Theistic-Evolution.com

[Chesterton]

For any TE's who might be familiar with this site: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/ from Carl Drews - does the site generally state the case for TE accurately? I think it doesn't get into the "fine points", but do you agree with the way he states the general ideas?

 

[Van]

I have not waded through the article yet, but it does seem to display a TE with the courage to say clearly what he believes. It seems his view is that TE holds that the Bible is basically true, if interpreted correctly, but does contain some error, thus it is not infallible.

Since it is so wordy, and goes off in several directions, it might be useful for you to summarize the "general ideas" like I did for his view of the Bible.

 

[Van]

Point 2, the Age of the Earth. TE accepts that the earth was created about 4 billion years ago.

Point 3, the Whole Earth flood. TE rejects the idea that Noah's flood was global, and rejects that the highest mountains were covered with water. This based on the idea that there is not enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth to 29,000 feet.

Point 4, Genesis creation account. I did not discern just what view was being advocated, but the view that the days are literal 24 hour days and the earth is less than 10,000 years old was rejected. Alternate literary device views were offered, such as the framework view.

More to follow

 

[Mallon]

I haven't read everything, but it looks like standard evolutionary creationist fare to me:
- scientific shortcomings of YECism
- importance of biblical hermeneutics
- theological shortcomings of the Omphalos hypothesis
- framework interpretation of Genesis
- deconstruction of YEC slippery slope fear that if Genesis cannot be read as an historical account, none of the Bible can
- decoupling of the message of Genesis from the narrative of Genesis
- Dobzhansky's chorus line
In trying to convince YECs, I would have spent less time on the science and more time on hermeneutics and science philosophy, but it seems like a decent summary, based on my quick skim.

 

[Chesterton]

For instance I was wondering how some here would feel about some things he says such as:

“[God] directed the unfolding of life forms over time that many people call evolution.”

“I believe that God directs the processes that we ignorant humans call random." [in reference to DNA mutations]

“The Fall could have happened in a historical pair of individuals.”

 

[gluadys]

For any TE's who might be familiar with this site: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/ from Carl Drews - does the site generally state the case for TE accurately? I think it doesn't get into the "fine points", but do you agree with the way he states the general ideas?

I've seen it before. Yes, I have no problem with his ideas in general. I like it that he presents several ways to approach Genesis without suggesting that one way is the only possible correct way.

 

[Mallon]

“[God] directed the unfolding of life forms over time that many people call evolution.”

I think most of us here would agree with this. Simply because a process is natural doesn't mean God is not involved in ordaining and sustaining it. We know today that rain is a very natural phenomenon, yet the Bible describes it as coming from God. I see evolution acting in very much the same way.

“I believe that God directs the processes that we ignorant humans call random." [in reference to DNA mutations]

I agree with this, too. In fact, the Bible tells us that God is even in control of apparently random events (like the tossing of a die). See 1 Kg 22:17-38, Prov 16:33, and Ac 1:21-26.

“The Fall could have happened in a historical pair of individuals.”

Certainly. There's nothing about evolution that rules this possibility out. Sin might very well have entered the world via the fall of a man and woman.