Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

KenJackson said:

The difference is that the historical record preserved in the Bible sounds like a sudden creation which presents less overall problems.

Click to expand...

Search for "creation" language in greek suggesting "sudden" and you'll find the opposite.

KenJackson said:

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

Click to expand...

I don't need it, but it's the concept that best ties together what we see in the world in nature and what we see in the word of God.
It explains why some species are related to each other and can even produce offspring, even if sterile. A lion and a tiger are closely related enough to produce offspring. So are a donkey and a horse.
If God did not intend for these biological processes to take place, why make things closely related to each other to where hybrids can be made? Why have DNA that we can manipulate and create abominations with in the first place. It's like handing a child a loaded gun for no reason. God doesn't do things in vain. So the best explanation for this is that God used these tools in creation itself.
To flip it on you, why do you have a need for it to just be magic?

KenJackson said:

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

Click to expand...

Evolution is not only possible, it is plausible, and it is not only plausible, it's actually true--objectively, observably, and obviously so.

I don't "need" "theistic evolution". However, I'm a Christian who lives in the real world, and thus my faith happens in this real world. God isn't the author of an imaginary world, but the real world in which we actually find ourselves. As such God is the author of objective reality. Since evolution is part of that objective reality, evolution is part of the divine design for the cosmos. For the same reason that I believe in theistic gravitation, theistic biological reproduction, and theistic rocket science.

-CryptoLutheran

KenJackson said:

I don't like believing that God "poofed" Adam and Eve into existence. But I've come to believe that, because the only alternative, "natural" causes, has been shown to be a joke.

Click to expand...

But it's not the only alternative. That's what theistic evolution is. An alternative, an alternative that answers questions from all angles, it answers the questions that naturalists cannot answer with their model, because where we see things as improbable or even impossible, God can do them. Theistic evolution does not happen on its own, it happens by the will of God, it is an act of creation by God. All biological processes happen by the will of God.
Let me ask you this to put it in perspective. You were born, because your mother and father had sex, their egg and sperm fused together, their chromosomes combined and began coding for proteins that built your body, it is a universal code of life that God wrote, like a computer programmer writes a program and the program executes and does things, the programmer is still given credit for what happens in the program, because he authored it to work like that. Are you not created by God in His image because a biological process formed you rather than God sculpting you out of dirt and breathing life into you?
I hope you don't feel that way. God wrote the program that resulted in you, God created you. Evolution is an extension of the way that program works, with extra complexity, extra time, extra generations. Not to mention, we can edit genes through genetic engineering, we can make chimeras and hybrids. If we can do that, how much better than us can God do it? Enough to make an entirely new species in a single generation? You bet. The fossil record shows jumps of 1 species replacing another species, not slow transitions. There was a transition, but it happened relatively quickly, showing the hand of God as a genetic engineer in ways, at work.
Some people make the assumption, that God just spoke and "poof". But if you read Genesis 1 closely, you will note that while in some cases there is an instantaneous connection between speaking and something just appearing as God spoke it, but in other cases there is a separate clause, and sometimes even a separate VERSE between the act of speaking, and creating. Do you understand the implications of that? That God could be speaking, but then creating something through unspecified means.
Proverbs 25:2
God does not tell us everything about His ways and methods. Humble yourself with that, to show just how little we actually know before God. We can only "search out a matter" and make guesses, theories, hypotheses, and be prepared to accept that those ideas may be wrong.
Also in scripture, understand that God shows Himself working to do the same thing through different means. As Jesus he Healed some people by just speaking the words and they were healed, for some He touched them, for some, they touched Him, or even just the hem of His garment, as the woman with the issue of blood for 12 years. A blind man He spat in the dirt, made clay, and rubbed it on His eyes.
To parallel that in Genesis He's shown to create in at least 3 different ways: Speaking something into existence as when He said "Let there be light" and there was instantly light (which we may actually see the echo of that act in the Cosmic Microwave Background. God created, the big bang is how it manifested and how we "observe" it. What happens when you suddenly have light (energy) come from nothing? An explosion), taking inanimate objects and breathing life into it (Adam), and in Genesis 2, He put Adam under anesthesia, surgically removed a rib (a long flat bone responsible for hematopoeisis (formation of new blood cells) in adults, a GREAT source of stem cells), and created Eve from that. To me, having a background in biology, it reads very much like God CLONED Eve from Adam, using Adam's stem cells, just altering it to have a second X Chromosome. Then he healed Adam's incision.

Understand that you should not limit God to doing things only in certain ways, not when scripture has shown that God has a variety of ways of acting according to His will. Understand that God has ommitted information from us and the bible is meant to show us how to live spiritual and moral lives and how to know and love God and why to obey God. It does not tell us every working of the natural world, we're to search those matters out ourselves.
In Leviticus, God didn't teach Moses germ theory or explain what viruses and bacteria are. He simply told Moses about quarantine protocol, and the importance of sanitation and hygeine. Just what they needed to know to live. He knew someday we'd discover the mechanisms of illness on our own.

1.Evolution is a scientific fact.

2. The Bible is not a science book and wasn't intended to be one.

I believe in God, and that He created everything, how He did I don't care, as that doesn't affect my salvation. I also trust in Christ alone for my salvation.

3. Theistic evolution is what logically makes the most sense. God isn't limited in what He can and can't do.

@KenJackson

Evolution does not hinge on natural selection. In fact, evolution could have very well happened over a much shorter period of time--partially thanks to advancements in the field of epigenetics, like @Amittai mentioned.

Furthermore, evolution nor science is or even claims to be the answer to the question that is 'the origins of life'.

KenJackson said:

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

Click to expand...

When I took Biology at the U of Mn, the evolution portion said that regardless if you believe in Creationism or Evolution, we can only look at empirical evidence.
Makes sense.

But I also went to a Lutheran Jr. College my first two years, and a prof said that evolution is like having a bunch of parts that magically became a watch. I said, "Hey, like my watch? I didn't put it together, it was just willed into being - without any parts at all. That makes more sense to you? Something came from nothing? "

The bible was written with the knowledge people had 1000s of years ago. They believed men literally put tiny babies that grew inside women. We now know that the woman has an egg, and men fertilize the egg, and a fetus begins to form into a baby after months of cells dividing and following the DNA makeup. This posed a problem for the Catholic Church, because the Jesus was human from Mary, and those, born of sin. The so Emaculate Conception happened. Being Protestant, I thought it meant a virgin becoming pregnant, but it means Mary was also born without sin.

In the Noah story, the heavens opened and the water fell, because they believed the blue sky was water, not refracted light. And that makes sense, not understanding evaporation.

I believe we are given clues in nature. A seed growns into a tree, a tree just doesn't appear. A baby takes 9 months to form. Natural Selection shows that when an animal is albino, they are an easy target in a colorful background, while other animals, such as walking sticks, can blend into their environment to hide.

But "the Bible says" explanation is circular logic. I've had people tell me mental illness is fake science, because the person has a demon, despite empirical evidence of chemical imbalances in the brain.

I prefer to look at evidence to try to understand what the truth is, rather than make it up, or rely on writers who didn't have the scientific knowledge we have today, which I believe is a gift.

Evolution doesn't have the answer to the missing link, but it can show natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.

But so often, I hear the "parts became a watch" explanation, which shows little understanding of evolution.

I once watched a speaker say that dinosaurs lived with Adam, because if the didn't, then death happened before Adam, making Jesus death pointless, as if his faith was made of eggshells.

Roman and Greek mythology believed that Zeus hurled lightning bolts. A good way to understand something you don't understand.

So, it's truly bizarre when I see CoVir19 somehow God's wrath, or a tornado because it was God's punishment, but I suppose it is easier to condemn someone than it is to have empathy for those fighting a disease, or whose house was destroyed. I just don't understand what God they think they worship.

I also had the same prof try to justify Intelligent Design - that because our bodies are designed to fight disease, etc, something intelligent had to have created it. So a classmate asked, "Then I assume someone intelligent created God, too?"

My poor prof.

KenJackson said:

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

Click to expand...

If you can make formal arguments showing how evolution is not plausible then you will win a Nobel prize. Good luck with that.

It isn't a "need". It's just a proven fact, supported by literally millions of pieces of physical evidence. How do you account for the fact that fossils from a million years ago do not include a single species alive today? And that fossils from 500,000 years ago show some characteristics of both million-year old species and modern species? None of which has anything to do with the fact of Creation. God brought into existence all that exists - matter, energy, time and space. However, matter, both non-living and living, changes (evolves) over time, gradually becoming something different. Mountains become deserts; oceans become dry land and vice-versa; living species change over time, to remain well-adapted to an ever-changing environment. The facts are all there, for anyone to view. If your denomination's biblical interpretations don't agree with objective reality, maybe it's time to seek more accurate interpretations.

Whoever believes in evolution, does not understand anything.

KenJackson said:

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

Click to expand...

Evolution of course isn't one monolithic theory but the first scientists to bolt from the general idea were the taxonomists. The Platypus just cannot be explained because it has too many "parents."

There's nobody who asserts that mammals descended from birds or that birds descended from mammals, yet that would have to be the case in the case of the platypus. It also seems to have descended from poisonous reptiles.

The weakest part of evolution, in my mind is it's failure to explain sexual reproduction. No way. It's absurd to think that such a perfect separation of function could have possibly evolved. The margin of error is too great. Any small part that doesn't evolve properly results in extinction. In fact, how could it evolve at all? The change from asexual reproduction to sexual would have to happen in a single generation. Otherwise the species dies off in a single generation. The idea of sexual reproduction coming about due to evolution is preposterous.

SkyWriting said:

The scriptures describe a long, drawn out process. That is why.
That is my only reason.

Click to expand...

6 days is long and drawn out?

KenJackson said:

Why do you guys think evolution has been proven? (Remember, we're talking about evolution from first microbe to taxonomic families, not genera or species.) It's not even possible to prove something happened in history. You can only argue to the best explanation. And the you can't argue how new proteins evolved, so evolution isn't the best explanation.


I don't follow fossils, but it's my understanding that lots of fossils are virtually the same as animals alive today. But 5000 years is lots of time for speciation to make little changes. And of course, a lot have gone extinct.

Click to expand...

See the problem is your narrow definition of Evolution.
Evolution is just a biological process of hereditary change over time. It happens simply because of the way DNA replication and sexual reproduction work.
To deny evolution as a PROCESS, is to deny reality.

You have evolution set as an origins of life hypothesis only, and see it as a ladder that progressively gets better. That's a flawed view and untrue even in the eyes of naturalists that believe evolution takes place completely on its own, which it doesn't. It always requires some sort of outside pressure. Any time I've argued with strict young earth creationists, the "poofing into existence" people, they have always tried to redefine concepts that they agree naturally take place simply because they don't like the word "evolution" because it's tied with a naturalist world view.
But you have to get past that and see the word, and concept, for what it really is. Evolution is NOT strictly an abiogenesis concept or Godless.
I look at it very much the same way as pregnancy and childbirth are, intricate creations and designs by God, for life to produce more life.