Theistic Evolution ~ what specifically is it?

[Gnostophorrion]

I also posted a relevant thread in TAW. http://www.christianforums.com/t7428212/

Could a experienced Theistic Evolutionist please provide me with a brief summary of TE??

. .

 

[gluadys]

I also posted a relevant thread in TAW. http://www.christianforums.com/t7428212/

Could a experienced Theistic Evolutionist please provide me with a brief summary of TE??

. .

That's a little difficult, because it is not a set of doctrinal statements. More an attitude. But here are some principles commonly accepted that can be fleshed out with more discussion.

1. TEs accept scripture as the inspired Word of God, the same as other Christians.

2. TEs accept the findings of science on the age of the earth and the evolutionary history of life.

3. TEs generally hold that the scriptures are not intended to present a scientific viewpoint and that where they touch on scientific issues, the Holy Spirit (as in the view of John Calvin) accommodated scripture to the knowledge of the time, the spiritual message being of more importance than secular knowledge about the physical world.

As far as I know, these principles are accepted by many Orthodox as well as by the Catholic church and most Protestant denominations.

A good introductory summary to TE (aka evolutionary creationism) is this essay by Denis Lamoureux. Untitled Document

There is also a series of videos by Gordon J. Glover here: BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT » Does Science Contradict the Bible?

If you want to explore TE more deeply there are a number of blogs, books and videos that cover it. I can give you a reading list as long as your arm.

 

[depthdeception]

TEs accept the findings of science on the age of the earth and the evolutionary history of life.

Hey gluadys, long time no see!

I would qualify this point by saying that instead of "accepting" the findings of science, TE's acknowledge the findings of scientific methodology as being helpful and instructive for understanding how the universe developed, based on the best models that we currently have available to us.

For example, some people ask me if I "believe" in evolution. The answer is "no," simply because evolutionary theory is not something to "believe" in, at least not in the same way that I "believe" in God. Rather, I tell them that I think evolutionary theory provides the best model through which to understand the universe that we currently have at our disposal. I do this because models inevitably change and paradigms cannot help but shift. I refuse to "believe" something that will be overturned in 50 years when better evidence and thinking is available. So then, I will take what science has to offer, find utility in it as needed, and leave my energy for "belief" to things that really matter.

 

[Mallon]

Accept =/= belief.

 

[gluadys]

Hey gluadys, long time no see!

I would qualify this point by saying that instead of "accepting" the findings of science, TE's acknowledge the findings of scientific methodology as being helpful and instructive for understanding how the universe developed, based on the best models that we currently have available to us.

For example, some people ask me if I "believe" in evolution. The answer is "no," simply because evolutionary theory is not something to "believe" in, at least not in the same way that I "believe" in God. Rather, I tell them that I think evolutionary theory provides the best model through which to understand the universe that we currently have at our disposal. I do this because models inevitably change and paradigms cannot help but shift. I refuse to "believe" something that will be overturned in 50 years when better evidence and thinking is available. So then, I will take what science has to offer, find utility in it as needed, and leave my energy for "belief" to things that really matter.

I can live with that. I agree that when I used the term "accept" it was to distinguish it from "belief". I agree science offers us a provisional model of the universe that is constantly being refined in the light of new knowledge.

Belief or faith is for other very much more important matters.

 

[lucaspa]

I also posted a relevant thread in TAW. http://www.christianforums.com/t7428212/

Could a experienced Theistic Evolutionist please provide me with a brief summary of TE??

. .

Gluadys did a good job. I would say that TE is even simpler:

TE says that God created the universe and everything in it using the processes discovered by science. IOW, what science discovers is how God created.

God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution.

Also see the 2 signatures at the bottom of the post.

 

[depthdeception]

TE says that God created the universe and everything in it using the processes discovered by science. IOW, what science discovers is how God created.

God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution.

I more or less agree when you say that science describes how God created (although the "how" of science must never become a avenue to a materialistic concept of divine, creative acts). However, I think that framing the descriptions that science provides as propositional statements (e.g., "God created by the Big Bang") is a little short-sighted.

After all, even though Big Bang cosmology and the current state of evolutionary theory provide good models for organizing information about the origin and development of the universe within the parameters of current knowledge about the same, what about 400 years from now? It's quite unlikely that our notions of Big Bang cosmology and evolutionary theory will still be the standard baseline of science in these fields--more than likely, they will be objects of humor as more refined knowledge produces better (and mostly likely different) theoretical models. Turning our current theories into propositional models only serves to make one's understand irrelevant to future generations.

That is why I qualified the original position of TE's: we acknowledge that science provides a meaningful representation [by meaningful, of course, I am referring to our current domain of understanding] of the nature and development of the universe. We do not, and should not, however, acquiesce to the narrowing of understanding and language that would turn theoretical modeling into absolute truth. In such a scenario, one's position would not be qualitatively different from a biblical literalism, only several hundred years removed in understanding.

 

[shernren]

That is why I qualified the original position of TE's: we acknowledge that science provides a meaningful representation [by meaningful, of course, I am referring to our current domain of understanding] of the nature and development of the universe. We do not, and should not, however, acquiesce to the narrowing of understanding and language that would turn theoretical modeling into absolute truth. In such a scenario, one's position would not be qualitatively different from a biblical literalism, only several hundred years removed in understanding.

I would be even less committed to any statement with epistemological import than you. That is to say I don't think TE requires even a commitment to saying that science works. Minimally, all I need to be comfortable with someone is for them to say that

The conventional scientific models posited for the development of the universe and life are, to date, the most scientifically responsible ones. AND God is not absent from scientific processes

That and for them to understand the Bible. The actual age of the Earth is not really an issue to me. I don't even see the point of calling them "young"-earth creationists - the only people who would think 6000 years is "young" are people so insecure that they will seize on the smallest differences to posit their uniqueness. I'm generally quite over trying to prove the difference between millenia and "billenia" (for lack of an otherwise catchy term for billions of years).

But creationists irk me when they
slander my colleagues,
ignore their Bibles, and
lock God out of science.

That's all that really matters to me at this point in the issue.

 

[lucaspa]

After all, even though Big Bang cosmology and the current state of evolutionary theory provide good models for organizing information about the origin and development of the universe within the parameters of current knowledge about the same, what about 400 years from now? It's quite unlikely that our notions of Big Bang cosmology and evolutionary theory will still be the standard baseline of science in these fields--

1. I am not so sure as you that the basics are going to change. For instance, the basics of planetary motion as described by Kepler have not changed in 400 years. The theory on the behavior of gasses as described by Boyle and others has not changed. Evolution is composed of 5 theories. I do not see the basics of common descent or natural selection changing in the next 400 years.

2. Even if they do change, it will not change the idea I noted: the replacement theory will also be how God created. Now, the one exception to that is if Ekpyrotic replaces Big Bang. If ekpyrotic is correct, then IMO theism is dead.

I more or less agree when you say that science describes how God created (although the "how" of science must never become a avenue to a materialistic concept of divine, creative acts).

That's exactly what the avenue is! The materialistic component of the cause. Let me submit that you have the underlying assumption so many people (including theists) have: natural/material = without God. That is the equation I am trying to get you to discard as not being part of Christian theology. Chemistry is the material avenue for the creation of life. The point is that Christians believe that none of those chemical reactions (or any chemical reaction) happens without God willing it to happen. So, the belief is that every "cause" has 2 components: a material component and a supernatural component. Science determines the material component. We believe there is a supernatural component.

 

[lucaspa]

But creationists irk me when they
slander my colleagues,
ignore their Bibles, and
lock God out of science.

That's all that really matters to me at this point in the issue.

I think the issue is even more basic. I think creationists/Biblical literalists are trying to hijack Christianity and change it into worship of the Bible (or, more accurately, their interpretation of the Bible). This goes far beyond "irk". Unless Christians really start fighting for their religion, I think we are going to wake up one day and find that it has been stolen out from under us.

 

[Zoness]

Hello Theistic Evolutionists

 

[Assyrian]

Now, the one exception to that is if Ekpyrotic replaces Big Bang. If ekpyrotic is correct, then IMO theism is dead.

I don't see why. We would still only be looking at how God created. Admittedly God's handling of time becomes even more mind boggling, but he is God.

 

[shernren]

I think the issue is even more basic. I think creationists/Biblical literalists are trying to hijack Christianity and change it into worship of the Bible (or, more accurately, their interpretation of the Bible). This goes far beyond "irk". Unless Christians really start fighting for their religion, I think we are going to wake up one day and find that it has been stolen out from under us.

To be blunt, I don't think creationists are that smart or that intentional. Creationists let themselves be gripped by a particular Biblical interpretation to the extent that everything else has to fall in with it.

That I have no problem with. We are all gripped by interpretations. I have no problem with being gripped by a Biblical interpretation; I am frequently gripped by my interpretation of the Bible, all the time.

My problem is not that creationists are gripped by an interpretation or even a Biblical interpretation, but that their interpretation is not Biblical enough. A truly Biblical interpretation would not allow the kind of stealth deism that underlies so much creationist discourse; nor would it allow the kind of roughshod riding over Biblical exegesis that creationists often engage in that destroy the text of the Scriptures, perversely, in the name of its very defense. (In no particular order: "reproduction according to kinds" in Genesis 1, misreading of Romans 5:12ff in light of the overall argument of the Pauline corpus, ham-fisted interpretations of Job 40-41 that ignore the overall cosmic thrust of the revelation.)

That's why I'm not particularly concerned with using science to answer creationists. I believe that the Bible itself gives us more than enough to suggest that creationism is unnecessary if not plainly wrong. Make of that what you will.

 

[lucaspa]

To be blunt, I don't think creationists are that smart or that intentional. Creationists let themselves be gripped by a particular Biblical interpretation to the extent that everything else has to fall in with it.

The intentional part is the Biblical interpretation. The Fundamentals, the basis of Biblical literalism/fundamentalism/creationism, only devote a third of the essays to critiquing evolution. The rest of the essays are denouncing Biblical criticism -- particularly Higher Criticism -- and maintaining the "truth" of the Bible. What you need to do is consider the theological consequences of saying "The Bible is inerrant and literal" and "the Bible is the Word of God".

A truly Biblical interpretation would not allow the kind of stealth deism that underlies so much creationist discourse;

It's not stealth deism. It's stealth falses idol worship. What Biblical literalists do is not defend God, but defend the literalist interpretation of the Bible. It's no longer worship of God, but worship of the Bible.

nor would it allow the kind of roughshod riding over Biblical exegesis that creationists often engage in that destroy the text of the Scriptures, perversely, in the name of its very defense. (In no particular order: "reproduction according to kinds" in Genesis 1, misreading of Romans 5:12ff in light of the overall argument of the Pauline corpus, ham-fisted interpretations of Job 40-41 that ignore the overall cosmic thrust of the revelation.)

But that's my point. You are looking at the "overall" Bible and the theological message as related to God. You are using the Bible as Paul told us to use it: as a guide to find and partially understand God. For the Biblical literalist, the Bible is an end in itself. It has become their god. So they don't care for an overall picture or overall "thrust of the revelation" because the overall picture or revelation is God.

That's why I'm not particularly concerned with using science to answer creationists. I believe that the Bible itself gives us more than enough to suggest that creationism is unnecessary if not plainly wrong. Make of that what you will.

I'm going to start a thread on the theological failures of creationism. However, the importance of using science to answer creationists is to remind them that God has two books. That Creation -- what science studies -- is just as much from God as scripture. The concern is to break their false worship of their interpretation of the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't see why. We would still only be looking at how God created. Admittedly God's handling of time becomes even more mind boggling, but he is God.

Assyrian, perhaps you are not familiar with Ekpyrotic? Judeo-Christianity has an eternal and uncaused God, who then creates the physical universe we are in.

In Ekpyrotic, there is an eternal and uncaused 5 D 'brane, in which float (at least) two 4 D 'branes (universes). Random fluctuations cause one 4 D 'brane to shed a 2 D 'brane which then floats thru the 5 D 'brane until it collides with the other 4 D 'brane. That collision wipes out the existing 4 D 'brane and creates a new one. IOW, that collision of 'branes is the creation of our universe. Now God is no longer the creator of the universe. Nor is God necessary to create the 5 D 'brane -- like God it is eternal and uncaused.

Ekpyrotic is, obviously, based on String Theory. It does predict different gravity waves than would be generated by the Big Bang, since the collision of the 'branes is not a singularity. However, String Theory itself is in big trouble, with the data so far falsifying it.

If you want to read more on Ekpyrotic, here are some references:
1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001.
[hep-th/0103239] The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515/189
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian, perhaps you are not familiar with Ekpyrotic? Judeo-Christianity has an eternal and uncaused God, who then creates the physical universe we are in.

In Ekpyrotic, there is an eternal and uncaused 5 D 'brane, in which float (at least) two 4 D 'branes (universes). Random fluctuations cause one 4 D 'brane to shed a 2 D 'brane which then floats thru the 5 D 'brane until it collides with the other 4 D 'brane. That collision wipes out the existing 4 D 'brane and creates a new one. IOW, that collision of 'branes is the creation of our universe. Now God is no longer the creator of the universe. Nor is God necessary to create the 5 D 'brane -- like God it is eternal and uncaused.

Ekpyrotic is, obviously, based on String Theory. It does predict different gravity waves than would be generated by the Big Bang, since the collision of the 'branes is not a singularity. However, String Theory itself is in big trouble, with the data so far falsifying it.

If you want to read more on Ekpyrotic, here are some references:
1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001.
[hep-th/0103239] The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515/189
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

The idea of the cosmos always existing is not new, and it is one the church has looked at and wrestled with through the ages. After all it was what Aristotle taught and his ideas were very influential. While Christian scholars who looked at the question rejected the concept because a universe of finite age seemed to fit much more easily with Genesis and seemed implausible to them, it wasn’t seen as being completely incompatible with a Creator. I think Aquinas was one of the ones who looked at the question. There is no reason why an eternal creator could not be eternally creating. The medieval concept they were thinking of seemed to of an eternal universe running parallel and coeval with it creator. A strange concept but not impossible. From our modern stand point when we realise there are different size infinities, there is no reason an eternal universe would have to be the same eternal as its creator. Nor do the eternal timelines have to run parallel as the scholars thought, the eternity of the creator would be outside the everlasting ‘brane universe.

The big problem I see in you description is eternal and uncaused. Obviously an uncaused universe is incompatible with a creator, but what is the basis for saying it is uncaused? Is it simply because it is eternal and the chain of causality extends back infinitely? That just means the cause does not exist within the timeline of the universe. Who is to say there is not a cause for the eternal ‘brane universe, outside the universe itself. Infinities boggle the mind, but I see no more difficulty with God creating a universe of infinite extent or of infinite duration, after all outside the universe they are just dimensions.

 

[shernren]

The intentional part is the Biblical interpretation. The Fundamentals, the basis of Biblical literalism/fundamentalism/creationism, only devote a third of the essays to critiquing evolution. The rest of the essays are denouncing Biblical criticism -- particularly Higher Criticism -- and maintaining the "truth" of the Bible. What you need to do is consider the theological consequences of saying "The Bible is inerrant and literal" and "the Bible is the Word of God".

I guess you have a valid point if you are referring to "fundamentalism" as the movement started with The Fundamentals. But the creationists I deal with in my everyday life and on this forum haven't the foggiest notion what higher criticism is and wouldn't recognize The Fundamentals if it was staring them in the face. Fundamentalism as a subject of historical study has a lot to do with what you say; fundamentalism as a living force in Christendom today has almost nothing to do with it.

But I think I would rather listen to you than repeat myself ad infinitum ad nauseam. I've got two questions:

1. What specifically (and briefly!) do you think the role of the Bible would be in the ideal Christian life?

2. What is the best way to communicate your answer to Q1 to a creationist?

 

[depthdeception]

The big problem I see in you description is eternal and uncaused. Obviously an uncaused universe is incompatible with a creator, but what is the basis for saying it is uncaused? Is it simply because it is eternal and the chain of causality extends back infinitely? That just means the cause does not exist within the timeline of the universe. Who is to say there is not a cause for the eternal ‘brane universe, outside the universe itself. Infinities boggle the mind, but I see no more difficulty with God creating a universe of infinite extent or of infinite duration, after all outside the universe they are just dimensions.

The concept of "causality" outside of the strictures of space/time(s) (whether in a singular universe, a chain of branes, or whatever) does not obtain. God did not "cause" the universe--God created the universe, and there is a very important difference. Causality implies that originating causes can be determined as necessary conditions for the effects in question. To apply such reasoning to God is to reduce the eternal, divine being to the level of materialism whereby God can be understood as the necessary, material condition for all that is. This is not what Christian theology means by creation ex nihilo, and I think it is a very important concept to grasp.

 

[depthdeception]

And this is why, of course, scientific methodology will never be able to establish nor disprove the existence of a Creator.

 

[Assyrian]

The concept of "causality" outside of the strictures of space/time(s) (whether in a singular universe, a chain of branes, or whatever) does not obtain. God did not "cause" the universe--God created the universe, and there is a very important difference. Causality implies that originating causes can be determined as necessary conditions for the effects in question. To apply such reasoning to God is to reduce the eternal, divine being to the level of materialism whereby God can be understood as the necessary, material condition for all that is. This is not what Christian theology means by creation ex nihilo, and I think it is a very important concept to grasp.

Sorry my language is science rather than philosophy so I realised when I was writing I was probably struggling with terminology. Probably concepts too. When you say causality does not obtain, do you mean not at all, or just not in that sense? I was trying to express the idea of a chain of causality within the branes that could be infinite, God isn't simply the first part of the chain. First cause is a problematic concept in an infinite system, and even messier if time is not linear as it is in our universe. But while God is not a cause within the causality of the branes, the whole system exists because God created it. Cause in a very different sense but still the 'because', the reason it is.