radical dichomotomy

[Remus]

there are a series of similiar labels for what we currently label TE or theistic evolutionist.

providential evolutionist or evolutionary creationist

see : http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
for an excellent defense of the term.

it is a good essay and worth the time to read.

I only had time to skim atm (I'll read it all tonight), so forgive me if I ask something that's answered in it.

What do you believe to be the driving force behind the changes? I assume that random mutation is out. Do you believe they were directly guided throughout, some part of the ‘program’ so to speak, or someting else?

 

[California Tim]

I think Gluadys suggested this term earlier, since "theistic evolutionist" seemed to be describing just a branch of evolutionist thinking, which distorts the image of where TE's come from. All TE's are creationist in the sense that we fully accept the Scriptural account that God is the Creator of everything.

As for a sense of humor, it becomes much less amusing when something is said jokingly that many say seriously and that the speaker has said seriously (or things like it). Of course, if Tim was simply parodying what another YEC may, say as a joke, then I apologize for thinking he meant any of it seriously.

It has become clear over the last few debates that we were pressing far too close to the edge of becoming personal. In that light, I felt it was time to lighten up the atmosphere and, in the process, ackowledge we have some differences of opinion that may remain until we "gather at the river" so to speak. In the meantime, we would do well to explore the issues with at least some lightheartedness in the full knowledge that no matter who is right, we all may share in the same glory through Christ.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I only had time to skim atm (I'll read it all tonight), so forgive me if I ask something that's answered in it.

What do you believe to be the driving force behind the changes? I assume that random mutation is out. Do you believe they were directly guided throughout, some part of the ‘program’ so to speak, or someting else?

there are at least two ways to take your question:
What do you believe to be the driving force behind the changes?

one is with respect to the names TE, PE, EC.
and i don't know how to answer that since PE is perhaps the first label applied to Christians who accepted Darwin' ToE in the 19thC but wanted to preserve the teleology of traditional theology.

the other way is to see the question as referring to the nature of ToE itself. There are several ways TE's have answered that question. They usually have to do with providence and how God continues to uphold and govern the universe. Deists propose no or very little providence, while theists have to see some type of mechanism uniting the supernatural realm with the physical realm. I've seen proposals using the quantum nature of reality to proposals that God directed causes mutations and particular matings (i think of this as God as the Bene Gesserit from Dune). Even with an understanding that mutation is random, NS is not, who lives and reproduces is not merely accident, traditional theology has always seen God's hands in governing human history, and this extension in the rest of the biological world seems warranted.

But in any case, the demarcation line between theology and science makes some things hard to say in the science realm, for example, life has purpose, significance and meaning. Because it seems to transgress the self imposed boundaries of science. OTOH, these things are the bread and butter of theology and we don't seem to be able to even talk without reference to them, for instance, the purpose of an organ.

Whatever the case, there is a division between science and theology that poses a 'translation' problem, and that i don't know how to solve. i end up 'speaking science' when in that field and 'speaking theology' when doing that.

So when science says mutation is random i translate that into God's hand controls all things, but that we don't know how nor can we see it.

...

as regards the OP.

another quote:

um....Christian evolutionists? How can you be both? That doesn't make since. Both views go against each other.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=11199623&postcount=4

radical polarization means that it is only common sense to people to express such thoughts. the middle ground is gone, having been swept clean. You are never so controlled as when you see no alternatives.

 

[gluadys]

I only had time to skim atm (I'll read it all tonight), so forgive me if I ask something that's answered in it.

What do you believe to be the driving force behind the changes? I assume that random mutation is out. Do you believe they were directly guided throughout, some part of the ‘program’ so to speak, or someting else?

As rmwilliamsll notes, one of the significant differences betweeen science and theology is that theology thinks in teleological terms (things happen for a purpose) while science avoids teleological thought (things happen because of prior natural causes).

The advance of science in all areas has led to accepting that things just happen, without prior purpose. Weather, for example. People used to think that rain and drought were arranged by God for a purpose. Today we usually think of them as occurring because of meteorological causes.

Some people have asked if the tsunami was a judgment from God, but most people are prepared to attribute it to an undersea earthquake set off by tectonic motion. In times past, everyone would have asked why God caused the tsunami. No one would have questioned that it was God's purpose for it to happen and that it was intended as a message from God.

Now, I don't believe God sent the tsunami, but when we begin to explore the possible relations between God's intent and happenings in the physical world, it is an idea that cannot be ruled out. If God can act on physical process, God can certainly increase the pressure on a tectonic plate and cause it to slide so that a tsunami-inducing earthquake is set off. Who can say otherwise?

The same applies to any random event, including mutations and changes in environmental conditions which lead to favoring some mutation-induced variations and repressing others. If God acts directly on the physical world at all, these sorts of events are clearly among the events that God, with foreknowledge of their effects can manipulate to accomplish God's purpose.

It is entirely possible that God is the instigator of every event we call random. Or that God allows nature to be random most of the time, but acts on such events when His purpose calls for a particular mutation or variation or speciation. Or that God's foreknowledge so encompasses all the outcomes of evolutionary mechanisms that no intervention is required. Nature as a whole accomplishes God's purpose.

The point is that in the case of random events, neither the theologian nor the scientist can distinguish one that has been guided by God from one that has not.

In fact, that is why I see random chance as an essential ingredient of providence. It is the random aspect of creation that permits a continuing guidance by God within the laws of nature. Yet the same randomness means we can only "see" such guidance by faith. It will never rise to the threshold of being seen by scientific methods.

 

[Vance]

I am right in the middle of the book called "Random Designer" written by an evangelical micro-biologist teaching at a Nazarene University. So far, it is fairly interesting. I will give a report on it when I am done.

 

[Maccie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by: Maccie

Shouldn't that be TE's ARE as orthodox, as Biblical, as Christian as any YEC??

Let's not forget that the YEC's are only a tiny minority amongst the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the many varieties of Protestants, to say nothing of the Coptic Christians, Armenian Christians etc. (Though mind you, they can shout louder than any other Christian. That doesn't make them bigger, better or more Biblical. Just louder)

don't think so, because there is no direct cause and effect type of relationship between TE and theology. TE is just too broad a label. For instance, i think that the left most edge of TE is consistently liberal in their theology. Even here you can see the obvious difference between people who see Adam and Eve as literal historical figures and those who see them as only figurative, metaphorical or eponymous.
I think there is a right left spectrum (see it in Evolution from Creation to New Creation by Peters and Hewlett as well) in TE and like most conservatives i think that there is a place where liberalism theologically becomes not-Christian but that is for another forum.

another for instance, many TE's are process theologians and are panentheists, certainly not orthodox Christians.

Apologies! The whole question just isn't an issue here like it is in the USA so I simply assumed the 'theistic' bit referred to the Jewish/Christian God. YEC's are still a tiny majority though!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Apologies! The whole question just isn't an issue here like it is in the USA so I simply assumed the 'theistic' bit referred to the Jewish/Christian God. YEC's are still a tiny majority though!

my personal problem is that i am a member of a church that has YECist standards. therefore the only people i am exposed to in the context of the church are outspokenly YEC. so my perspective is distorted as concerning the greater visible Church. thanks for reminding me that the world is much bigger than that little slice i can see *grin*.....

and yes the theistic in TE is much bigger than just the Christian God. perhaps 1/2 of my current reading on the topic are process theologians.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

continuing to post links to online reading which makes this radical dichotomy.

here is a more blatant one:

"evolution" in essence means the God of the Bible does not exist and therefore cannot be the Creator.

Therefore, TEists are loyal to evolution and seek to validate the theory with God. This can only be done by corrupting what the Bible says, which in turn makes TEists no different from most militant atheists.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=873112&postcount=8

i'll try to continue posting today's more egregious 'sweep the middle clean for it is just us vs them' threads i find.

 

[billwald]

"Either God created life independantly to procreate according to kinds or it was the result of a random, mindless, coincidential naturalistic process."

This thread began with a straw man argument. There are other obvious possibilities.

 

[Vance]

Actually, I think it is the fallacy of the false dilemma, but a fallacy it definitely is.