"Theistic Evolution": An Unjustified Distinction

[Punchy]

Referring to a Christian who accepts that all species share a common ancestor through descent with modification as a "theistic evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling a Christian who acknowledges that things fall down a "theistic gravitationalist." In terms of empirical reality, there is neither theistic or atheistic evolution, there is only evolution, with the individual left to his own interpretation of its overall meaning.

Peace.

 

[crawfish]

I do agree. I couldn't care less about "evolution" - it just seems the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. I don't stake an ounce of faith or belief in it.

What the distinction really refers to is our approach to the the growing disparity between science and the literal bible. Do you accept or resist?

 

[laptoppop]

Referring to a Christian who accepts that all species share a common ancestor through descent with modification as a "theistic evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling a Christian who acknowledges that things fall down a "theistic gravitationalist." In terms of empirical reality, there is neither theistic or atheistic evolution, there is only evolution, with the individual left to his own interpretation of its overall meaning.

Peace.

I would submit that it is not an unqualified difference. As believers we all believe God was involved in creation. Many TEs also believe that He was also involved in the processes of evolution. Both stances are inconsistent with an atheistic position. If they are not, then something is horribly, dreadfully wrong.

 

[laptoppop]

I do agree. I couldn't care less about "evolution" - it just seems the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. I don't stake an ounce of faith or belief in it.

What the distinction really refers to is our approach to the the growing disparity between science and the literal bible. Do you accept or resist?

Of course there are those of us who see a growing consistency between the Biblical record and the scientific analysis of the evidence that we have, such as the fossil record, or the incredible designs inside a cell.

Truth is not determined by a vote. If God says it, and the evidence can be seen as being consistent with that, why would I go anywhere else?

 

[crawfish]

Truth is not determined by a vote. If God says it, and the evidence can be seen as being consistent with that, why would I go anywhere else?

Errr...no, I don't have a problem with that. I just think you're fooling yourself.

No offense.

 

[shernren]

I agree that "TE" is a really lousy label; nevertheless, it has its practical uses, as others here have pointed out.

 

[Tinker Grey]

TE is useful because it reminds people that we believe God and that God is the creator.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work as well as you'd think it should.

 

[Punchy]

We don't refer to ourselves as "theistic gravitationalists," so why "theistic evolution"?

 

[laptoppop]

If you truly believe that God had nothing to do with creation or setting the natural processes in place, then you are right, there's no reason for you to use "T". For others, its an important distinction compared to those who define everything as not involving any God.

 

[Punchy]

Even if we believe that God was involved in the evolutionary process, "theistic evolution" would still make as much sense as "theistic gravitation."

 

[gluadys]

Occasionally we get posters who think evolution and theistic evolution are different versions of the theory of evolution.

So that is a source of confusion.

There is only one scientific theory of evolution.

"Theistic" serves as a reminder that it is not inherently atheistic.

Since no one is accusing the theory of gravity of being inherently atheistic, it is not necessary to call anyone a "theistic gravitationalist".

What is strange is why no creationist makes the connection. There is just as much reason to say gravity is inherently atheistic as to say evolution is inherently atheistic.

 

[Punchy]

I am not a "theistic evolutionist," I am a Christian who cannot believe bad science for an extended period of time.

 

[timlamb]

I am not a "theistic evolutionist," I am a Christian who cannot believe bad science for an extended period of time.

Hey, we have something in common, I cannot abide bad science either. So I choose to believe scripture.

Darwinnian evolution IS inherently atheistic:

Quoted from a National Geographic artical titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" Nov. 2004
"As an undergraduate at cambridge, he had studied halfheartedly toward becomming a clergyman himself, before he discovered his real vocation as a scientist....Darwin himself quietly renounced Christianity during his middle age, and later described himself as an agnostic. He continued to believe in a distant, impersonal deity of some sort....but not a personal God who had chosen humanity as a specially favored species. Darwin avoided flaunting his lack of religious faith, at least partly in deference to Emma. And she prayed for his soul."

The more Darwin looked at the world the less he believed in God.

The things of this world decieve if not judged and weighed against the word of God.

 

[theIdi0t]

The more Darwin looked at the world the less he believed in God.

The things of this world decieve if not judged and weighed against the word of God.

I always felt that Darwin's loss of faith was misunderstood. I actually sympathize because I myself went through something similar at some point, that lasted a number of years.

Darwin believed in a benevolent God, but then He took his daughter, and things were no longer the same. I knew a girl who was quite religious, she lost her brother in a senseless car accident, she lost belief in God along with him.

If you think that science is stronger than such suffering, then you know very little about the human condition.

 

[Punchy]

The more Darwin looked at the world the less he believed in God.

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)

Peace.

 

[timlamb]

the IdiOt, it is most likely the hardest thing to loose a child, most either hold tightly to God or hate the thought of Him.

however, what I have heard more closely ties with what Punchy gave us. The flaws of nature, the imperfect world which Darwin studied, the curel side of a sinful world is what drove Darwin from his faith. That too is sad in it's self but both stories demonstrate a man, weak in faith, looking at the world and holding God accountable for the fall of man.

 

[sfs]

We don't refer to ourselves as "theistic gravitationalists," so why "theistic evolution"?

We don't refer to ourselves as "theistic gravitationalists" because there is never a need to distinguish between those who accept the reality of gravitation and those who don't, so the term "gravitationalist" doesn't exist.

I really don't see what the fuss is about. An "evolutionist" (an ugly word) is a person who accepts the reality of evolution, so I treat "theistic evolutionist" as a theistic person who accepts the reality of evolution. You don't have any problem with being called a theistic person, do you? And I treat "theistic evolution" as descriptive of the set of beliefs of someone who accepts evolution and is a theist. It's not an ideal term etymologically, but etymology is often a poor guide to meaning.


"That was the curse of etymology. It brought an initial rush of elation, but after that came emptiness and despair."

David Carkeet​