Theological implications of Theistic Evolution.

[Deamiter]

Based on a vast array of evidence for an old Earth, I can't help but believe in theistic evolution. I have studied in as much depth as a 20 year old physics major can, both literal-biblical and scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe. However, recently, I have started to realize just how incredible and fascinating are some of the stories in Genesis (of creation and Adam and Eve) when one interprets them as a further guide to salvation rather than a literal history.

Does anyone know of an author or theologian who has touched on this side of theology? It seems that many people BELIEVE that Genisis is not literal, but I haven't been exposed to any really good historical analysis of what that means, and why it was written as it was.

Please don't turn this into another CvE debate. I'm quite open to both sides, and I've seen the arguments in other threads. I'm looking specifically for mythological and cultural references in the Genesis accounts that do not take Genesis as an accurate post-enlightenment history. I've seen bits and pieces in various works so I have a bit of a background, but I have yet to see a thorough treatment of the topic.

 

[gluadys]

Based on a vast array of evidence for an old Earth, I can't help but believe in theistic evolution. I have studied in as much depth as a 20 year old physics major can, both literal-biblical and scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe. However, recently, I have started to realize just how incredible and fascinating are some of the stories in Genesis (of creation and Adam and Eve) when one interprets them as a further guide to salvation rather than a literal history.

Does anyone know of an author or theologian who has touched on this side of theology? It seems that many people BELIEVE that Genisis is not literal, but I haven't been exposed to any really good historical analysis of what that means, and why it was written as it was.

Please don't turn this into another CvE debate. I'm quite open to both sides, and I've seen the arguments in other threads. I'm looking specifically for mythological and cultural references in the Genesis accounts that do not take Genesis as an accurate post-enlightenment history. I've seen bits and pieces in various works so I have a bit of a background, but I have yet to see a thorough treatment of the topic.

Although its not quite what you are looking for, one book I would start with is Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?

It would be more appropriately titled "Who wrote the Torah?" for he doesn't really deal with all the bible, only the books of Moses.

It would be valuable background for any further studies as, among other things, he discusses the motivations of the writers for writing as they did.

Beyond that, let me just say I agree so much with what you are saying. These early chapters of Genesis are a great treasure. There is simply so much in them that is so pertinent.

One could do a whole thesis on Chapter 3 as a form of early psychological analysis! And some in-depth theological study on whether the fall was a necessary step in becoming fully human.

There are a whole host of questions and lessons that get quite buried in a controversy over the rightness of a literal interpretation. I find approaching these chapters non-literally has been a great eye-opener into the wisdom of God.

I hope some other people can be more helpful on the direct request. I am pretty sure the sort of study you are looking for has been done, but I am not conversant enough with recent theological studies to make a recommendation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

bookreviews
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/bookreviews.html

science
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/41369.html
Bible
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/10038.html
http://www.livejournal.com/~rmwilliamsjr/50383.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/40385.html



http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/2844.html

 

[mark kennedy]

Does anyone know of an author or theologian who has touched on this side of theology?

I know someone who is well versed in both Philosophy of Science and Theology. Alvin Plantinga, Department of Philosophy,Notre Dame University, here is what he has to say about theistic evolution:

"The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism is flawed. In many areas, science is not religiously neutral. Furthermore, neither claims about the definition or essential nature of science, nor theological presuppositions (e.g., "functional integrity"), can properly support methodological naturalism."

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm

Before you make a final decision as to the validity of naturalistic reasoning as the primary source of knowledge, much less exclusive, I suggest you read this gentleman. He has written a great deal on theistic evolution and methodological naturalism. Here is one more essay worth a look if you are interested:

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/mn/home.html

 

[gluadys]

I know someone who is well versed in both Philosophy of Science and Theology. Alvin Plantinga, Department of Philosophy,Notre Dame University, here is what he has to say about theistic evolution:

"The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism is flawed. In many areas, science is not religiously neutral. Furthermore, neither claims about the definition or essential nature of science, nor theological presuppositions (e.g., "functional integrity"), can properly support methodological naturalism."

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm

Before you make a final decision as to the validity of naturalistic reasoning as the primary source of knowledge, much less exclusive, I suggest you read this gentleman. He has written a great deal on theistic evolution and methodological naturalism. Here is one more essay worth a look if you are interested:

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/mn/home.html

Excellent articles, Mark. Thanks for providing the links. It is always a delight to read the well-thought out arguments of the Dutch Reformed theologians, even when one takes issue with some of their assumptions or conclusions.