Ok, I feel kinda dumb for asking this, but I have heard a lot about Theistic Evolution, and I am not quite sure what it is, and what the beliefs are. Would someone please explain it to me?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Theistic Evolution
- Thread starter Beautiful Fireball
- Start date
DailyBlessings
O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!
- Oct 21, 2004
- 17,775
- 983
- 40
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It's not a set of beliefs- it's just a name some people call Christians who accept evolution (that is, the theory that gene pools change over time)
Upvote
0
C
Chaan Stines
Guest
I thought it was the idea that God created everything, but used Evolution to do it. Or some attempt to make evolution and Genesis's account of creation mix.
Upvote
0
Not quite. That theory (known today as microevolution) was introduced by the Creationist Edward Blythe about 25 years before Darwin published The Origin of Species. Theistic evolution is the attempt to gel Darwin' evolutionary theories (namely, that all life today comes from variations from a single-celled organism billions of years ago) with- or, rather, to replace- the Genesis account of Creation.
For theistic evolution to be true, there have to be billions of years and thousands of generations of pain, disease, and death before man becomes man as we know him today. Thus, the responsibility for the state of the world lies with God, not man's sinful rebellion against God, so God's goodness and justice is invalidated by theistic evolution. If God is no longer perfect and just since he introduced death into the world and lied about it to pass the blame onto man, Christ's sacrifice is 1.) unnecessary and 2.) arbitrarily cruel. Thus, the entire New Testament is null and void.
For a better explanation of theistic evolution, look for some stuff by Phillip E. Johnson.
Upvote
0
AceHero
Veteran
Microevolution is completely different from theistic evolution. Microevolution is changes that we can see that occur (i.e. animal breeding) while theistic evolution (or just theism) is believing that God had evolution occur to create the universe, which in a sense limits His powers. It's possible that it could have happened, but God certainly didn't need it for life to work.
Both from Wikipedia:
Upvote
0
JacobHall86
Calvin is 500 years old, Calvinism is eternal!
- Apr 27, 2006
- 4,005
- 272
- 39
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Thiestic evolution is the like "Agnostic" of Creation theories. Too lazy to pick a side.
Upvote
0
SoC
Soldier of Christ
- Jul 15, 2004
- 1,200
- 66
- 41
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Theistic Evolution is impossible. Look at the order of things created in the Bible. Look at the order of how things evolved. They don't match? Imagine that.
Also this is right on the money:
Also this is right on the money:
Upvote
0
Death? Yes.
Pain and disease? Some of our brother and sisters who believe in theistic evolution would disagree there.
You'll need to go deeper to make this a valid argument. (Or, folks could just read something by Johnson... he fills this argument out enough to be at least partially defensable.)
Upvote
0
these arguments make me sad
I made the mistake of wandering into the origins theology board here on CF a few days ago. I do not like to see the way brothers and sisters in Christ will attack each others beleifs.
Btw, I believe in evolution, and I am a Christian, which I guess puts me in the theistic evolution category. According to this thread that means I am treading in dangerous water, don’t believe that God is omnipotent, don’t believe God is perfect, have indirectly declared the New Testament null and void, am too lazy to pick a side, and have a belief that is apparently impossible. (quoting others on this thread- obviously I don't think these things true of myself. Those doesn’t even go into all the unkind things I have seen thrown around in the Origins theology board…
I made the mistake of wandering into the origins theology board here on CF a few days ago. I do not like to see the way brothers and sisters in Christ will attack each others beleifs. Btw, I believe in evolution, and I am a Christian, which I guess puts me in the theistic evolution category. According to this thread that means I am treading in dangerous water, don’t believe that God is omnipotent, don’t believe God is perfect, have indirectly declared the New Testament null and void, am too lazy to pick a side, and have a belief that is apparently impossible. (quoting others on this thread- obviously I don't think these things true of myself. Those doesn’t even go into all the unkind things I have seen thrown around in the Origins theology board…
Upvote
0
DailyBlessings
O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!
- Oct 21, 2004
- 17,775
- 983
- 40
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Sorry about that- it may help to remember that when people start acting nasty to each other, it isn't because of Christ or religion. It's just an argument, plain and simple. Not the nicest part of humanity, the desire to hurt each other, but that is why we needed saving through Christ. And Christ can save us, and has saved us. And that is the good news, not some silly theological debate.these arguments make me sad
Btw, I believe in evolution, and I am a Christian, which I guess puts me in the theistic evolution category. According to this thread that means I am treading in dangerous water, don’t believe that God is omnipotent, don’t believe God is perfect, have indirectly declared the New Testament null and void, am too lazy to pick a side, and have a belief that is apparently impossible. (quoting others on this thread- obviously I don't think these things true of myself. Those doesn’t even go into all the unkind things I have seen thrown around in the Origins theology board…
Upvote
0
Lyle
I am last minute stuff
There is a big difference between microevolution, macroevolution, and genesis. Theistic Evolution is the thought that God used evolution in the creation process. The doubt rises out of some still wanting evolution and making statement sin its earliest form like 'God created Monkey to make man.." There is also a disagreement in whether or not the day was a literally day or a period of time. The Bible answers this quite clearly though.
Micro/Macroevolution have nothing to do with genesis though, so, don't throw them in. Micro is more of an ongoing process of adaptation, and not shifting of kinds.
Micro/Macroevolution have nothing to do with genesis though, so, don't throw them in. Micro is more of an ongoing process of adaptation, and not shifting of kinds.
Upvote
0
Let me make this clear that theistic evolution is wrong.
Firstly, The theory of evolution necessitates and assumes the existence of incredibly long ages of suffering,
death and destuction before fully human beings evolved. Yet Genesis 1:25 and 31 teach us that God looked
at what he had made and saw that it was good and very good. Only the most perverted of human beings
would call survival-of-the-fittest struggles very good. This survival of the strong and dominant and the loss
of the weak and helpless are completely contrary to the Biblical revelation of God as compassionate towards
the helpless.
Secondly, Genesis teaches that God made man in his own image, which assumes an immediate creation of a fully human person. The developmental process of supposed evolution makes it impossible to define at which point man became the bearer of the image of God, and at which point man became responsible and answerable to God.
Thirdly,The evolutionary assumption of long millennia of death and destruction is also in direct conflict with the teaching in Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24 and Romans 5:12-21. According to these passages suffering and death entered the world because of human sin. God created the first human beings as responsible creatures, accountable and answerable to
him. The origin of suffering and death is the direct consequence of their choice to live independently of God and his command. Theistic evolution, assuming the existence of suffering and death before sin, undermines this basic teaching of Genesis 3, again regarding it as mere myth and not facutal account of what actually happened.
Furthermore, If the factualiy of the Genesis 3 account of the origin of sin and suffering is denied, a significant flow-on occurs:
Our understanding of sin, our understanding of our relationship with God before and after conversion, our understanding
of the significance of the death of Jesus Christ, our understanding of the concepts of salvation, redemption, justification
and reconciliation, our understanding of the concepts of judgement, condemnation, heaven and hell, all are undermined
and re-interpreted by the non-factuality of Genesis 3. If Genesis 3 is not fact, the death of Christ is robbed of the meaning given to it in the rest of the Bible.
Lastly, All of the above constitute a serious departure from the traditional Christian belief in the infallibility and authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God. Jesus Christ and Paul both grounded aspects of their teaching on the facts of Genesis 1 to 3.
They viewed these chapters as facts not as myth. If we allow the theories of fallible human scientists to determine and
dictate the validity of the Scriptures which up to this present era of the church have been regarded as the infallible word
of the trustworthy God, then there has indeed been a major shift in our attitude to both God and his Word.
Many problems also arise from believeing in theistic evolution.
1. Denial of central Biblical teachings - events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding
of the message of the Bible as being true in the word and meaning, is scorned and regarded as superstitious.
2. Misrepresentation of the nature of God. - The anti-biblical consequences of theistic evolution have become clear
- a false representation of God and of Christ
- God is seen as imperfect
- Death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation.
- It is assumed that the holy God used sin to create life
- Sin is regarded as a harmless evolutionary factor, causing Jesus Christ's work of
redemption as the only possibility of man's salvation, to appear almost absurd
- Adam's fall to sin is seen as a myth instead of reality, conveying a false impression
of death and suffering in the world.
3. Loss of the key for finding God. - Only those persons who realise that they are sinful and lost,
will seek the Saviour. Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in
relation to God). Sin is made meaningless. Evolutionary writers suggest that this aggression is
what sets evolution in progress and that murder, hate and the aggression are prerequesites
from which man could not have developed without. But if sin is seen in this way, then one
has lost the key for finding God.
4. God's incarnation beomes incidental -
Jesus could not be a universal mediator between God and man, because neither the Neanderthal people
(regarded as our probable ancestors), nor our potential descendants could or will understand Jesus.
5. Relativisation of Jesus' work of redemption - If one does not regard Adam as a real historical person
but as a mythical figure, then one can consequently not accept Jesus' work of redemption as real.
6. God beomes a God of the gaps - In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things whose
Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. The only
workspace allotted to Him is that part which evolution cannot explain with the means at its disposal. In this
way He is reduced to being a "god of the gaps" for those phenomena about which there are doubts.
7. Loss of Biblical chronology - In respect to the past (creation and the age of the earth) and the future
(return of Christ and end of the age) time frames
8. Misinterpretation of reality - Evolution is presented and proclaimed as if proven and factual, whereas there is no proof.
9. Loss of creation concepts - The biblical creation principles are ignored in theistic evolution, but on the other hand, evolutionary ideas
are carried into the Bible. In this way God's omnipotent acts are eventually negated.
10. Missing the purpose - The very thought of purposefulness is anathena to evolutionists. There are no blueprints, nor any purpose.
Thus if man is unplanned, then he has no purpose.
There are reasons why scientific evolution is worng as well, however, for that you might like to watch the DVD Unlocking the Mysteries of Life. Thanks.
Firstly, The theory of evolution necessitates and assumes the existence of incredibly long ages of suffering,
death and destuction before fully human beings evolved. Yet Genesis 1:25 and 31 teach us that God looked
at what he had made and saw that it was good and very good. Only the most perverted of human beings
would call survival-of-the-fittest struggles very good. This survival of the strong and dominant and the loss
of the weak and helpless are completely contrary to the Biblical revelation of God as compassionate towards
the helpless.
Secondly, Genesis teaches that God made man in his own image, which assumes an immediate creation of a fully human person. The developmental process of supposed evolution makes it impossible to define at which point man became the bearer of the image of God, and at which point man became responsible and answerable to God.
Thirdly,The evolutionary assumption of long millennia of death and destruction is also in direct conflict with the teaching in Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24 and Romans 5:12-21. According to these passages suffering and death entered the world because of human sin. God created the first human beings as responsible creatures, accountable and answerable to
him. The origin of suffering and death is the direct consequence of their choice to live independently of God and his command. Theistic evolution, assuming the existence of suffering and death before sin, undermines this basic teaching of Genesis 3, again regarding it as mere myth and not facutal account of what actually happened.
Furthermore, If the factualiy of the Genesis 3 account of the origin of sin and suffering is denied, a significant flow-on occurs:
Our understanding of sin, our understanding of our relationship with God before and after conversion, our understanding
of the significance of the death of Jesus Christ, our understanding of the concepts of salvation, redemption, justification
and reconciliation, our understanding of the concepts of judgement, condemnation, heaven and hell, all are undermined
and re-interpreted by the non-factuality of Genesis 3. If Genesis 3 is not fact, the death of Christ is robbed of the meaning given to it in the rest of the Bible.
Lastly, All of the above constitute a serious departure from the traditional Christian belief in the infallibility and authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God. Jesus Christ and Paul both grounded aspects of their teaching on the facts of Genesis 1 to 3.
They viewed these chapters as facts not as myth. If we allow the theories of fallible human scientists to determine and
dictate the validity of the Scriptures which up to this present era of the church have been regarded as the infallible word
of the trustworthy God, then there has indeed been a major shift in our attitude to both God and his Word.
Many problems also arise from believeing in theistic evolution.
1. Denial of central Biblical teachings - events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding
of the message of the Bible as being true in the word and meaning, is scorned and regarded as superstitious.
2. Misrepresentation of the nature of God. - The anti-biblical consequences of theistic evolution have become clear
- a false representation of God and of Christ
- God is seen as imperfect
- Death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation.
- It is assumed that the holy God used sin to create life
- Sin is regarded as a harmless evolutionary factor, causing Jesus Christ's work of
redemption as the only possibility of man's salvation, to appear almost absurd
- Adam's fall to sin is seen as a myth instead of reality, conveying a false impression
of death and suffering in the world.
3. Loss of the key for finding God. - Only those persons who realise that they are sinful and lost,
will seek the Saviour. Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in
relation to God). Sin is made meaningless. Evolutionary writers suggest that this aggression is
what sets evolution in progress and that murder, hate and the aggression are prerequesites
from which man could not have developed without. But if sin is seen in this way, then one
has lost the key for finding God.
4. God's incarnation beomes incidental -
Jesus could not be a universal mediator between God and man, because neither the Neanderthal people
(regarded as our probable ancestors), nor our potential descendants could or will understand Jesus.
5. Relativisation of Jesus' work of redemption - If one does not regard Adam as a real historical person
but as a mythical figure, then one can consequently not accept Jesus' work of redemption as real.
6. God beomes a God of the gaps - In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things whose
Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. The only
workspace allotted to Him is that part which evolution cannot explain with the means at its disposal. In this
way He is reduced to being a "god of the gaps" for those phenomena about which there are doubts.
7. Loss of Biblical chronology - In respect to the past (creation and the age of the earth) and the future
(return of Christ and end of the age) time frames
8. Misinterpretation of reality - Evolution is presented and proclaimed as if proven and factual, whereas there is no proof.
9. Loss of creation concepts - The biblical creation principles are ignored in theistic evolution, but on the other hand, evolutionary ideas
are carried into the Bible. In this way God's omnipotent acts are eventually negated.
10. Missing the purpose - The very thought of purposefulness is anathena to evolutionists. There are no blueprints, nor any purpose.
Thus if man is unplanned, then he has no purpose.
There are reasons why scientific evolution is worng as well, however, for that you might like to watch the DVD Unlocking the Mysteries of Life. Thanks.
Upvote
0
DailyBlessings
O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!
- Oct 21, 2004
- 17,775
- 983
- 40
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No one asked whether it was right or not- the OP simply asked what it was. Several people have gone quite beyond the requirements of the question.
Upvote
0
Hey guys. Sorry I havent been back in this thread since I put up my original question. Thanks for all the info. And please, try to keep the debates at a minimum. I just wanted some information on the subject, I did not want this to turn into a place where others' beliefs are attacked. Thanks
Upvote
0
It is a valid question, and it is valuable to know and understand what others believe. I am sorry that I was grouchy last night- it was kind of a result of making the mistake of spending too much time in the theology area and having one person who posted frequently in Christian Ethics leave CF because of the treatment he was receiving for his belief.
Upvote
0
Pats
I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
- Oct 8, 2004
- 5,554
- 308
- 51
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Here's some info that might answer your question a bit better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Another place you may want to start a thread, in a non-debate setting, if you have questions is here:
http://www.christianforums.com/f426-theistic-evolution.html
Upvote
0
Similar threads
