Why is God needed in TE?

[juvenissun]

I wonder why does it take me so long to ask this question.

Why in the world would TE think that the evolution process needs the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't really think evolution needs God. Here is my understanding to the nature of TE:

A person believes in God. That is what T is.
But the person is also overwhelmed by evidences of evolution. However, this creates dilemmas to the traditional Christian faith (which is creation). In order to accommodate both faith and "fact", here comes the TE. So, to me, TE is a compromise of traditional faith because of modern "scientific facts".

 

[pgp_protector]

Have you ever set up a super super long chain of dominoes ?
Were you needed once they started falling ?
Were you needed when they were being set up ?

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't really think evolution needs God. Here is my understanding to the nature of TE:

A person believes in God. That is what T is.
But the person is also overwhelmed by evidences of evolution. However, this creates dilemmas to the traditional Christian faith (which is creation). In order to accommodate both faith and "fact", here comes the TE. So, to me, TE is a compromise of traditional faith because of modern "scientific facts".

Theistic evolution has nothing to do with science or faith, it has everything to do with philosophy. Darwinism has taken many shapes and transcended every academic discipline in Western philosophy. God is just an abstraction in Liberal Theology but the positive influence of religion in society and culture made it appealing. What makes it especially appealing are the seminaries, philanthropic activities and pulpits. Fundamentalism is pretty much a reaction to Liberal Theology and it takes the Bible literal as history and considers it inerrant, this was an apologetic (defense) against unrelenting attacks from skeptics and academic targeting of supernatural elements in Scripture.

What's God got to do with Theistic Evolution? Well he need not have anything to do with it at all, what they seek is to wrestle our religion away from us. Like any trend in Christianity there are Christians and unbelievers blending together. Secular philosophers long ago turned their naturalistic philosophy into psuedo-theology, Hegal and Tillich being the most blatant and obvious.

Revelation unveils our ultimate concern. Yet, the ground of revelation, for Tillich, is described as the "ground of being manifest in existence" (155). In terms of Christianity, "the ground of being is God" (156). Revelation mediates knowledge through human cognitive reason. The knowledge of revelation is the knowledge of God which must be described symbolically. The "Word of God" is a symbol for God revealing itself in Jesus as the Christ​

Does that sound like the traditional theology of the Christian faith to you?

Theistic evolution is simply meant to persuade onlookers against a literal interpretation of Scripture. Just as with Fundamentalists, Catholics or other religious Christians what they believe has to be critically discerned. Notice the use of symbolism and the vague and nebulous definition of God. This is my primary concern with Theistic Evolution, there is no real difference between Theistic Evolution and Evolution as natural history. All I have ever seen them do is to attack creationists.

God may or may not be important to them as individuals but the underlying philosophy is essentially naturalistic. I honestly don't care if Theistic Evolutionists want to make abstractions of Christian theology until they start to undermine the Gospel which is one of the goals of Darwinism, to expunge all theistic reasoning from our consciousness.

Theistic Evolution is an attempt to retain theistic reasoning in such a way as not to come into conflict with evolution as natural history. I think it fails miserably and the reaction of Creationists and Evangelicals has been that it is just another form of liberal theology. They don't like it when I tell them this and I would really love to be proven wrong but they are not on here trying to persuade me of anything, they post on here as performers in a theater. They target the undecided and I'm just an obstacle in their way.

In the Christian faith philosophy is not important, rituals are deeply meaningful but not vital, religion itself is not the most important thing. Christianity is a relationship where you are called by God the Father to repentance and receiving Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. You cannot have a relationship with an abstraction and when you make Adam a symbol or figure of speech it attacks the Gospel at it's foundation. I believe they are being led down the primrose path, I try to warn them not to trust these worldly philosophies and the modern mythology of evolution as natural history. They call this an argument from incredulity which is nothing more then a politically correct way of calling someone a fool.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I wonder why does it take me so long to ask this question.

Why in the world would TE think that the evolution process needs the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene?

I don't really think evolution needs God. Here is my understanding to the nature of TE:

A person believes in God. That is what T is.
But the person is also overwhelmed by evidences of evolution. However, this creates dilemmas to the traditional Christian faith (which is creation). In order to accommodate both faith and "fact", here comes the TE. So, to me, TE is a compromise of traditional faith because of modern "scientific facts".

Well you certainly indicate again that you have not grasped the first fundamental of TE. You continue to present creation as excluding evolution--so that you must make a choice: do I believe in creation (and therefore in a Creator) or do I accept evolution as a process that replaces creation?

The first fundamental of TE is that this is a false choice. Creation does not exclude evolution. Evolution is not a process that replaces creation. Evolution is a process within creation, just like weather. Would you ever ask if you must choose between God creating the atmosphere and a meterologist's understanding of weather patterns? Does meterology replace God as creator of water and wind and clouds and rain?

I expect too, that in spite of the numerous times it has been pointed out to you that evolution does not refer to the origin of life--when you posit evolution as an alternate to creation you are thinking specifically of the origin of life.

No, evolution does not need the intervention of God any more than any other biological process. Does God need to intervene in the process of digestion or respiration? Why then should God need to intervene in the processes of reproduction, mutation and natural selection?

On the other hand, God most certainly sustains his creation, including the digestive and respiratory systems, and the systems that produce evolution.

This is basic and simple traditional theology that you take for granted in almost every facet of existence. Why does it suddenly become a problem when the topic is evolution?

You say TE compromises traditional faith. I wonder what you think the compromise is? I suggest the alleged compromise rests on two bases:

1. you continue to misrepresent evolution as a replacement for creation

2. you assert a literal special miraculous creation of mature creatures in the literalized time-frame a young-earth.

The first is a scientific error. The second IMO is a hermeneutical and theological error.

 

[gluadys]

Theistic evolution is simply meant to persuade onlookers against a literal interpretation of Scripture. Just as with Fundamentalists, Catholics or other religious Christians what they believe has to be critically discerned. Notice the use of symbolism and the vague and nebulous definition of God.

I would really like to see this unpacked and sustained. Is the Trinity a vague and nebulous definition of God? Because that is how I define God. Is Jesus a vague and nebulous definition of God? Because the God I acknowledge is "the fullness of the Godhead" and, "the reflection of God's glory and exact imprint of God's very being" found in Christ. Just how is this nebulous?

This is my primary concern with Theistic Evolution, there is no real difference between Theistic Evolution and Evolution as natural history. All I have ever seen them do is to attack creationists.

I am glad you state it so clearly. Indeed there is no difference between theists and non-theists as to the natural history--including the evolutionary history--of the natural world. And we know that understanding of natural history is supported by the empirical evidence available to all. It is YE creationists who must reject God as the God of nature and of natural history. It is YE creationists who must deny the actual empirical reality of nature as God's creation and claim it is an illusion. They may as well be Hindus or Buddhists when it comes to affirming God as the creator of the material world.

I don't know about you, but when I affirm that God is the creator of heaven and earth I mean the heaven and earth that I know through my senses and my intellect, the earth that is accessible to all--believer and non-believer alike. How else could the created world be the witness to God's glory and majesty to the pagan world Paul claims it to be? I do not believe God is a philosophical abstraction and I do not believe God created a universe that is a philosophical abstraction. But that is all the YE creation can be.

Theistic Evolution is an attempt to retain theistic reasoning in such a way as not to come into conflict with evolution as natural history.

If natural history is history, and God is a God of history, then there had better be no conflict between theism and history. You cannot acclaim God as sovereign over human history and dismiss God as author of natural history.

YEcreationism substitutes mysticism for natural history, denies natural history its historic reality and never confronts the question of how the author of a fabulous natural history can be the real sovereign of real human history.

Christianity is a relationship where you are called by God the Father to repentance and receiving Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. You cannot have a relationship with an abstraction and when you make Adam a symbol or figure of speech it attacks the Gospel at it's foundation.

Most of the way here we speak as one, but it seems to me that you are inserting the notion that the Christian relationship with God depends on a relationship with Adam. Surely when you say that we cannot have a relationship with an abstraction you mean that God is not an abstraction, the Holy Spirit is not an abstraction, Jesus Christ is not an abstraction.

If they were, it wouldn't matter if Adam was not an abstraction. We could still have no relationship with such an abstract deity. But since God is not abstract, the possibility of relationship with God exists, irrespective of whether "ha-adam" refers to a historic individual or the human race under its federal head or as a personification of the human race. All of these allow for a non-abstract relation to Adam. But none of these would be significant if we had only an abstraction to relate to as our god.

It is the non-abstract nature of God that is significant in the Christian relationship.

 

[juvenissun]

Have you ever set up a super super long chain of dominoes ?
Were you needed once they started falling ?
Were you needed when they were being set up ?

I know what you said. We are talking about different ideas of TE.

Yours is: God sets it up. And it goes from there on its own. It has big theological problems on this one. But it is not what I am talking about in this thread.

Another one is: God sets it up and starts it, and God continues to intervene in the process. That is what I am questioning about.

 

[juvenissun]

Mark's nice comment revealed one implicit point in my question:

For whatever reason to embrace evolution into theology (such as one given by Mark), I do think the adding of evolution to Christian faith MODIFIED the traditional Christian faith significantly. It solved few problems but added many more hard questions to the Scripture. I do think the average faithful Christians (may be churches too?) find difficulty to argue against evolution. The result is either reject it by faith only (bless their heart), or embrace it and compromise the faith. I really think if I were not gifted by God in science, I would probably also face a big dilemma on this situation.

Regardless the reason for TE is theological, philosophical, or scientific, or any of the combinations, I think Christian faith and the idea of evolution are fundamentally incompatible. Why? For one of the reasons, simply try to answer the question in the OP.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for sticking up for evolutionary creationists, gluadys. Your comments reflect my own feelings on the matter. In fact, I suspect they speak for most of us here.
It's a shame to see anti-evolutionists still (purposely?) mischaracterizing evolutionary creationism. It isn't as though we've been ambiguous about God's involvement in the creation and continued sustainment of the universe. It seems the only way to discount evolutionary creationism is to first fabricate a strawman version of it. I can't help but feel affirmed by that.

 

[Mallon]

I think Christian faith and the idea of evolution are fundamentally incompatible.

Can an evolutionist be saved?
If your answer is yes, then there is nothing fundamentally incompatiable between Christian faith and evolution.
If your answer is no, God help you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can a Christian evolutionist be saved?

No --- he's already saved.

 

[Mallon]

No --- he's already saved.

Heh heh. You're right. I've rephrased my question.

 

[Assyrian]

I wonder why does it take me so long to ask this question.

Why in the world would TE think that the evolution process needs the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene?

Mark's nice comment revealed one implicit point in my question:

For whatever reason to embrace evolution into theology (such as one given by Mark), I do think the adding of evolution to Christian faith MODIFIED the traditional Christian faith significantly. It solved few problems but added many more hard questions to the Scripture. I do think the average faithful Christians (may be churches too?) find difficulty to argue against evolution. The result is either reject it by faith only (bless their heart), or embrace it and compromise the faith. I really think if I were not gifted by God in science, I would probably also face a big dilemma on this situation.

Regardless the reason for TE is theological, philosophical, or scientific, or any of the combinations, I think Christian faith and the idea of evolution are fundamentally incompatible. Why? For one of the reasons, simply try to answer the question in the OP.

Why in the world would a Christian Obstetrician think that the having a baby needs the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene? I think Christian faith and the idea of obstetrics, genetics and sex education are fundamentally incompatible. The bible says God knit me together in my mother's womb Psalm 139:13.

Why in the world would a Christian Meteorologist think that rain needs the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene? I think Christian faith and the idea of meteorology are fundamentally incompatible. Jesus said ...so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust Matt 5:45. Jesus tells us God sends rain, how can we claim to follow Jesus when meteorology has no place of God?

And speaking of God making the sun rise... The traditional view of the church was that God sent his angels to push the celestial spheres through the heavens. It may have been pagan Greek astronomy, but at least it recognised God was responsible for moving the sun, moon and stars around the earth. Why in the world would a Christian Astronomer think the rotation of the earth and planetary orbits need the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene? I think Christian faith and the idea of modern astronomy are fundamentally incompatible. [/]

In fact, apart from a hiccup with Galileo over heliocentrism, which was about the literal meaning of geocentric passages rather than the role of God in nature, the Church has never had any problem with science discovering the natural process that operate in the universe. Of course there have always been the fiery radicals on the fringes condemning science like the flat earther Cosmas Indicopleustes, but they have never been mainstream. The church has always embraced science as showing us the wonders of the the universe God created. It has never seen scientific developments as pushing God out of the way or being in opposition to God. The traditional Christian view has been that God is the creator and sustainer of everything including all the processes science discovers. Whether God works through supernatural miracles or providentially through the natural processes he created and sustains, it still God who works. It is only in the last century that a radical new philosophy has made its way into Christianity from the fringes, denying science and claiming natural processes exclude God. This is a complete departure from the tradition view of God and creation.

 

[juvenissun]

Can an evolutionist be saved?
If your answer is yes, then there is nothing fundamentally incompatiable between Christian faith and evolution.
If your answer is no, God help you.

Yes, I think TE people are saved.

However, by fundamental, I mean the faith to evolution COULD shake the faith to salvation. So, even the scientific "evidences" of evolution seems to be overwhelming (not to me), it is a dangerous idea to the traditional Christian faith.

 

[juvenissun]

No --- he's already saved.

Hey, welcome AV. I seldom see you here. The mood here is very different from that in CvE. It is more sharing than fighting.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, welcome AV. I seldom see you here.

Thank you, sir!

The mood here is very different from that in CvE. It is more sharing than fighting.

I'll take care of that ---

 

[birdan]

Why is God needed in TE?

I wonder why does it take me so long to ask this question.

Why in the world would TE think that the evolution process needs the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene?

The counter question that comes to mind for me is: "Why is science needed in YEC?"

Why is it so vitally important that YECs try to come up with scientific support of their religious beliefs? Why don't YECs take the position that science is irrelevant to their beliefs and ignore it?

Given that those YEC scientific explanations break down when looked at with a sufficient level of detail, this would seem to be a much more tenable position from my perspective.

I recently read an article about the ESA's Gaia sattelite, which is due to be launced in about a year. This satellite will directly measure the distance of stars from the earth (via parallax triangulation) out to about 40,000 years away. Given that this distance is almost 7 times the age of the universe according to YECs, are they then going to be forced to argue against Euclidean geometry, or somehow alter their literal interpretation of their chronologies? Why not simply ignore scientific findings as irrelevant to YEC?

 

[Mallon]

Yes, I think TE people are saved.

Great! You've just proved that the theory of evolution is not fundamentally incompatible with the Christian faith!

However, by fundamental, I mean the faith to evolution COULD shake the faith to salvation. So, even the scientific "evidences" of evolution seems to be overwhelming (not to me), it is a dangerous idea to the traditional Christian faith.

If someone comes to accept the theory of evolution, and as a result rejects God, is it really evolution that is to blame? Or does the problem lay with that person's misplaced faith in an inflexible, literal interpretation of a single book of the Bible? If your faith is truly rooted in Christ, and not in Adam, then simply subscribing to the latest science shouldn't be a problem to your faith. However, by insisting that Genesis must be scientifically accurate to be believed, you are creating a false dichotomy between science and Christianity, and predisposing yourself to the possibility of rejecting Christ in the face of science.
I would argue that scientific concordism is the problem. Not evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

The counter question that comes to mind for me is: "Why is science needed in YEC?"

Why is it so vitally important that YECs try to come up with scientific support of their religious beliefs? Why don't YECs take the position that science is irrelevant to their beliefs and ignore it?

Given that those YEC scientific explanations break down when looked at with a sufficient level of detail, this would seem to be a much more tenable position from my perspective.

I recently read an article about the ESA's Gaia sattelite, which is due to be launced in about a year. This satellite will directly measure the distance of stars from the earth (via parallax triangulation) out to about 40,000 years away. Given that this distance is almost 7 times the age of the universe according to YECs, are they then going to be forced to argue against Euclidean geometry, or somehow alter their literal interpretation of their chronologies? Why not simply ignore scientific findings as irrelevant to YEC?

I'm not a YEC, but they're certainly welcome to use my tag line.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not a YEC, but they're certainly welcome to use my tag line.

GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED​

Sounds like a good answer to the OP too.