Theistic Evolution, New Theology?

[mark kennedy]

I was browsing the net when I happened on this article. I have known for some time that the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) was struggling to come to terms with evolution. I don't really think they can get away from an Intelligent Design view but they do entertain compromise on a broad scale. I liked the article because it's fairly balanced and like most Catholic scholarship, it's thorough. Just a couple of exerts to prime the pump here a little:

The Creation Story for Atheists

Richards urges Catholics to stand on the front lines in the struggle to “liberate science and culture from the grip of materialism,” instead of looking for “quasi-Catholic ways” to support the materialist status quo. There are Catholic scholars who defend Darwinism on the ground that science is by its very nature limited to naturalistic explanations. Richards warns that this is “a potentially fatal, and unnecessary capitulation to modernism.”​

Some of the names on here caught my attention:

• Francisco Ayala, an ex-Dominican priest and an ex-Catholic
  Darwinism poses no challenge to religion because it frees God from responsibility for the cruelties that pervade the world. Then he warns that those who oppose Darwinism may be guilty of “blasphemy” by imputing the world’s “incompetent design” to God, instead of to unguided evolution.
• Francis Collins, head of the BioLogos Foundation
  Even so, Collins has crusaded against intelligent design in biology, contending that “junk DNA” is proof that Darwinian evolution is “unquestionably correct” and that a “hit-and-miss designer” like the blind watchmaker “laid down the millions of pages of genetic information essential for life.”
• Howard Van Till, who abandoned Christianity after retiring
  He contends that on the grounds of a “theological aesthetic” it would be “distasteful” for God to act directly in nature after the initial creation. Richards counters that this view contradicts the Bible, which clearly shows that God makes covenants with men, performs miracles, and becomes incarnate.

That's really all I had, not expecting a lot of discussion but I'd be interested in what TEs might have to say about the article.

Your thoughts...

 

[Philis]

Is there a link to the article?

EDIT - Thanks

 

[mark kennedy]

Is there a link to the article?

My bad!!! The OP has been updated, sorry about that.

 

[Keachian]

The sentiment that theistic evolution encourages a belief in a God that no longer interacts with the universe he created I think is somewhat unfounded, however I do agree in principle that to go down that road is to concede way too much to any attacker of the faith.

God is not a testable hypothesis as we cannot have a control experiment that does not involve God's interaction in the universe.

 

[samaus12345]

Which god? It isnt the God of genesis.

 

[Keachian]

Which god? It isnt the God of genesis.

There is only One God, if we believe that God no longer interacts with his creation, we have been sold a lie, bought into the materialism, bought into deism.

 

[mark kennedy]

The sentiment that theistic evolution encourages a belief in a God that no longer interacts with the universe he created I think is somewhat unfounded, however I do agree in principle that to go down that road is to concede way too much to any attacker of the faith.

God is not a testable hypothesis as we cannot have a control experiment that does not involve God's interaction in the universe.

No, it's raising the same concerns that Catholics, fundamentalists and most Bible believing Christians have expressed at the atheistic philosophy beneath the surface of Darwinism. Never mind that it is pitifully weak as a theory, or a hypothesis, or even as a random thought. Compromise with this worldly philosophy is impossible, they will never be satisfied with making creationists look foolish.

Think what you like but what I have noticed the most with theistic evolutionists is that the only thing that matters to them is that Creationists are wrong. That just can't be healthy.

 

[Keachian]

No, it's raising the same concerns that Catholics, fundamentalists and most Bible believing Christians have expressed at the atheistic philosophy beneath the surface of Darwinism. Never mind that it is pitifully weak as a theory, or a hypothesis, or even as a random thought. Compromise with this worldly philosophy is impossible, they will never be satisfied with making creationists look foolish.

I know you think that accepting the scientific narrative of the universe is compromising more than we ought, I don't and think that God's sovereignty over creation as described in the Bible is the main battlefield on which we should fight, in my opinion this is best done by accepting the scientific narrative and arguing that God remains sovereign and in control.

Think what you like but what I have noticed the most with theistic evolutionists is that the only thing that matters to them is that Creationists are wrong. That just can't be healthy.

I think this is possibly very misconstrued, there are a lot of TEs that do not post in Origins

 

[mark kennedy]

I know you think that accepting the scientific narrative of the universe is compromising more than we ought, I don't and think that God's sovereignty over creation as described in the Bible is the main battlefield on which we should fight, in my opinion this is best done by accepting the scientific narrative and arguing that God remains sovereign and in control.

I honestly think science itself has very little to do with it. I read a little philosophy from time to time and I know what modernism is and it's not a blend of Christian theism with natural science. it's naturalistic assumptions that know no bounds. It is a worldview that is mutually exclusive with theistic reasoning and the fact is, this philosophy emerged well after the scientific revolution.

I think this is possibly very misconstrued, there are a lot of TEs that do not post in Origins

There are a lot of creationists that abandon the discussions because they get tired of the constant insults. Theistic evolution is like it's grandparent philosophy, it's one long argument against creation.

That's really all it is and if your fine with that then maybe we don't care about the same things. I actually searched out evidences for and against the Scriptures, reasons for faith, this ongoing train wreck was an after thought.

If you think this mess is Biblical Christianity I don't know what to tell you. Maybe some of the TEs think their being progressive or whatever but essentially Darwinism is one long argument against special creation. It always has been and always will be. The fundamental truth remains, Creationism is essential Christianity. Evolution isn't essential science, depending on which definition you want to use.

 

[Keachian]

I honestly think science itself has very little to do with it. I read a little philosophy from time to time and I know what modernism is and it's not a blend of Christian theism with natural science. it's naturalistic assumptions that know no bounds. It is a worldview that is mutually exclusive with theistic reasoning and the fact is, this philosophy emerged well after the scientific revolution.

Except philosophically speaking I'd consider my stance as Critical realism, not modernist.

There are a lot of creationists that abandon the discussions because they get tired of the constant insults. Theistic evolution is like it's grandparent philosophy, it's one long argument against creation.

No, we believe that God created, the contention isn't with creationism, the contention is against YEC, especially where it proposes silly explanations for phenomena, such as giant ice domes.

That's really all it is and if your fine with that then maybe we don't care about the same things. I actually searched out evidences for and against the Scriptures, reasons for faith, this ongoing train wreck was an after thought.

I'm not fine with the unfounded accusations that TEs don't believe in creation, from the responses I've had in my recent thread so far, there is no basis for this. As far as evidences for the Scripture, you only need to go to one place, that of the work of Christ and its place in history, anything else is completely unnecessary.

If you think this mess is Biblical Christianity I don't know what to tell you. Maybe some of the TEs think their being progressive or whatever but essentially Darwinism is one long argument against special creation. It always has been and always will be. The fundamental truth remains, Creationism is essential Christianity. Evolution isn't essential science, depending on which definition you want to use.

You've changed the definition of Creationism, I'm tired of this bait-and-switch tactic, you've now limited it to YEC. Christianity while necessarily being tied to the idea of God as creator does not need to be confined to special creation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Except philosophically speaking I'd consider my stance as Critical realism, not modernist.

It doesn't matter what you call it, the names keep changing but the arguments never do.

No, we believe that God created, the contention isn't with creationism, the contention is against YEC, especially where it proposes silly explanations for phenomena, such as giant ice domes.

Yet every argument and virtually every post is directed at Creationists. The object must be Creationism and the age of the earth is beside the point, always has been. It is the Darwinian who needs all the time in the world, not the Creationist.

The issue is God acting in time and space during creation, specifically the account of the creation of life in the opening chapters of Genesis. That is what the Nicene Creed has in mind when making the opening requisite belief of Christians a belief in God as Creator.

I'm not fine with the unfounded accusations that TEs don't believe in creation, from the responses I've had in my recent thread so far, there is no basis for this. As far as evidences for the Scripture, you only need to go to one place, that of the work of Christ and its place in history, anything else is completely unnecessary.

All they do is argue against a belief in God as Creator, attacking the creation account with reckless abandon. What am I supposed to think?

Not one of you are defending the credibility of Scripture against the secular skeptics you act in concert with. Not one of you are versed in Christian apologestics and certainly would never emphasis the incarnation in your posts. The historicity of the New Testament is a vital issue, once that is established the clear line of reasoning would direct you to the historical narratives of the Old Testament. When confirmed in the New Testament the exegesis of Genesis 1 as an historical narrative becomes canonical as well as historically verifiable.

Arguing endlessly against Genesis 1 betrays a lack of confidence in the Scriptures and the absence of an apologetic for the New Testament is to abandon the historicity of Scripture categorically. That is the insidious element of Darwinism that you have grossly underestimated, the principles are transcendent just as the principles of Genesis transcend Scripture, literally, from beginning to end.

You've changed the definition of Creationism, I'm tired of this bait-and-switch tactic, you've now limited it to YEC. Christianity while necessarily being tied to the idea of God as creator does not need to be confined to special creation.

No sir, I have not. I have demanding a recognition of the clear definition of creation from the Nicene Creed and Genesis 1, in concert with the New Testament witness with regards to the historicity of Genesis.

I changed the definition of nothing, it is you who are conflating the clear meaning of words and the text of Genesis, the Nicene Creed and the Christian faith. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator and spending so much time doing nothing but undermining this vital tenant of faith is deleterious the Christian theism.

God as Creator is inextricably linked to special creation, that is the content of the Genesis 1 account, the original intent of the Nicene Creed and the full weight of the issues being debated in these forums.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Howard Van Till, who abandoned Christianity after retiring from Calvin College, makes an argument that is now practically universal among theistic evolutionists: He contends that on the grounds of a “theological aesthetic” it would be “distasteful” for God to act directly in nature after the initial creation. Richards counters that this view contradicts the Bible, which clearly shows that God makes covenants with men, performs miracles, and becomes incarnate.

Except that's not what the Bible says. This sounds far more like the deistic arguement I sometimes hear YECs use. I know that when new discoveries come along it forces us to re-examine our theology, but this sounds more like we're kowtowing to popular opinion rather than defending our religion.

Another snippet from the New Oxford Review:

When we see theistic evolutionists denying that God played any role at all in natural or human history, we realize how right Avery Cardinal Dulles was when he warned that too much was being conceded to atheists. “Why should God be capable of creating the world from nothing,” he asked, “but incapable of acting within the world he has made?”
​

Why indeed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Except that's not what the Bible says. This sounds far more like the deistic arguement I sometimes hear YECs use. I know that when new discoveries come along it forces us to re-examine our theology, but this sounds more like we're kowtowing to popular opinion rather than defending our religion.

Nonsense, YECs are YECs because they believe God acts in time and space and reigns in the affairs of men. You can't have God creating the world in six day, bringing a global flood and delivering the children of Israel from bondage through catastrophic judgements and be a deist. Your being absurd and factious and I think you guys just do it to be offensive. I guess you think it makes you seem threatening but personally I think it's just foolish.

Pantheism is how I would describe the arguments of theistic evolutionists, you especially.

Another snippet from the New Oxford Review:

When we see theistic evolutionists denying that God played any role at all in natural or human history, we realize how right Avery Cardinal Dulles was when he warned that too much was being conceded to atheists. “Why should God be capable of creating the world from nothing,” he asked, “but incapable of acting within the world he has made?”
​

Why indeed.

When has a YEC ever believed in God's divine fiat of a six day creation and argued he was incapable of acting in the world he made?

It doesn't happen, the deists are the modernists who have divorced theistic reasoning from miracles and the Bible. Not one of you will defend the Scriptures from the foam at the mouth ravings of Darwinian atheists but you will unanimously and relentlessly hurl insults and infantile indictments against it to please your Darwinian masters.

Deist argument and these are the know it alls who want to correct everything I say. Get a clue dude, your embarrassing yourself.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Nonsense, YECs are YECs because they believe God acts in time and space and reigns in the affairs of men. You can't have God creating the world in six day, bringing a global flood and delivering the children of Israel from bondage through catastrophic judgements and be a deist. Your being absurd and factious and I think you guys just do it to be offensive. I guess you think it makes you seem threatening but personally I think it's just foolish.

I was criticising theistic evolutionists (or rather, the particular arguments TEs were using in your OP) and you still take it as an insult to Young Earth Creationism.

YEC is described as "deistic" because it argues that creation stopped after the creation week itself. TE however believe that evolution is continuous creation.

Pantheism is how I would describe the arguments of theistic evolutionists, you especially.

Panentheism perhaps (link).

Deist argument and these are the know it alls who want to correct everything I say. Get a clue dude, your embarrassing yourself.

Yeesh, when did you become so snippy?

 

[mark kennedy]

YEC is described as "deistic" because it argues that creation stopped after the creation week itself. TE however believe that evolution is continuous creation.

YEC is considered deistic because being a TE means you can assign any meaning to any word for any reason, without telling anyone. Not one YEC has ever suggest that God's work ended with creation. I don't know what you actually believe but the philosophy is atheistic.

Yeesh, when did you become so snippy?

I get sick and tired of these pedantic one liners you guys throw around like water balloons. It's bad enough that not one of you will define the words you used like evolution, science, theistic then you want to call a theological orientation predicated on the wonderful works of God as deist.

That's not snippy, that's just the correction you earned.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Not one YEC has ever suggest that God's work ended with creation.

That's the impression I've got from many creationists: the world was cursed by the Fall - that's why there are no beneficial mutations, only detrimental ones. That's also why the majority of species are extinct and why modern humans don't live as long as the Biblical patriarchs. The world will only get worse.

That's not snippy, that's just the correction you earned.

Calling TEs raving Darwinian atheists who prefer to hurl insults to please our Darwinian masters insted of defending scripture is snippy.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's the impression I've got from many creationists: the world was cursed by the Fall - that's why there are no beneficial mutations, only detrimental ones. That's also why the majority of species are extinct and why modern humans don't live as long as the Biblical patriarchs. The world will only get worse.

That's not deism, that's the curse of sin:

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? (Romans 8:22-24)​

The world is passing away, our hope renews us day by day. Do you read the Bible or just learn everything you know about it from Darwinians?

Calling TEs raving Darwinian atheists who prefer to hurl insults to please our Darwinian masters insted of defending scripture is snippy.

Notice you didn't deny it as untrue, just doesn't like it because it's 'snippy'. When have you ever contradicted, much less argued, against Darwinian evolution? Like Darwinism theistic evolution is one long argument against Creationism, do you see a difference because if you didn't tell me there was one I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's not deism, that's the curse of sin

Depending on which particular definition you use, deism is defined as the belief that God does not intervene in the world. As for my original argument (that Creationists believe creation stopped on the sixth day) Answersingenesis makes it quite clear this is one of the reasons evolution is not compatible with creation:

5. Creation is finished

God’s work of creation finished at the end of the sixth day, when God completed all He had set out to do. However, because of man’s fall, God now works at reconciliation. Those who believe that God used evolution must believe that the same processes God used in this supposed evolutionary “creation” are going on today.
...
In other words, modern evolutionary theory accepts that evolution is still going on (therefore, man must still be evolving!), so if a Christian accepts evolution he has to accept that God is still using evolution today. Thus, He is still creating. But God tells us that He finished His work of creating. This is a real dilemma for the theistic evolutionist.

- link​

Notice you didn't deny it as untrue, just doesn't like it because it's 'snippy'.

Fine, here it is: I deny that I am an atheist, that I based how I should live my life on evolution and that I hurl insults to please my "Darwinian masters" - whoever they are.

When have you ever contradicted, much less argued, against Darwinian evolution?

Right here: Evolution and social darwinism (pages 6 - 10)

Specifically, I was arguing against evolutionary psychology (which I find to be simplistic and cliched) and pointed out that we are much too willing to downplay the effect social Darwinism had on our understanding of evolution.

 

[Keachian]

Yet every argument and virtually every post is directed at Creationists. The object must be Creationism and the age of the earth is beside the point, always has been. It is the Darwinian who needs all the time in the world, not the Creationist.

Sorry, but this is just flatly untrue at least for me, I have been talking with other TEs about

The issue is God acting in time and space during creation, specifically the account of the creation of life in the opening chapters of Genesis. That is what the Nicene Creed has in mind when making the opening requisite belief of Christians a belief in God as Creator.

All they do is argue against a belief in God as Creator, attacking the creation account with reckless abandon. What am I supposed to think?

Sigh, most TEs I have come across believe that God acts in time and space not just during creation, but at all times, such a belief is in line with both the scriptural doctrines of creation and providence.

Not one of you are defending the credibility of Scripture against the secular skeptics you act in concert with. Not one of you are versed in Christian apologestics and certainly would never emphasis the incarnation in your posts. The historicity of the New Testament is a vital issue, once that is established the clear line of reasoning would direct you to the historical narratives of the Old Testament. When confirmed in the New Testament the exegesis of Genesis 1 as an historical narrative becomes canonical as well as historically verifiable.

Assyrian had to point out to you where he has emphasised the Gospel, I suppose I have to as well, just inside the Origins Theology forum:

to Jinx25 in Objections to the Big Bang
The Blessed God who is above all and in all! He cares so much that he condescended and died upon a Cross becoming a curse for us such that we might have life and have it to the full

to Martyrs44 in Three powerful challenges to theistic evolutionists
I prefer to think of myself as not being like Adam, I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer the man of Adam that lives in me, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. The old man that I was in Adam has been put to death, I am now a new creation in Christ! Hallelujah!

to Jinx25 in Can we agree on this
God condescends to interact with us on a personal level, first with Adam and Eve, then with Enoch, Noah and Abraham and so on culminating in his putting on of flesh and entering into the world as a helpless babe, taking our sins upon his shoulders and showing us what it truly means to be Imago Dei and dying on that wonderful Cross.

to You in Three powerful challenges to theistic evolutionists
The work of Christ on the Cross affects every possible area of theology, it is very important therefore. However as I said I'd much rather focus upon the relationship between Christ and Adam in this subforum as it is most relevant here.

In regards to apologetics, if it is not Cross focused, there is just no point.

Arguing endlessly against Genesis 1 betrays a lack of confidence in the Scriptures and the absence of an apologetic for the New Testament is to abandon the historicity of Scripture categorically. That is the insidious element of Darwinism that you have grossly underestimated, the principles are transcendent just as the principles of Genesis transcend Scripture, literally, from beginning to end.

I'm not arguing against Genesis 1, just your interpretation of it, which is very concordist, where exactly does it say anything about toxic gas clouds in Genesis?

No sir, I have not. I have demanding a recognition of the clear definition of creation from the Nicene Creed and Genesis 1, in concert with the New Testament witness with regards to the historicity of Genesis.

I changed the definition of nothing, it is you who are conflating the clear meaning of words and the text of Genesis, the Nicene Creed and the Christian faith. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator and spending so much time doing nothing but undermining this vital tenant of faith is deleterious the Christian theism.

You did, by limiting God's creative acts to special creation you are changing the emphasis of the doctrine of creation from God created to when God created.

God as Creator is inextricably linked to special creation, that is the content of the Genesis 1 account, the original intent of the Nicene Creed and the full weight of the issues being debated in these forums.

I don't think it is, in fact I'd say the creation of both the animals and man in the same manner in Gen 2 is an argument against special creation.

 

[samaus12345]

Genesis 3:1

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

"Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

God based question by satan.

"What about thorns, are you one of those who believe thorns didnt come into the world until after Adam fell?"

God based question by satan.

Gensis 3: 17 KJV
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

7:30

Richard Dawkins interviews creationist John Mackay (Part 1 of 2) - YouTube