towards a specific place, and then work through their layers we see the relationships. Same way we do with living species.

For example when I look at other humans I can tell we see species . When I look at Neanderthals I can tell they are closely related species in the same genus as us. When I look at a chimpanzee I can see a lot of physical and social similarities. When we do genetic studies we see a lot of the same stuff. We even see specific genes that we share. Then when I look at monkeys I can see we see similar, but a bit different. I notice they have tails but we and chimps don’t. I also notice we have a tail bins. Then when I look at something like dogs I can tell we are not that closely related. But we are both mammals. Plenty of scientific evidence.
You don't seem to understand my argument. I"m not disputing the evidence for evolution.
My argument is that no one can know what process produced any of the (alleged) macro-evolutionary transitions in the fossil record (eg, how novel organs and body plans evolved) ... and therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You don't seem to understand my argument. I"m not disputing the evidence for evolution.
My argument is that no one can know what process produced any of the (alleged) macro-evolutionary transitions in the fossil record (eg, how novel organs and body plans evolved) ... and therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works.

We have a fair understanding of how some body parts and organs evolved. I'd recommend Neil Shubins book "some assembly required" for his discussion on the evolution of lungs from swim bladders. The evolution of heart chamber division has been observed in species of annelids (meaning that a heart evolving from one chamber to two is a matter of evolving a valve which separates the two). And some reptiles basically have 2.5 chambers and they themselves are transitions between 2 and 3 chambered hearts.

But I would moreover consider the fact that most animals already share the same organs. For example, birds evolved from reptiles, but both birds and reptiles already have things like feathers and beaks, and lungs and hearts and 4 limbs etc. Consider the difference between an archaeopteryx (bird) and a velociraptor.
View attachment 318547

It's not hard to see how a reptile could evolve to become a bird when the two are actually nearly identical to one another at one stage of earth history. Reptiles on the left of the above image, birds on the right.

Amphibians evolved from fish, but amphibians and fish already share most features, such as lungs (yes some fish have lungs), gills (amphibians oftentimes have gills), even limbs such as coelacanths and other lobe finned fish actually have hand bones. Etc.

And so to evolve from a fish to amphibian, or amphibian to reptile or reptile to bird, actually doesn't require the evolution of new organs. Rather it more simply requires the adjusting of shape and size of features that already exist.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We have a fair understanding of how some body parts and organs evolved. I'd recommend Neil Shubins book "some assembly required" for his discussion on the evolution of lungs from swim bladders. The evolution of heart chamber division has been observed in species of annelids (meaning that a heart evolving from one chamber to two is a matter of evolving a valve which separates the two). And some reptiles basically have 2.5 chambers and they themselves are transitions between 2 and 3 chambered hearts.

But I would moreover consider the fact that most animals already share the same organs. For example, birds evolved from reptiles, but both birds and reptiles already have things like feathers and beaks, and lungs and hearts and 4 limbs etc. Consider the difference between an archaeopteryx (bird) and a velociraptor.
Screenshot_20220520-224126~2.png


It's not hard to see how a reptile could evolve to become a bird when the two are actually nearly identical to one another at one stage of earth history. Reptiles on the left of the above image, birds on the right.

Amphibians evolved from fish, but amphibians and fish already share most features, such as lungs (yes some fish have lungs), gills (amphibians oftentimes have gills), even limbs such as coelacanths and other lobe finned fish actually have hand bones. Etc.

And so to evolve from a fish to amphibian, or amphibian to reptile or reptile to bird, actually doesn't require the evolution of new organs. Rather it more simply requires the adjusting of shape and size of features that already exist.

Screenshot_20220520-224126~2.png


Reptiles on left, birds on right. How unreasonable is it that reptiles could evolve into birds if the two really are nearly indistinguishable in the Mesozoic? No new organs necessary.

Same with fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal etc.
 
Upvote 0

Edwin Wright

Active Member
Mar 23, 2023
225
16
Nova Scotia
Visit site
✟19,889.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
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
I believe that the antidote to theistic evolutionism is Saint Tomas Aquinas (see Teilhard de Chardin Refuted by Saint Thomas Aquinas). In terms of a contemporary antidote to evolutionism in general, check out the ribosome (see Evolution Refuted by the Ribosme).
 
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

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I believe that the antidote to theistic evolutionism is Saint Tomas Aquinas (see Teilhard de Chardin Refuted by Saint Thomas Aquinas). In terms of a contemporary antidote to evolutionism in general, check out the ribosome (see Evolution Refuted by the Ribosme).
I checked it out. I see a claim that irreducibly complex systems could not have arisen by the gradual addition of parts, which is incorrect. I also see a suggestion that the ribosome could not have started as purely RNA with no evidence to support that suggestion. Since many who accept theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism are happy to accept an initial miraculous creation of life, the entire argument seems beside the point.
 
Upvote 0

Edwin Wright

Active Member
Mar 23, 2023
225
16
Nova Scotia
Visit site
✟19,889.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I checked it out. I see a claim that irreducibly complex systems could not have arisen by the gradual addition of parts, which is incorrect. I also see a suggestion that the ribosome could not have started as purely RNA with no evidence to support that suggestion. Since many who accept theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism are happy to accept an initial miraculous creation of life, the entire argument seems beside the point.
Irreducibly complex systems by definition could not have arisen by the gradual addition of parts, and in Darwin's own words, the existence of any such biological system admonishes his theory. The ribosome is such a biological system. The onus is on evolutionists to provide evidence that the ribosome could have started without protein, since it is the evolutionists that are making these fantastic claims. Evolutionists make these ridiculous claims based on time periods that are outside the reach of the scientific method by more orders of magnitude than I can count. Evolutionism is not science. Neither evolutionism nor theistic evolutionism has any scriptural basis. I suggest you re-read those web pages. Don't forget: "The (so-called) non-ribosomal peptides are synthesized by catalytic proteins (i.e., enzymes) known as non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs) that are in turn (like proteins) synthesized by ribosomes." That is reality. Purely RNA ribosomes? Imaginary.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Irreducibly complex systems by definition could not have arisen by the gradual addition of parts,
That's not how Michael Behe defined it in Darwin's Black Box. An irreducibly complex system is one that stops working when you remove a part: it's "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." But an IC system by this definition can arise from the gradual addition of parts followed by changes to those parts such that they come to require each other to function. That's sufficiently obvious that intelligent design proponents (including Behe) have had to offer various fixes to the concept. The fixes fall into two classes: those that still let irreducibly complex systems evolve, and those that can't be shown to apply to any biological system.
The onus is on evolutionists to provide evidence that the ribosome could have started without protein, since it is the evolutionists that are making these fantastic claims.
We currently have no direct evidence for how the ribosome arose, so there is no scientific claim to support. You're the one making a positive claim here: that the ribosome could not have arisen naturally. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.

Meanwhile, where we do have evidence about the origin of biological features, it overwhelmingly supports evolution as the means by which they arose. Which is why evolution is a central component of biology, used by thousands of scientists daily, supported by funds from scientific funding agencies, published in scientific journals, discussed in scientific societies, and studied by philosophers and historians of science. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the real world of scientific practice.
 
Upvote 0

sparow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,540
426
85
✟482,162.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
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.

Completely irrelevant to anything...

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

More irrelevancy....

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."

(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)
I think I disagree with the theory of evolution differently. I suspect that the theory of evolution was never a valid scientific theory to begin with; the question could be: does the word, evolution, describe Darwin's (theory) paper?

Evolution is to do with time and motion. A rosebud opening into a fully bloomed rose, observed over time, is an example; any motion in the universe, observed over time, could be called evolution; even when/if fictional. But there is something diabolical or Satanic about the theory of evolution; I believe, based on minimal info. that Darwin, while in error was innocent and that the Church at that time was the culprit
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think I disagree with the theory of evolution differently. I suspect that the theory of evolution was never a valid scientific theory to begin with;
The world's scientists disagree with you.
Evolution is to do with time and motion
'Evolution' means whatever people use the word to mean. One of the things it means is the genetic change in populations over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
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

sparow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,540
426
85
✟482,162.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The world's scientists disagree with you.

'Evolution' means whatever people use the word to mean. One of the things it means is the genetic change in populations over time.
That scientists disagree with me is not a problem, I am not one of them. You are right, in the English language, the user determines what words means, but the usage has to be understood, by the hearer.

I attempted to provide an abstract that would work with an infinite number of usages; your example or definition appears to be group specific jargon; like the theory of evolution, where scientists, not necessarily Darwin, have tried to own the word, and with considerable success.

With the theory of evolution, the word evolution, acts as a smoke screen that hides the real subject of the theory.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That scientists disagree with me is not a problem, I am not one of them.
When you're claiming that something isn't scientific, yes, it's a problem when all the people doing actual science disagree with you.
I attempted to provide an abstract that would work with an infinite number of usages; your example or definition appears to be group specific jargon; like the theory of evolution, where scientists, not necessarily Darwin, have tried to own the word, and with considerable success.
It's one usage of the word. In a forum devoted to 'theistic evolution', it just so happens to be the relevant usage.
With the theory of evolution, the word evolution, acts as a smoke screen that hides the real subject of the theory.
Since the real subject of the theory is the genetic change in populations over time, and since that definition is widely published, you appear to be confused here.
 
Upvote 0

ByTheSpirit

Come Lord Jesus
May 17, 2011
11,422
4,650
Manhattan, KS
✟186,612.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scriptures say God created mankind within a single day. Formed him from the dust of the ground, and then took a rib from man to create woman. All within a single day. That is incompatible on every level with evolution. And this evolution is incompatible with scriptures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dwb001
Upvote 0

Edwin Wright

Active Member
Mar 23, 2023
225
16
Nova Scotia
Visit site
✟19,889.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Even N
When you're claiming that something isn't scientific, yes, it's a problem when all the people doing actual science disagree with you.

It's one usage of the word. In a forum devoted to 'theistic evolution', it just so happens to be the relevant usage.

Since the real subject of the theory is the genetic change in populations over time, and since that definition is widely published, you appear to be confused here.
 
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

Edwin Wright

Active Member
Mar 23, 2023
225
16
Nova Scotia
Visit site
✟19,889.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
When you're claiming that something isn't scientific, yes, it's a problem when all the people doing actual science disagree with you.

It's one usage of the word. In a forum devoted to 'theistic evolution', it just so happens to be the relevant usage.

Since the real subject of the theory is the genetic change in populations over time, and since that definition is widely published, you appear to be confused here.
There is no such thing as "theistic evolution." There is only creationism. See Teilhard de Chardin Refuted by Saint Thomas Aquinas. As far as contemporary science (a.k.a scientism), even Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome) hints at evolution being a crackpot theory; see his paper titled, The ribosome: Some hard facts about its structure and hot air about its evolution referenced in Evolution Refuted by the Ribosme.
 
Upvote 0