What Exactly is Theistic Evolution (opinions welcome)

[airbornisgood4u]

The idea God sustains/upholds the universe as Dr. Bertse mentioned really should be part of every Christian's view of God's interaction with the universe -oxmixmudd

This is basically the doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo, and pretty much exactly how Polkinghorne describes it.

[oxmixmudd]

So was Lazarus's death considered deficient because he died so Jesus could tweak him? If creation is considered deficient by God choosing to intervene in it, wouldn't Lazarus's death be considered deficient too, since God could have made him live longer, so Christ woudlnt' have had to raise him from the dead in the first place? Or are the people that Christ performed healings on in scripture considered deficient? Why wouldn't God just create them initially with no informalities so he doesn't have to "tweak" them?

Good counterpoint! But what I see here are two different applications of miracle working power. In the case I had in mind, and to which this serves as counterpoint, I am speaking of that in the universe which is not in relationship with God in one form or another, but merely the underlying workings and laws for the creation in which the drama of the fall/redemption plays out. To think that creation needs additional tweaking to function properly seems a bit odd.

This case, OTOH, we are dealing with the drama of our free will exercise of rebellion countered against God's exercise of redemption. And in that miracles play a definite role. But that role is not to make the universe function properly, but to provide or accomplish HIs purposes as it relates to an interaction with beings that possess the ability to chose to love Him and follow Him or to reject Him.

Do you consider miracles in the evolutionary process a demonstration of the inefficiency of God's initial creation or the sign of a genius mind at work?

I would think the presence of miracles which we could discover in nature would be part of the secondary issue I outline above: bringing about our redemption. They would not be there because God was deficient in His overall design of the universe. To think that such miracles must exist or there is no God is to believe in a lesser God. But that does not mean God may not have a purpose in placing miracles at various points along the way as part of some larger plan beyond a simple functioning universe.

We must make sure we aren't restraining miracles into a certain time of the Universe's history. Certainly the big bang bang was the first Miracle. Why not the origin of life as another one? Does this somehow make the physical constants God put together in the Big Bang altogether deficient? I don't see why. We must make sure we aren't imposing on God what he hasn't imposed on himself.

Again, there is no law that says there can't be miracles along the way if God is truly omnipotent/omniscient. But they are not required and their absence does not indicate God was not involved.

I am not saying that God 100 percent for sure intervened in the evolutionary process. I am saying that we shouldn't rule it out a priori and we shouldn't look at Miracles in the evolutionary process as somehow making God's creation look more deficient than if he didn't intervene at all! Think about the that. Miracles make God's creation look worse than if he didn't intervene! Is this really where Christian theology wants to go? It's gonna run into a lot of problems along the way.

Cheers everyone.

I agree. There may be lots of bona -fide miracles out there. My primary point is that their absence (should they be absent) can not become some kind of 'test' for God. There is nothing inconsistent with a creation that produced man as a result of a creation planned and executed flawlessly from 'the beginning'.

Now a follow on discussion could be that the way creation is described as a process in Genesis, a sequence of acts by God, could be used as evidence God did chose to create in steps, exercising specific miracles along the way at key points as it suited Him. The counter to that would then be Genesis represents God's planning, not necessarily the process of fulfillment, as in Glenn Morton's 'days of proclamation' view.

Jim

[MooseOnTheLoose]

What exactly is theistic evolution (opinions welcome)

Either:

A. A very compelling view of evolutionary development and and an interesting interpretation of what Genesis is really trying to say.

B. A load of compromising baloney from people who will believe anything someone in a lab coat tells them.

[airbornisgood4u]

Again, there is no law that says there can't be miracles along the way if God is truly omnipotent/omniscient. But they are not required and their absence does not indicate God was not involved.

I agree with that completely. My point is that we shouldn't rule out his intervention or even look on it as improbable. I agree with J.P. Moreland that the Christian should always consider arguments against evolution carefully because they might be right, and may assist quite well against the naturalist cause, and we don't want to end up denying any intervention that actually took place either. If darwinian evolution is true in a very strict sense, then Christians can fight against evolutionism philosophically quite well, as the fine tuning of the Universe and the Big Bang, along with the Moral Argument and Jesus' Resurrection attest. If however, there is some sort of design detectable within evolution, Christians should also use this as an argument for God's existence.

As of now, I would never use Intelligent Design as an argument for God in talking with a skeptic cus the evidence is much too debatable, but maybe within the next hundred years or so, it will look better. Or maybe worse, who knows.

Oximoxmudd, how do you view the fine tuning of the Universe? For God could have surely made a universe in which ratios showed that the balance of the physical constants could have been off by huge numbers, and still been life permitting. Therefore God would not be required to make sense of incomprehensible fine tuning because there would be none. Yet he didn't do this.

we are dealing with the drama of our free will exercise of rebellion countered against God's exercise of redemption. -Oximixmudd

Yet this fine tuning has very little to do with our rebellion and redemption, because God could have created a Universe in which life could exist under any number of conditions, and our rebellion and redemption would still ensue. And I would say that the fine tuning does qualify as a type of miracle. I think we should be grateful God has given us such fine tuning that points to him, and in the same way we should be glad if there is design detectable within the evolutionary process.

I don't think Genesis 1 can really answer whether God used evolution or not, I just think it certainly allows for it. But it also allows for special creation. I've read a little bit from Glenn Morton's website a long time ago, and his interpretation appeared to be too literalistic for me. I think Merideth Kline, or C. John Collins, Henri Blocher, and Bruce Waltke offer better interpretations that let scripture interpret scripture much better.

[oxmixmudd]

I agree with that completely. My point is that we shouldn't rule out his intervention or even look on it as improbable. I agree with J.P. Moreland that the Christian should always consider arguments against evolution carefully because they might be right, and may assist quite well against the naturalist cause, and we don't want to end up denying any intervention that actually took place either. If darwinian evolution is true in a very strict sense, then Christians can fight against evolutionism philosophically quite well, as the fine tuning of the Universe and the Big Bang, along with the Moral Argument and Jesus' Resurrection attest. If however, there is some sort of design detectable within evolution, Christians should also use this as an argument for God's existence.

I agree ...

As of now, I would never use Intelligent Design as an argument for God in talking with a skeptic cus the evidence is much too debatable, but maybe within the next hundred years or so, it will look better. Or maybe worse, who knows.

Oximoxmudd, how do you view the fine tuning of the Universe? For God could have surely made a universe in which ratios showed that the balance of the physical constants could have been off by huge numbers, and still been life permitting. Therefore God would not be required to make sense of incomprehensible fine tuning because there would be none. Yet he didn't do this.

This goes back to questions like "why should the universe be rational", that is, why should it behave in a regular way according to regular laws that allow for inductive analysis. And to my mind these are very good arguments for an overarching intelligence that wishes to make itself known to its creation. Romans tells us the creation reveals basic attributes of God to all. And I would agree that this was something God did purposefully so that we could perceive Him in a very general way in His creation - provided we were willing to do so.

Yet this fine tuning has very little to do with our rebellion and redemption, because God could have created a Universe in which life could exist under any number of conditions, and our rebellion and redemption would still ensue. And I would say that the fine tuning does qualify as a type of miracle.

Sure, it is one of those elements of the universe that speaks of God to those willing to hear Him speak. But like so many things, it is not immune to dismissal by a determined enough skeptic. I personally think the subtleness of these elements of God's revelation go back to His desire to be sought - not to control. His desire for a genuine response from a desire for relationship, not a coerced response. How can anyone trust or genuinely respond to an all powerful being that is willing to overwhelm us with Himself?

I think we should be grateful God has given us such fine tuning that points to him, and in the same way we should be glad if there is design detectable within the evolutionary process.

Yes - I just tend to think that God's requirement that we have faith will preclude any iron-clad proof of Him. (I don't know why faith is so important, but Jesus said it was)

I don't think Genesis 1 can really answer whether God used evolution or not, I just think it certainly allows for it. But it also allows for special creation. I've read a little bit from Glenn Morton's website a long time ago, and his interpretation appeared to be too literalistic for me. I think Merideth Kline, or C. John Collins, Henri Blocher, and Bruce Waltke offer better interpretations that let scripture interpret scripture much better.

Don't know all those authors (I am not nearly so well read as I should be). But I would say that though I have great respect for Glenn, my own studies have led me to accept that Genesis need not be nor likely is as literal as Glenn seems to feel it must be to be God's word. I do like what Glenn points out: that God commanded the Earth to make life. And I do think God forming man of the dust of the Earth is compatible (in a very general metaphorical way) with evolution. Nevertheless, I feel any such correlations must be seen as subconscious to the writer - elements there by divine providence and not there as a result of the conscious understanding of the writer.


Jim

[MarcusAndreas]

Theistic evolution = TEH TRUTH!!!! :P

[airbornisgood4u]

And I do think God forming man of the dust of the Earth is compatible (in a very general metaphorical way) with evolution.

Oh yes!! I agree. I did a word study of this a while ago, let me show its results here.

Job 10:9- 9'Remember now, that You have made me as (A)clay;
And would You (B)turn me into dust again?

This seems to parallel Gen. 2:7- 7Then the LORD God formed man of (A)dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and (B)man became a living being.

notice the parallel of FORMED and DUST? Job is referring to himself. This is quite obvious. Special Creationists say that Job was referring to Adam or the human race in general. That doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the text. If Job referred to himself being created this way, but he came from a natural mother, then I think this makes us free to posit that God could have used some type of process to make Adam.

And what about these passages?

Job 33:6
"Behold, I belong to God like you;I too have been formed out of the CLAY. Parallels Adam's creation again.

Psalm 94:9- 9He who (A)planted the ear, does He not hear?
He who formed the eye, does He not see?

# Psalm 104:26
There the ships move along,And Leviathan, which You have formed to sport in it. This verse supports freedom as far as how God may have created.

# Psalm 139:13
For You formed my inward parts;You wove me in my mother's womb.
Psalm 139:12-14 (in Context) Psalm 139 (Whole Chapter)

Ecclesiastes 11:5
Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things.

# Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,And before you were born I consecrated you;I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

In a response to Kline who thinks that because Genesis says "He became a living being", this rules out an Evolutionary origin for man, are we to take it literally then that God breathed out of his nostrils into the man also? I don't think this verse really causes any problems.

These passages make it perfectly clear to me at least that God could have certainly formed Adam from the Evolutionary process. One he is intimately involved with of course.

[Jnthn]

This paper by Dr Marcus Ross is a helpful discussion point on the continuum of beliefs regarding origins

J

[Geoffrey]

"Theistic evolution" is an unfortunate appellation.

I am a Christian. I recognize the facticity of thermodynamics. Does that mean that I believe in "theistic thermodynamics"?

I am a Christian. I recognize that the Earth orbits the sun. Does that mean that I believe in "theistic heliocentrism"?

I am a Christian. I recognize the existence of photosynthesis. Does that mean that I believe in "theistic photosynthesis"?

Etc.

I am a Christian. I recognize the facticity of evolution. Period.

No need for calling this stuff "theistic evolution", "theistic photosynthesis", or any other "theistic _____". That sort of thing is just silly.