Theistic evolutionists not doing enough to defend our religion?

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Sorry 'bout the huge post )

We've probably seen this poll from Gallup already:

What's interesting about this is the sudden shift towards the end. In general Creationism has always correlated with atheistic evolution - when one went down, the other went up. Theistic evolution always remained roughly the same. In 2011 however something changes: theistic evolution goes down, Creationism goes up, atheistic evolution remains roughly the same.

-----------------------------------------------

Presuming this is the start of a trend (rather than just a statistical blip), why is Creationism more appealing to Christians than theistic evolution? I'm begining to think it's because we're better at defending evolution than we are at defending our religion. I don't go on TE websites very often but the few I have seen are not very good:

God created mankind with free will. He did this for a very specific reason. If God wanted to, he could have created mankind to worship Him, and forced them to do so. But God did not want an army full of slaves. God wanted people in heaven who would choose to worship Him. Therefore, they must have the option not to worship Him.
In order to give people this option, God needed to have some form of plausible deniability. Mankind had to have the ability not to attribute the creation of the world to a supreme being. An old earth, with an alternative to believe in naturalistic evolution, gives mankind an option for plausible deniability of a creator.

- Oldearth.org​

This basically justifies the atheist argument that science proves (or at least indicates) there is no God - and doesn't sound all too different from the YEC argument God put down fossils to test our faith.

Francisco Ayala, an ex-Dominican priest and an ex-Catholic, claims that 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.
...
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. Another case revealing how corrosive Darwinism is to Christian faith is that of evangelical Denis Lamou­reux, who embraces what he calls “evolutionary intelligent design”: He says God initially created an arrangement of matter that would “unfold deterministically” ever after, without any need for His guidance. He objects to intelligent design theory because it implies that God could have played a role in the history of the universe and mankind, something he ridicules as “interventionist design theory.”

- Newoxfordreview.org​

Here God is described - at best - as a kind of neglectful father. He set limits on creation (which He knew would go wrong) and abandoned the world shortly after He created it. But it's not His fault of course. Once again this is an argument I sometimes hear from YECs, but didn't expect from from TEs.

------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: Should theistic evolutonists do a better job at defending our religion?

 

[mark kennedy]

(Sorry 'bout the huge post ) What's interesting about this is the sudden shift towards the end. In general Creationism has always correlated with atheistic evolution

Now we are atheists because we believe God created the heavens and the earth.

- when one went down, the other went up. Theistic evolution always remained roughly the same. In 2011 however something changes: theistic evolution goes down, Creationism goes up, atheistic evolution remains roughly the same.

So?

Presuming this is the start of a trend (rather than just a statistical blip), why is Creationism more appealing to Christians than theistic evolution?

Because it's an expression of faith rather then an attack on it.

I'm begining to think it's because we're better at defending evolution than we are at defending our religion. I don't go on TE websites very often but the few I have seen are not very good:

You guys actually defend religion, no kidding? I didn't know Darwinism was a religion now.

God created mankind with free will. He did this for a very specific reason. If God wanted to, he could have created mankind to worship Him, and forced them to do so. But God did not want an army full of slaves. God wanted people in heaven who would choose to worship Him. Therefore, they must have the option not to worship Him.

Free will!!! Just kidding, you were saying:

In order to give people this option, God needed to have some form of plausible deniability. Mankind had to have the ability not to attribute the creation of the world to a supreme being. An old earth, with an alternative to believe in naturalistic evolution, gives mankind an option for plausible deniability of a creator.

Man also had the ability to attribute to birds, beasts of the field and creepy crawly things what is rightfully attributed to God, it's called idolatry.

This basically justifies the atheist argument that science proves (or at least indicates) there is no God - and doesn't sound all too different from the YEC argument God put down fossils to test our faith.

YECs don't argue that God put fossils there to test our faith.

Should theistic evolutonists do a better job at defending our religion?

What religion?

 

[juvenissun]

TL;DR: Should theistic evolutonists do a better job at defending our religion?

I always feel TE is a compromised faith. In science, God (creation) is a faith, evolution is also a faith. Why would any Christian want to put two faith-dependent concepts into one? The consequence is that both faith will be weakened (e.g. 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25).

When I debate evolution, I definitely will leave God aside. It is simply funny that one would defend evolution by science but also drag God into the process.

 

[gluadys]

(Sorry 'bout the huge post )

We've probably seen this poll from Gallup already:

What's interesting about this is the sudden shift towards the end. In general Creationism has always correlated with atheistic evolution - when one went down, the other went up. Theistic evolution always remained roughly the same. In 2011 however something changes: theistic evolution goes down, Creationism goes up, atheistic evolution remains roughly the same.

-----------------------------------------------

Presuming this is the start of a trend (rather than just a statistical blip), why is Creationism more appealing to Christians than theistic evolution? I'm begining to think it's because we're better at defending evolution than we are at defending our religion. I don't go on TE websites very often but the few I have seen are not very good:

God created mankind with free will. He did this for a very specific reason. If God wanted to, he could have created mankind to worship Him, and forced them to do so. But God did not want an army full of slaves. God wanted people in heaven who would choose to worship Him. Therefore, they must have the option not to worship Him.
In order to give people this option, God needed to have some form of plausible deniability. Mankind had to have the ability not to attribute the creation of the world to a supreme being. An old earth, with an alternative to believe in naturalistic evolution, gives mankind an option for plausible deniability of a creator.

- Oldearth.org​

This basically justifies the atheist argument that science proves (or at least indicates) there is no God - and doesn't sound all too different from the YEC argument God put down fossils to test our faith.

Francisco Ayala, an ex-Dominican priest and an ex-Catholic, claims that 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.
...
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. Another case revealing how corrosive Darwinism is to Christian faith is that of evangelical Denis Lamou[bless and do not curse]reux, who embraces what he calls “evolutionary intelligent design”: He says God initially created an arrangement of matter that would “unfold deterministically” ever after, without any need for His guidance. He objects to intelligent design theory because it implies that God could have played a role in the history of the universe and mankind, something he ridicules as “interventionist design theory.”

- Newoxfordreview.org​

Here God is described - at best - as a kind of neglectful father. He set limits on creation (which He knew would go wrong) and abandoned the world shortly after He created it. But it's not His fault of course. Once again this is an argument I sometimes hear from YECs, but didn't expect from from TEs.

------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: Should theistic evolutonists do a better job at defending our religion?

Yes, I definitely think they should.

A large part of the problem, as I see it, is that most of the people defending theistic evolution have been trained as scientists. Yes, they are Christians, but their profession is science, not theology or even biblical exegesis.

So they are able to defend and explain the science well, but they have a shallow understanding of Christian theology and what a doctrine of creation and incarnation actually means.

Unfortunately, many people well-grounded in theology stay out of the evo-crevo debate because they don't feel they have sufficient understanding of the scientific details. When they do try to defend theistic evolution, they often make scientific blunders that are as bad as some of the theological blunders above.

Indeed, a very good friend of mine, for whom I have the utmost respect has co-authored a marvellous book on modern theology (The Tao of Liberation) which has only one major flaw in it. When he comes to commenting on evolution (and he is a theistic evolutionist), he repeats in the space of two pages at least six anti-evolutionist memes. He is a theologian, not a biologist, certainly not an evolutionary biologist. And when I asked him about it, he also said he has never followed "the debate". He relied on one source, whom he trusted and didn't check it out.

So we get caught in the middle with believing scientists who make theological faux pas and scientifically weak theologians who can't tell good science from pseudo-science and so make scientific faux pas.

There are very few writers who have bridged this divide with some success. John Polkinghorne is one. But since his background is in physics, he doesn't necessarily bring a strong theological focus to evolutionary biology.

Probably what we need are collaborations of theologians and scientists to produce a defence of theistic evolution that is both biblically and doctrinally sound while not making a fool of themselves scientifically.

 

[Keachian]

I think some of the problem comes down to focusing too much on defending the view of creation and not so much on Christ.

I also think that it does get so tiring arguing that people make a decision for atheism because of hypocrisy.

 

[gluadys]

Now we are atheists because we believe God created the heavens and the earth. << Staff edit >>

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

How be you go back and read the post more thoroughly. You are getting the sense of it all wrong. No one said YECs are atheists.

Free will!!! << Staff edit >> Just kidding, you were saying:

And you didn't take note that the paragraph you are responding to was not NotedStrangePerson's own opinion, but one she cited and not with approval. Greg Neyman is the person you should be directing this comment to, as you would know if you had checked the link.

YECs don't argue that God put fossils there to test our faith << Staff edit >>.

Actually some have. Others have suggested they were put there by Satan.
I don't think either is a frequent claim currently, but historically, such claims were made by some YECs. I believe at one time AiG included it on the list of "arguments creationists should not use."

 

[BobRyan]

What's interesting about this is the sudden shift towards the end. In general Creationism has always correlated with atheistic evolution - when one went down, the other went up. Theistic evolution always remained roughly the same. In 2011 however something changes: theistic evolution goes down, Creationism goes up, atheistic evolution remains roughly the same.

First of all you are right to contrast TE with Christianity as its own religion.

But the secret to the mix - may be that the TE guys themselves are either moving on to atheism just as did Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers. going from T.E to pure atheism - or perhaps some of them figured out that the religion of Christianity is actually better than the religion of blind-faith evolutionism T.E. or not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

YECs don't argue that God put fossils there to test our faith << Staff edit >>.

Admittedly this isn't an argument I hear very much anymore. It was one of the few arguments, however, where YECs act as though the natural world was somehow evidence against what the Bible says.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, I definitely think they should.

A large part of the problem, as I see it, is that most of the people defending theistic evolution have been trained as scientists. Yes, they are Christians, but their profession is science, not theology or even biblical exegesis.

So they are able to defend and explain the science well, but they have a shallow understanding of Christian theology and what a doctrine of creation and incarnation actually means.

Unfortunately, many people well-grounded in theology stay out of the evo-crevo debate because they don't feel they have sufficient understanding of the scientific details. When they do try to defend theistic evolution, they often make scientific blunders that are as bad as some of the theological blunders above.

Indeed, a very good friend of mine, for whom I have the utmost respect has co-authored a marvellous book on modern theology (The Tao of Liberation) which has only one major flaw in it. When he comes to commenting on evolution (and he is a theistic evolutionist), he repeats in the space of two pages at least six anti-evolutionist memes. He is a theologian, not a biologist, certainly not an evolutionary biologist. And when I asked him about it, he also said he has never followed "the debate". He relied on one source, whom he trusted and didn't check it out.

So we get caught in the middle with believing scientists who make theological faux pas and scientifically weak theologians who can't tell good science from pseudo-science and so make scientific faux pas.

There are very few writers who have bridged this divide with some success. John Polkinghorne is one. But since his background is in physics, he doesn't necessarily bring a strong theological focus to evolutionary biology.

Probably what we need are collaborations of theologians and scientists to produce a defence of theistic evolution that is both biblically and doctrinally sound while not making a fool of themselves scientifically.

I think you are pretty good. So I just need you to explain one critical question of TE: How does God guide evolution? (it really does not take a book to explain it)

In order to have a satisfactory answer to me, I am expecting a case of evolution (with a completely scientific argument) and it also indicated WHERE is the action of God in the process.

I think the best you can do is to use the gray area of both: the chance (statistics, possibility etc.).

 

[Rusticus]

I assume the figures quoted are for the USA.
I They are suspect, though: The generally accepted percentage of Christians in the USA is 76%. However if we add Creationists and TEs we get 78%. Also, the total (including AEs) adds up to 93%. So where are the other 7%?

Having said that, I would like to make the observation that generally the creation/evolution dichotomy has far more importance for a creationist than for a TE. This is probably because for a creationist the christian faith depends on evolution being false, whereas for a TE the christian faith does not depend on evolution being correct. This may well be an explanation as to why creationists are generally far more "militant" than the TEs.

 

[miamited]

Hi NSP,

Well, as I see it, your poll shows that more people are believing the truth. Who'd have thunk it?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[KimberlyAA]

I have never heard the idea that "God put down fossils to test our faith". That just seems absurd to me. I've never heard that from YEC's.

Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death. Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions. Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial. Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiation—sudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).

I don't really understand how one can be a Theistic evolutionist and try to defend the Christian faith esp. when you have to ignore the Genesis account of creation in doing so. It's like picking and choosing certain aspects of the Holy Bible. Some of those quotes from people sound so silly to me.

 

[Rusticus]

I don't really understand how one can be a Theistic evolutionist and try to defend the Christian faith esp. when you have to ignore the Genesis account of creation in doing so. It's like picking and choosing certain aspects of the Holy Bible. Some of those quotes from people sound so silly to me.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

I doubt that it's to do with picking and choosing certain aspects of the Bible. I think it's to do with "literal" reading or "non-literal" reading of the Bible.

(We must remember though, that most of us have our "favorite" passages of the Bible. So ,in that sense, most of us do some "picking and choosing", by concentrating more on certain aspects than on others.)

 

[gluadys]

I have never heard the idea that "God put down fossils to test our faith". That just seems absurd to me. I've never heard that from YEC's.

I would not expect a 17-year old to have heard it. It's a very old argument that has been out-of-date in creationist circles even before you were born.

I don't really understand how one can be a Theistic evolutionist and try to defend the Christian faith esp. when you have to ignore the Genesis account of creation in doing so. It's like picking and choosing certain aspects of the Holy Bible. Some of those quotes from people sound so silly to me.

Well, you have been misinformed, probably by books like the one you cited. There is no need to ignore the Genesis account of creation and theistic evolutionists generally don't.

 

[Siyha]

I think there is a problem of perception. For example, the Creationist comes across as a strong advocate for Christianity because creationism is inherantly a defense of it. Whereas, theistic evolution is not a defensive stance. So a creationist ministry is, by its very nature an apologetic. But a theistic evolution ministry does not have that same weight behind it. So when the discussion revolves around evolution, there is no question that theistic evolutionists come across as apathetic.

But this is not to say that theistic evolution therefore mitigates any desire to defend Christianity and the gospel. William Lane Craig, for example, is a theistic evolutionist, and his entire ministry is defending Christianity. There are other scholars such as Ben Witherington III who are TE, and have done extensive work on the defense of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and defending the reliability of the gospels.

For TE's, evolution is not a point of 'make or break' Christianity, so their apologetics efforts are put to use elsewhere, in subjects removed from discussion of creation.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think there is a problem of perception. For example, the Creationist comes across as a strong advocate for Christianity because creationism is inherantly a defense of it. Whereas, theistic evolution is not a defensive stance. So a creationist ministry is, by its very nature an apologetic. But a theistic evolution ministry does not have that same weight behind it. So when the discussion revolves around evolution, there is no question that theistic evolutionists come across as apathetic.

True. While anyone - whether they are religious or not - can be an evolutionist, only theists can be creationists.* As such Creationism picks and chooses the science which backs up their religious beliefs, whereas theistic evolutionists looks at how religious beliefs can be interpreted to fit with scientific evidence.

That said, I still think TEs need to do a better job at defending Christianity because, whether we like it or not, evolution is seen as a threat to our religion. We shouldn't resort to kowtowing to popular opinion too much.


* Actually there are exceptions but they're very much a minority.

 

[Jase]

I have never heard the idea that "God put down fossils to test our faith". That just seems absurd to me. I've never heard that from YEC's.

I've heard it, although the "Satan put in fake fossils to deceive us" claim is more common imo.

I don't really understand how one can be a Theistic evolutionist and try to defend the Christian faith esp. when you have to ignore the Genesis account of creation in doing so. It's like picking and choosing certain aspects of the Holy Bible. Some of those quotes from people sound so silly to me.

Augustine said taking Genesis literally in contradiction to scientific evidence makes a mockery of Christianity. That was some 1500 years before the Theory of Evolution was proposed.

Do you feel the same way about believing in Heliocentrism? The Bible supports Geocentrism, and the Church condemned any other view for a long time. Why is that not an issue for Creationists? Could it be that Heliocentrism is far easier to accept and witness, whereas Evolution is more complicated for your typical non-scientists to understand?

 

[Rusticus]

I've heard it, although the "Satan put in fake fossils to deceive us" claim is more common imo.
Augustine said taking Genesis literally in contradiction to scientific evidence makes a mockery of Christianity. That was some 1500 years before the Theory of Evolution was proposed.

Do you feel the same way about believing in Heliocentrism? The Bible supports Geocentrism, and the Church condemned any other view for a long time. Why is that not an issue for Creationists? Could it be that Heliocentrism is far easier to accept and witness, whereas Evolution is more complicated for your typical non-scientists to understand?

I do remember having heard the "Satan put it there to deceive us" years ago from some SDA preachers.

I never even try to argue the scientific merits of evolution with someone who does not subscribe to it. Engaging a Creationist on the science of evolution is futile, because their pseudo-scientific rejection of evolution is just a pretext. Their opposition to evolution is due to their literal reading of Genesis!


btw Jase, you mention Augustine being opposed to taking Genesis literally: I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a link to that. Thanks.
I believe that the insistence on a literal reading of Genesis is a relatively recent (say 100 years or so) unfortunate development.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think there is a problem of perception. For example, the Creationist comes across as a strong advocate for Christianity because creationism is inherantly a defense of it. Whereas, theistic evolution is not a defensive stance. So a creationist ministry is, by its very nature an apologetic. But a theistic evolution ministry does not have that same weight behind it. So when the discussion revolves around evolution, there is no question that theistic evolutionists come across as apathetic.

But this is not to say that theistic evolution therefore mitigates any desire to defend Christianity and the gospel. William Lane Craig, for example, is a theistic evolutionist, and his entire ministry is defending Christianity. There are other scholars such as Ben Witherington III who are TE, and have done extensive work on the defense of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and defending the reliability of the gospels.

For TE's, evolution is not a point of 'make or break' Christianity, so their apologetics efforts are put to use elsewhere, in subjects removed from discussion of creation.

A splendid response, many thanks. I have often wondered how theistic evolution did Christian apologetics.

Evolutionary Theory and Theism

William Lane Craig is one of the leading Christian Apologists of our time. I will have to look into what he believes about Creationism for a while.

I found this:

William Lane Craig describes EVOLUTION from a christian standpoint

He uses one of the probability arguments for the evolution of man and concludes in evolution happened then it's a miracle and therefore evidence of the existence of God. He has elsewhere described himself as being somewhere between a progressive creationist and theistic evolutionist describing TOE as irrelevant with regards to the existence of God.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

TE like WLC in my opinion are spineless