Theistic Evolution is Weak Scientism

[o_mlly]

J. P. Moreland makes the case that theistic-evolution is merely a weak form of scientism.

"Theistic Evolution is a revisionist treatment of the Bible based on the idea that if the Bible is going to be even partly credible, it must be constantly revised to keep up with what contemporary science says. Thus, Theistic Evolution supports scientism, the view that the hard sciences are the only or vastly superior way of knowing reality."

 

[River Jordan]

He's making the same error other fundamentalists make, where he thinks not reading Genesis as a literal scientific document is a recent development that only occurred in response to the discovery of the evolutionary history of life.

History shows that's wrong. Jewish and Biblical leaders and scholars were advocating a non-literal reading long before we knew about evolution (such as Maimonides and Origen of Alexandria).

I've seen fundamentalists make this mistake so many times I've concluded it must be something they need to believe and tell themselves.

 

[BobRyan]

The idea that you "have to read the Bible as a literal scientific text book" did not work with the literal incarnation of Christ, did not work with the literal virgin birth, did not works with death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Does not work with the doctrine on the literal second coming of Christ.

All those events literally true without scripture having to function as science text book before one can believe that what it says is literally true.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolutionism is a belief system that needs a lot of work

The idea that rocks, dust, gas and sunlight will eventually come up with a rabbit is the story of evolutionism as long as you add "a sufficient mass, and sufficient time and chance". It is a fairy tale of epic proportions

I suggest the evolutionist masters "step one". Show how to make an amoeba with your chemistry set and all the "intelligent design" you might wish to pour into it. (we'll give you "a pass" on the entropy part, just get your amoeba project rolling)

 

[Job 33:6]

J. P. Moreland makes the case that theistic-evolution is merely a weak form of scientism.

"Theistic Evolution is a revisionist treatment of the Bible based on the idea that if the Bible is going to be even partly credible, it must be constantly revised to keep up with what contemporary science says. Thus, Theistic Evolution supports scientism, the view that the hard sciences are the only or vastly superior way of knowing reality."

These people are fighting a losing battle, thinking that theistic evolution is "revisionist".

But in reality, you could talk to 99% of Hebrew scholars on Genesis and see very clearly that it isn't revisionist at all. It's actually more traditional than these modern intelligent design approaches. It is the fundamentalist positions that are, in actuality, revisionist.

Here is an example lecture on Genesis:

 

[o_mlly]

But in reality, you could talk to 99% of Hebrew scholars on Genesis and see very clearly ...

In reality, I cannot talk to 99% of Hebrew scholars on Genesis and I don't think you can either. So not much to work on with that claim.

Your youtube link is 1-1/2 hours long. Could you give us the main points in your own words?

 

[o_mlly]

It's actually more traditional than these modern intelligent design approaches.

What is your antecedent noun for "It's"?

If it's theistic evolution then do you have an argument to support your claim?

 

[o_mlly]

I suggest the evolutionist masters "step one". Show how to make an amoeba with your chemistry set and all the "intelligent design" you might wish to pour into it. (we'll give you "a pass" on the entropy part, just get your amoeba project rolling)

ID theory is more comprehensive and more coherent explanation of observed phenomena (design in nature) then theistic evolution. The materialists mistakenly feel threatened and resist ID tagging it as a religion in error.

 

[Job 33:6]

What is your antecedent noun for "It's"?

If it's theistic evolution then do you have an argument to support your claim?

Non-concordist or non-grammatical historical readings of Genesis. Which is essentially the backbone of theistic evolution.

And if someone could defeat this approach to scripture, they could certainly defeat the theistic evolution approach to the Bible as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

In reality, I cannot talk to 99% of Hebrew scholars on Genesis and I don't think you can either. So not much to work on with that claim.

Your youtube link is 1-1/2 hours long. Could you give us the main points in your own words?

You can certainly read their books and commentaries. Do you read books? (a sincere question and I don't mean this in a judgemental way). The video is simply a lecture on a non-concordist reading of Genesis.

And to be fair, many of them are integrated into public spheres of communication. Many are responsive to emails, they provide public lectures, and communicate beyond their classrooms in a variety of platforms.

And an honest question: have you not heard of John Walton before?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

J. P. Moreland makes the case that theistic-evolution is merely a weak form of scientism.

"Theistic Evolution is a revisionist treatment of the Bible based on the idea that if the Bible is going to be even partly credible, it must be constantly revised to keep up with what contemporary science says. Thus, Theistic Evolution supports scientism, the view that the hard sciences are the only or vastly superior way of knowing reality."

J.P. Moreland sometimes over-revs his assertions. I generally like him, but he's not a main source for me for several reasons even though I've read a couple of his books.

In the case of the issue he alleges in the OP video, I think he's only partially correct since I don't think it is applicable to ALL Theistic Evolutionists and I'm at pains to think of any clear examples of Christians who fit within a "weak scientism."

 

[Fervent]

He's making the same error other fundamentalists make, where he thinks not reading Genesis as a literal scientific document is a recent development that only occurred in response to the discovery of the evolutionary history of life.

History shows that's wrong. Jewish and Biblical leaders and scholars were advocating a non-literal reading long before we knew about evolution (such as Maimonides and Origen of Alexandria).

I've seen fundamentalists make this mistake so many times I've concluded it must be something they need to believe and tell themselves.

What's almost ironic is that the fundamentalist rigor where Genesis "literalism" is treated as a non-negotiable item arose as a response to Darwin by theologians like Hodge and Warfield. So it is the recent development, and entirely reactionary.