The Theistic in Theistic Evolution

[Maccie]

The 'T' means theistic. Theistic means 'of God'. Its a word which comes from the Greek, Theos, meaning God.

Can't be clearer than that!

 

[Willtor]

I'm concerned that I'm not adding anything to the discussion in this post, but I'd like to reiterate (and possibly rephrase) a perspective of Theistic Evolution.

I am an Evolutionist in the same way I am a Physicist. That is, I am neither. I am a Computer Scientist. Nevertheless, just as I accept what I have found Science to say about the Big Bang, so I accept what Science has to say about the developmental process of species. In fact, I might be able to say more (albeit not much more) about the latter, because of my work in genetic algorithms and genetic programming.

These views do not, of course, amount to discourse in philosophy, or the origin of these processes. Unless I am convinced away from Christ as the source of my Salvation, I will not be convinced away from God as the Author of Nature (along with all its processes).

What, then, is not to understand about the perspectives of a Theistic Evolutionist? Is it a T.E.'s interpretation of Genesis which is required? Athanasius does a beautiful job of talking about origins in, "Against the Heathen." Bonhoeffer has the most profound understanding I've ever read, in, "Ethics" (or maybe "Discipleship" but I think it was "Ethics"). These are brilliant works written by Theological geniuses, whose writing I can't hope to replicate. The best I can do is to recommend them to you.

 

[CPman2004]

The 'T' means theistic. Theistic means 'of God'. Its a word which comes from the Greek, Theos, meaning God.

Can't be clearer than that!

Yes, this I know. That is how we can distinguish christian evolutionists from the athist evolutionists on this forum, however that does not answer the question. So far the answers I have been given have just been speculation and offering new ways to look at things (as for the Bible interpurtation I know that one needs to look at the Cultural Context, but I also know that the Bible is the Living Word, which allows for some modern interpurtation), but no soild evidence that Theistic Evolution is theologically warrent. Since theistic deals with thieism which is belief in God, and in order to back up theistic claims you need theological evidence (aka: study of God, aka: Bible). If theistic evolution cannot even hold up its own theistic aspect why should I adhear to it?

Oh, and just because I want biblical evidence doesn't make me a fundamentalist YEC, for I am far from that. I just want more substance then sepeculation.

 

[notto]

Yes, this I know. That is how we can distinguish christian evolutionists from the athist evolutionists on this forum, however that does not answer the question. So far the answers I have been given have just been speculation and offering new ways to look at things (as for the Bible interpurtation I know that one needs to look at the Cultural Context, but I also know that the Bible is the Living Word, which allows for some modern interpurtation), but no soild evidence that Theistic Evolution is theologically warrent. Since theistic deals with thieism which is belief in God, and in order to back up theistic claims you need theological evidence (aka: study of God, aka: Bible). If theistic evolution cannot even hold up its own theistic aspect why should I adhear to it?

Oh, and just because I want biblical evidence doesn't make me a fundamentalist YEC, for I am far from that. I just want more substance then sepeculation.

You choose not to accept the answers given to you. That does not mean that answers have not been given. The scriptures tell us that God created the world and gave us Christ. The theology of the Christian who accepts evolution is based on that. A careful study of the actual creation adds to our knowledge of how that happened.

Theistic evolution holds up just fine and uses the same Bible as any Christian does to learn that God created and gave us Jesus. Not sure what you think is lacking in the theology of the Christian who accepts evolution. You say that there is no evidence that the theology of a Christian who accepts evolution is warrent yet you have been told that the Bible tells the TE the same thing as all Christians - God Created.

 

[Willtor]

Yes, this I know. That is how we can distinguish christian evolutionists from the athist evolutionists on this forum, however that does not answer the question. So far the answers I have been given have just been speculation and offering new ways to look at things (as for the Bible interpurtation I know that one needs to look at the Cultural Context, but I also know that the Bible is the Living Word, which allows for some modern interpurtation), but no soild evidence that Theistic Evolution is theologically warrent. Since theistic deals with thieism which is belief in God, and in order to back up theistic claims you need theological evidence (aka: study of God, aka: Bible). If theistic evolution cannot even hold up its own theistic aspect why should I adhear to it?

Oh, and just because I want biblical evidence doesn't make me a fundamentalist YEC, for I am far from that. I just want more substance then sepeculation.

I think these statements assume too much. Looking for Biblical evidence of evolution is like looking for Biblical evidence of water on Mars. The difference between evolution and water on Mars is that evolution is a loaded topic. If it wasn't trumped up (not by you, but there are people who trump it up) as something which is opposed to Christianity, nobody would call themselves Theistic Evolutionists. Scientists, some of whom happen to be Christians, would be intrigued, and the rest of society would sort of shrug their shoulders.

It's rather like Intelligent Design. When I was a Fundamentalist, going to a Fundamentalist Church, most everybody was opposed to evolution. Young-earth Creation was the accepted theory. But for some reason, many people had read "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe. Some people started considering themselves Intelligent Design theorists, and this was considered acceptable. If the young-earth interpretation of Genesis had been the refutation of evolution, why was it not equally applied to intelligent design? The conclusion I arrived at was that evolution (and Darwin) had been used by Atheists as a rallying point against Christianity. Intelligent design had been introduced by a self-proclaimed Christian.

But there is no such thing as "Theistic Intelligent Design" because everybody assumes that God is the Intelligence behind it. Nobody ever looked for Biblical evidence of intelligent design (the theory, not the principle). Nevertheless, Atheist magazines all tout intelligent design as the latest Creationist crackpot theory. Of course, it's not, really. But it sort of confirms my conclusion that origin theories tend to be philosophically loaded.

Consequently, one has to make the distinction between evolution, which is inferred as natural evolution, and Theistic evolution. There is no sense in asking what is a person's evidence for it. The evidence is that the scientific theory of evolution is something that the person has accepted, and now it has to be distinguished from the naturalist philosophies typically associated with it. One of my professors, at RPI, once provided a mathematical proof that humans didn't evolve solely through natural processes. But that won't satisfy a person who is looking for Biblical evidence. Thus, the most basic answer I can give is that I am a Christian (Theist), and I accept scientific conclusions (evolutionist). I don't think these two things compete, but if I am not specific in their reconcilliation, people will misunderstand what I think.

 

[Vance]

Great post, Willtor,

I am going to start calling myself a Theistic Gravitationalist!

Or maybe a Theistic Photosynthesist!

 

[CPman2004]

I fail to see where people have answered my questions. I am asking by what Biblical example would it show that it would be in God's nature to use evoultion as his creative process. I am not asking rather or not I am a christian and still believe in scientific processes. So far all I have read has lead me to believe that TE is just an attempt to "christianize" an naturalist and materialistic idea. If you are going to claim something is theistic then it has to have some ground in theology. Now Theology is the study of God and his nature, and the one reliable way we have to do that is by the Bible. I have yet to be shown how one can biblically support TE and not rely on speculation and erronous comparisons. So please stop telling me that TE is just like believing in photosynthesist and God, because that does not answer my questions.

 

[TwinCrier]

The 'T' means theistic. Theistic means 'of God'. Its a word which comes from the Greek, Theos, meaning God.

Can't be clearer than that!

But does that necessarily mean "Christian?" Are there TEs who worship other deities besides Jesus? I know everyone here is Christian since this is the Christian only section of the forum, but are their other deists who believe in evolution?

 

[Vance]

You are missing the point of the responses, I think. As has been said, the ONLY reason to call it Theistic Evolution is that there are two groups who what to portray evolution as "atheistic". Those groups are militant atheists who want to portray evolution as something supporting their atheism, and the other are those Creationists who buy into this lie and agree with them. Were it not for that false dichotomy, we would just be Christians who accept evolution as the best theory going for the explanation of the diversity of species. The same way we are all Christians who accept the current theory of gravity as the best explanation of why bodies attract each other.

If there was a group out there saying that there was some Biblical mandate for an alternate explanation of this attraction between masses, and declared the current theory of gravity as contrary to Scripture and supporting athiesm, we would then have to begin calling ourselves Theistic Gravitationalists in order to distinguish ourselves from the idea that we accept it in an atheistic manner.

There is nothing in Scripture which describes evolution any more than there is an explanation of quantam mechanics or photosynthesis. And the absence of such explanations and theological underpinnings of these scientific concepts does not in any way argue that they are not correct.

The theology is primarily that, just like these other scientific concepts, there is nothing in Scripture which contradicts them.

 

[gluadys]

I fail to see where people have answered my questions. I am asking by what Biblical example would it show that it would be in God's nature to use evoultion as his creative process.

The question assumes that a positive statement in the bible is a prerequisite for believing that God used evolution.

But since there are many things the bible does not speak about, this is not a requirement.

The theological flow on this issue, from a TE perspective, is to examine first what the bible says about God and creation, second to examine what creation says about itself (through science) and finally to come to a conclusion that is consistent with both testimonies.

Some of the pertinent things the bible says about God are that God is not the author of confusion, and that God is truth. We can expect, therefore, that whatever is made by God is truthful and orderly--following regular patterns, not incomprehensible whims.

God is presented in the bible as a Creator. The bible does not present creation as an emanation from God, but as something separate from, though dependant on, God. The bible does not present creation as an illusion or snare for the senses, but as a real existent entity which we can know.

Since this real existent entity is created by God, we can expect it to reflect the qualities of truth and order named above. IOW the created universe can be investigated using the scientific method, with the faculties of observation and rational thinking, and yield meaningful answers to our questions about it. In theological terms, the universe itself is a “general revelation” from God.

Now the universe itself tells us that it is some 13 billion years old, that our solar system is 4.5 billions of years old, that life appeared on earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and that it has evolved into the creatures we see today. We ourselves are a product of biological evolution.

The only way to deny this is to assert that what God made is deceptive and illusory, or that God himself is deceptive in making a world that looks one way but is another way.

Neither of these options are open to a Christian theist.

So the testimony of the universe to its own origins must be taken as a given.
The nature of God must be taken as a given.
Hence, passages of the bible which appear to oppose the testimony of the universe must not be interpreted in such a way as to falsify either of these two givens.
For the bible is also a revelation from God. It also bears his character.
And since truth cannot contradict truth, the truth of scripture must agree with the truth of creation.
To suppose that one can make a choice between them, as in choosing scripture (or rather an interpretation of scripture) in spite of contradictory evidence from creation goes against two millennia of Christian theology.

Hence, we conclude that interpretations of scripture (not scripture itself) which contradict the testimony of creation itself, must be incorrect. And we revise our understanding of scripture accordingly.

Does that help?

 

[notto]

I fail to see where people have answered my questions. I am asking by what Biblical example would it show that it would be in God's nature to use evoultion as his creative process. I am not asking rather or not I am a christian and still believe in scientific processes. So far all I have read has lead me to believe that TE is just an attempt to "christianize" an naturalist and materialistic idea. If you are going to claim something is theistic then it has to have some ground in theology. Now Theology is the study of God and his nature, and the one reliable way we have to do that is by the Bible. I have yet to be shown how one can biblically support TE and not rely on speculation and erronous comparisons. So please stop telling me that TE is just like believing in photosynthesist and God, because that does not answer my questions.

Well, the Bible tells us that God created - that rules out any naturalistic or materialistic ideas. I think the problem is that you have determined that evolution is some type of naturalistic or materialistic philosophy. From a scientific standpoint, it is not. You are confusing atheism and other philosophies with the scientific study of evolution.

 

[Willtor]

I fail to see where people have answered my questions. I am asking by what Biblical example would it show that it would be in God's nature to use evoultion as his creative process. I am not asking rather or not I am a christian and still believe in scientific processes. So far all I have read has lead me to believe that TE is just an attempt to "christianize" an naturalist and materialistic idea. If you are going to claim something is theistic then it has to have some ground in theology. Now Theology is the study of God and his nature, and the one reliable way we have to do that is by the Bible. I have yet to be shown how one can biblically support TE and not rely on speculation and erronous comparisons. So please stop telling me that TE is just like believing in photosynthesist and God, because that does not answer my questions.

Perhaps I'm communicating poorly, or I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. I'll try to rephrase what you're asking, according to my own thought patterns, and I'd like you to tell me if it is correct. I will say things that you haven't said, because the questions feel impossibly broad without making certain assumptions:

---

Are there Biblical grounds for Theistic Evolution? I am aware of Biblical grounds for young-Earth Creation because I can cite passages which appear to indicate that the age of the Earth would be better measured in millennia than in aeons. These passages also appear to indicate that humanity (and other species) were created by God, complete, and were not created through a prolonged process.

---

If this is roughly correct, let me try to respond point-by-point. I know of no passages which indicate that humanity evolved. However, since I have interpreted the passages cited by young-Earth Creations differently than they have, I see no conflicts between these passages and Theistic Evolution. This is not enough to say that I think that Evolution is the process by which we came to be. But, since I am happy to accept Science's present conclusions on the matter, I will take Theistic Evolution as my model for understanding origins.

Also, I agree with Notto regarding contention over the terms "naturalistic" or "materialistic" as applied to Evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I fail to see where people have answered my questions. I am asking by what Biblical example would it show that it would be in God's nature to use evoultion as his creative process. I am not asking rather or not I am a christian and still believe in scientific processes. So far all I have read has lead me to believe that TE is just an attempt to "christianize" an naturalist and materialistic idea. If you are going to claim something is theistic then it has to have some ground in theology. Now Theology is the study of God and his nature, and the one reliable way we have to do that is by the Bible. I have yet to be shown how one can biblically support TE and not rely on speculation and erronous comparisons. So please stop telling me that TE is just like believing in photosynthesist and God, because that does not answer my questions.

I don't want to see this message get lost in the noise of the debate. For it is a question that i have not seen asked before and shows an intellectual quandry that is real yet unaddressed.

The fundamental question is the relationship of general and special revelation, and to everyone's credit, that is where the subsequent answers to this question have been referring to.

One potential solution is the one the poster refutes, 'believing in photosynthesis and God'. This answer is unsatisfying, for it essentially says that if the Bible is silent on a topic, say in science like photosynthesis, then we can believe anything we like based on GR. This is the common answer that TE's give to such questions, the Bible is silent, GR as discovered by modern science is not, therefore accept sciences' testimony.

But the cavet that this poster offers to this solution:
So far all I have read has lead me to believe that TE is just an attempt to "christianize" an naturalist and materialistic idea. should make each of us pause for a moment and ask, is TE simply a substitution process, T(heistic) for A(theistic), Process for Miracle, Providence for instanteous Creation, modern science for ancient Biblical wisdom?

I have over the last few years of working through this topic of creation-evolution-design come to a few conclusions. One of which is the socio-political-theological basis of YECism. I can trace major ideas and cultural influences and see where things have been. One thing i have not consistently done is apply this cultural analysis to my own views. I understand how deeply my university education has effected me, how a radical skepticism is how i will approach almost any topic, i am aware of the problem of 'baptising the heathen' and the cultural captivity of much of the modern American church in particular.

If i look carefully at the initial reception of Darwin's ideas in the late 19thC church i am impressed that several very good theologians accepted the science and criticised the metaphysics drawn out of it. BB.Warfield is the classic and best example. I think the best of this analysis can be captured in the aphorism of 'nothing butism'. that is the materialists cry that we are nothing but matter in motion, or nothing but evolved apes. This can be fought with a proper wedge placed between the science and the metaphysics drawn out of it.

But this poster brings up a deeper more entrenched problem, the problem of basic presuppositions and motivations. Is TE's motivation to Christianize a heathen notion of naturalism and materialism?

That is were the unfortunate common usage of TE doesn't do justice to the whole system, where evolutionary creationism or providential evolution as titles capture more of the essential character. TE, EC, and PE contra the YEC's is not evolution +God but rather asking the universe how did God create. And trying to answer that question with a Biblical worldview that presupposes from the start the God as revealed in Scripture. Now YECist don't seem to understand this because the overriding idea in their minds seems to be: evolution=atheism.Only an instanteous creation can do justice to the Creative grandeur that is displayed for us in Genesis 1. Anything less diminishes God, any time more than 6 24hr days decreases God majesty and ability.

TE's of all stripes continue to push the point that evolution!=atheism, but at least on this board without much evident success. But now the criticism is that we are fellow travelers, unaware of our complicity in the contest, for we are on the wrong side from God, accepting however unconscious the enemies presuppositions. But the great divide is not between YEC and TE but between supernaturalists and naturalists. The great divide is not over if God could create mankind in an instant but choose to do it over a long period of time, but if mankind is in the image of God and a dualistic creature, body and soul, unlike all other creatures on earth.

Even in a church trial like that of Terry Gray's the issue was never if TG was a materialist or if he denied fundamental principles like federal headship, but only a very narrow one of whether you could believe that God created Adam's body from clay or from a pre-existent evolved creature.

Certainly we need to examine our presuppositions as best we can, and continually reevaluate what we believe. But i believe a careful examination of TE motivations and ideals does not sustain this charge of fellow traveller's with the materialists for TE's have consistently fought the materialism unwittingly drawn out of science and point out that Dawkins and company speak not as scientists but as metaphysicans when they engage in speculations about the value and morality of evolutionary thought.

 

[Vance]

Very interesting points, rwilliamsII.