Objections to Theistic Evolution

[Code-Monkey]

I've been trying to think of all the objections people have of Theistic Evolution. I'm not really wanting to discuss the validity of the objections in this thread (we could open separate threads for that). But I'm trying to catalogue all the objections I can think of.

Here's the few that I've heard recently:

1. If life is created by nature rather than God, then God didn't have any part of it. The Bible says God created everything. Therefore, TE isn't true.

2. (Similar to #1) If life is created mostly by nature with a few intervening moments by God, then God did not fully create all of it. The Bible says God created everything. Therefore TE isn't true.

3. If you think part of Genesis is metaphorical and you're consistent, then you should think the entire bible is metaphorical and believe that none of it really happened.

4. Evolution supposedly happened over hundreds of millions of years and from the geneaology listed in the bible we know that the earth is only 6000 years old. So TE couldn't be true.

Can you think of any other objections to TE? I'll just add that I'm pretty sure I agree with what I understand of TE.

 

[notto]

Hitler! Stalin! Throwing God out of Schools! Darwin was a Racist! Other assorted Appeals to Emotion!!!

 

[chaoschristian]

I've been trying to think of all the objections people have of Theistic Evolution. I'm not really wanting to discuss the validity of the objections in this thread (we could open separate threads for that). But I'm trying to catalogue all the objections I can think of.

Here's the few that I've heard recently:

1. If life is created by nature rather than God, then God didn't have any part of it. The Bible says God created everything. Therefore, TE isn't true.

2. (Similar to #1) If life is created mostly by nature with a few intervening moments by God, then God did not fully create all of it. The Bible says God created everything. Therefore TE isn't true.

3. If you think part of Genesis is metaphorical and you're consistent, then you should think the entire bible is metaphorical and believe that none of it really happened.

4. Evolution supposedly happened over hundreds of millions of years and from the geneaology listed in the bible we know that the earth is only 6000 years old. So TE couldn't be true.

Can you think of any other objections to TE? I'll just add that I'm pretty sure I agree with what I understand of TE.

This is a non-debate sub-forum of the Origins Theology forum. It is intended as a place for TEs to congregate outside of debate with creationists.

I welcome your post, but outside of "How's the weather today where you live." I'm not allowed to respond in any substantive manner. Although I think that I'm allowed to recommend that you re-post this in the Creationist sub-forum, where you are more likely to get more input of the kind you are looking for, and/or in the general Origins Theology forum where your points can be debated within the rules.

So, how is the weather where you live? Here it is bright and sunny but still quite a bit chill.

 

[chaoschristian]

Hitler! Stalin! Throwing God out of Schools! Darwin was a Racist! Other assorted Appeals to Emotion!!!

Ack, two posts and the poor thread's been Godwin-ed!

 

[shernren]

Robert, the intent of the OP is more to catalogue common disagreements than to discuss them.

 

[chaoschristian]

Robert, the intent of the OP is more to catalogue common disagreements than to discuss them.

If I took the post to mean more than intended, then I apologize. I've got my defenses on alert. Time to take a break and settle down.

Tea. A nice cuppa will do.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Robert, the intent of the OP is more to catalogue common disagreements than to discuss them.

This is correct. I'm not wishing to debate them here. I'm just trying to catalogue the objections. I should probably just repost in one of the other forums though.

 

[shernren]

What a tragicomic reversal. One has to feel more guarded and on alert when dealing with fellow brothers and sisters in the faith.

Keep the thread going brother. I'll be listening and commenting as appropriate

 

[chaoschristian]

OK, here's something that I've never understood:

orchids.

more specifically, bee orchids.

look them up.

these little flowers had me on the verge of becoming a OEC, simply because I've never seen an adequate explanation of how evolutionary processes could have accomplished the symbiotic relationship between a plant and a bee. But that says more about my ability to understand than it does about the explanation.

And here's an objection that I have seen:

evolution allows for death before the fall, and death is recorded in the Bible as occurring only after the fall (as a result of the fall)

What a tragicomic reversal. One has to feel more guarded and on alert when dealing with fellow brothers and sisters in the faith.

Keep the thread going brother. I'll be listening and commenting as appropriate

 

[shernren]

I'll always remember when I first burst into the forums waving me big creationist banner and loudly asking the evolutionists, "What about the bombardier beetle?!" XD

hehehehe.

One big umbrella under which creationists doubt evolutionism is the big "complexity" umbrella. Under that scheme evolutionism a natural process is supposedly not able to produce complex structures. Mainly proposed / pushed by IDism. Specific structures / systems include:

- blood clotting
- the eye
- the bacterial flagellum

 

[Deamiter]

Yeah, I thought Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" was pretty convincing... until I read detailed acounts of how EACH of his examples could have evolved.

As for plant-insect relationships, it seems pretty simple to me. The more "attractive" the plant to the insects, the more it gets pollinated. The more it gets pollinated the more exist.

And of course it works the other way around -- the more an insect's reproductive success is increased by visiting a particular plant, the more that population of insects will eventually visit that plant.

But back toward the topic of the thread, I've heard a lot of (mostly baseless) arguments against TE. But when you dig deeper, they all revolve around taking Genesis literally. Somehow people have come to believe that the Bible was dictated by God. With that in mind, I wouldn't believe the resurrection of Christ if I found out that Genesis was allegory.

God wouldn't lie would he?

Creationists look at the Bible from our modern culture and point of view and assume it was dictated -- no WONDER they ignore anything that seems to contradict Genesis!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yeah, I thought Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" was pretty convincing... until I read detailed acounts of how EACH of his examples could have evolved.

As for plant-insect relationships, it seems pretty simple to me. The more "attractive" the plant to the insects, the more it gets pollinated. The more it gets pollinated the more exist.

And of course it works the other way around -- the more an insect's reproductive success is increased by visiting a particular plant, the more that population of insects will eventually visit that plant.

But back toward the topic of the thread, I've heard a lot of (mostly baseless) arguments against TE. But when you dig deeper, they all revolve around taking Genesis literally. Somehow people have come to believe that the Bible was dictated by God. With that in mind, I wouldn't believe the resurrection of Christ if I found out that Genesis was allegory.

God wouldn't lie would he?

Creationists look at the Bible from our modern culture and point of view and assume it was dictated -- no WONDER they ignore anything that seems to contradict Genesis!

there is an extensive literature on flagellum evolution that was kicked off by "black box". it is well worth the time to google and read.

 

[Numenor]

Somehow people have come to believe that the Bible was dictated by God.

Not only that but dictated for the benefit of post-enlightenment rationalist 21st centrury westerners.

 

[Willtor]

Not only that but dictated for the benefit of post-enlightenment rationalist 21st centrury westerners.

Hey! I fit that category!

Whew! Thank goodness for that. Oh, man. Be still, my beating heart.

 

[SavedToThaBone]

This is one of the many problems I have with Theistic Evolution...

At what point did we become human enough to have a soul?

If we were created in God's image how can we ascribe that to a soulless single celled organism.

ok change that.. this is a few.

To believe Theistic evolution you have to accept evolution of some type to some degree.

People pick apart the Bible and claim to find inconsistancies (which are there in some translation/transliterations/paraphrases but not in all Bibles) If we look at evolutionary theory with the same amount of scrutiny nothing can stand up.

Simple lifeforms are far from simple. Just because it is a single cell doesn't make it any less complex than a multicellular organism. (this rating system is a product of scietific language and assumption)

Forms in transition.
Any system that was mid formation of a new system would have to support the tissue of the new system while supporting the life of the entire specimen. i.e. Oxygen would have to be supplied to a half formed heart muscle as well as the rest of the specimin for a duration of many years and thousands of generations while the heart formed. How could a creature with half developed internal organs survive?

There are more but i have to go for a bit. I'll get back

LRS

 

[notto]

w system would have to support the tissue of the new system while supporting the life of the entire specimen. i.e. Oxygen would have to be supplied to a half formed heart muscle as well as the rest of the specimin for a duration of many years and thousands of generations while the heart formed. How could a creature with half developed internal organs survive?

This is basically a strawman. Evolution never says that at any point anyone had 'half a heart'.

We can find different versions and sophistication in functioning circulatory systems througout the animal kingdom. None of them are considered 'half' a system. Some are more rudimentary than others. Same goes for brains, nervous systems, digestive systems, etc.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

At what point did we become human enough to have a soul?

at this point i'd venture to answer that it occurred when our brain and nervous systems reached a certain point, perhaps self awareness, perhaps god awareness, perhaps rationality or something like acquistion of language skills.

in any case, it is what separates us from the chimps and makes us human beings.

 

[chaoschristian]

Welcome to CF. I hope your stay here is both profitable and enjoyable.

As this is a fellowship forum and we are not supposed to post entries that debate or might lead to a debate, I request that you take some of your questions out to the main Origins Theology forum and post them there. That way we can really get into a dialogue about the issues without making headaches for the Mods.

Cheers!

This is one of the many problems I have with Theistic Evolution...

At what point did we become human enough to have a soul?

If we were created in God's image how can we ascribe that to a soulless single celled organism.

ok change that.. this is a few.

To believe Theistic evolution you have to accept evolution of some type to some degree.

People pick apart the Bible and claim to find inconsistancies (which are there in some translation/transliterations/paraphrases but not in all Bibles) If we look at evolutionary theory with the same amount of scrutiny nothing can stand up.

Simple lifeforms are far from simple. Just because it is a single cell doesn't make it any less complex than a multicellular organism. (this rating system is a product of scietific language and assumption)

Forms in transition.
Any system that was mid formation of a new system would have to support the tissue of the new system while supporting the life of the entire specimen. i.e. Oxygen would have to be supplied to a half formed heart muscle as well as the rest of the specimin for a duration of many years and thousands of generations while the heart formed. How could a creature with half developed internal organs survive?

There are more but i have to go for a bit. I'll get back

LRS

 

[Dannager]

This is one of the many problems I have with Theistic Evolution...

At what point did we become human enough to have a soul?

If we were created in God's image how can we ascribe that to a soulless single celled organism.

ok change that.. this is a few.

To believe Theistic evolution you have to accept evolution of some type to some degree.

People pick apart the Bible and claim to find inconsistancies (which are there in some translation/transliterations/paraphrases but not in all Bibles) If we look at evolutionary theory with the same amount of scrutiny nothing can stand up.

Simple lifeforms are far from simple. Just because it is a single cell doesn't make it any less complex than a multicellular organism. (this rating system is a product of scietific language and assumption)

Forms in transition.
Any system that was mid formation of a new system would have to support the tissue of the new system while supporting the life of the entire specimen. i.e. Oxygen would have to be supplied to a half formed heart muscle as well as the rest of the specimin for a duration of many years and thousands of generations while the heart formed. How could a creature with half developed internal organs survive?

There are more but i have to go for a bit. I'll get back

LRS

A wonderful post, and something I'd like the chance to discuss, but unfortunately we can't do that in this sub-forum. If you re-posted this to the Origins Theology main forum that'd be a big help.

 

[shernren]

A wonderful post, and something I'd like the chance to discuss, but unfortunately we can't do that in this sub-forum. If you re-posted this to the Origins Theology main forum that'd be a big help.

Yes, he is not allowed to criticise TEism here. But that says nothing about the fact that I am allowed to defend TEism here!

At what point did we become human enough to have a soul?

At the point when God said so? Our souls may not necessarily be a product of evolution, and our connection with God may not be either. This is really a wonderfully deep and complex issue, involving the interpretation of the "image" of God in Genesis 1 and the significance of the breath of God in Genesis 2 whether literal or typological. But the gist of it is that no, I don't see how this poses a problem for evolution, since we never said God couldn't intervene supernaturally.

If we were created in God's image how can we ascribe that to a soulless single celled organism.

The soulless single-celled organism wasn't in charge. God is. So if you think He can't make His image from evolution from a single-celled orgainsm, go pick it up with Him, not me.

To believe Theistic evolution you have to accept evolution of some type to some degree.

People pick apart the Bible and claim to find inconsistancies (which are there in some translation/transliterations/paraphrases but not in all Bibles) If we look at evolutionary theory with the same amount of scrutiny nothing can stand up.

Such as? (to be answered in the more public OT forums)

Simple lifeforms are far from simple. Just because it is a single cell doesn't make it any less complex than a multicellular organism. (this rating system is a product of scietific language and assumption)

I like that, but I don't think your fellow creationists will agree. "Simple" lifeforms are not simple, I agree. They can be just as complex as multicellular organisms by any criteria. So, doesn't that mean evolution doesn't have to add complexity to cause "macroevolution"? I mean, the single most often-heard quasiscientific objection is that "how could evolution have turned simple goo into complex you?" By pointing out that goo can be as complex as you, you've answered that: there's no way to measure complexity that forces evolution to be unable to supply it. QED.

Forms in transition.
Any system that was mid formation of a new system would have to support the tissue of the new system while supporting the life of the entire specimen. i.e. Oxygen would have to be supplied to a half formed heart muscle as well as the rest of the specimin for a duration of many years and thousands of generations while the heart formed. How could a creature with half developed internal organs survive?

Well, fish do just fine on a double-chambered heart, which consists of just an atrium and a ventricle (whereas we have two of each) operating on a closed, single circulatory system. They have a literally half-formed heart and I don't think they're showing any signs of distress about it.

Skip forward to amphibians. Now we have two atria and one ventricle. Again, frogs aren't croaking because of that.

Skip forward to lizards and (if i'm not mistaken) crocodilians. Now we have two atria and a partially divided ventricle, with a septum which has a muscle-lined hole. Lizards' doing just fine.

Skip forward to the mammalian heart. Two atria, two ventricles, four chambers.

That's how creatures with "half-developed internal organs" survive.