Theistic Evolution?

[Deidre]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism.

That is so only because the current usual meaning of "creationism" is defined as denial to the acceptance of evolution instead of its more natural meaning as "belief in a creator God".

In a very real sense, Creationism (and Creationism alone) insists that the dychotomy must exist.

But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution?

I would assume it to be the case pretty much always, if so many people did not assure me that it is not so.

Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

There are really not schools of thought to deal with here. Not in either side. Theistic evolution is the simple, almost unavoidable result of a theist acquiring some education in biology.

It not only proper, it is also almost mundane in its lack of internal conflict.

 

[Deidre]

Thanks for your responses, Luis. Is there anything inherently 'taboo' (for a Christian) relating to supporting Darwin's theory of evolution? (question for the group)

I ask this, because I'm a supporter of Darwin's theory, but also believe in God, and came back to Christianity. Mainly, only fundamentalists support the Genesis story as literal; I'm not a fundamentalist.

 

[Gambit]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

The following is a quote from Philip E. Johnson (the father of the intelligent design movement). (I think this goes to the crux of the issue here.)

"Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it is explicitly or tacitly defined as fully naturalistic evolution - meaning evolution which is not directed by any purposeful intelligence. (pg. 4, "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson)

 

[Deidre]

The following is a quote from Philip E. Johnson (the father of the intelligent design movement). (I think this goes to the crux of the issue here.)

Oh thank you for this, that's exactly what I had *hoped* for in posting this thread! I was reading something recently about Darwin's theory being mainly an 'atheistic position,' and I thought....hmm, why can't religious people also support this??

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for your responses, Luis. Is there anything inherently 'taboo' (for a Christian) relating to supporting Darwin's theory of evolution? (question for the group)

I honestly can't think of anything.

 

[Deidre]

I honestly can't think of anything.

Yea, it could be more of a fundamentalist issue, as if you take Genesis literally, then you'd naturally not be able to simultaneously support the TOE.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yea, it could be more of a fundamentalist issue, as if you take Genesis literally, then you'd naturally not be able to simultaneously support the TOE.

I think the actual factors involved are somewhat more specific.

One, as you mentioned, is the legend that Evolution "is atheistic", which it really is not.

Another is a form of pride, a feeling that human beings must be in a class of its own and separate from other animals - although that pride does not IMO hold much water. Human beings are what they are and are unique enough. To fear comparisons with other animals is just a sign of insecurity, not of faith.

 

[Gambit]

Oh thank you for this, that's exactly what I had *hoped* for in posting this thread! I was reading something recently about Darwin's theory being mainly an 'atheistic position,' and I thought....hmm, why can't religious people also support this??

According to Johnson, the intelligent design movement is not necessarily against evolution; it's only against atheistic evolution. That being said, there are definitely prominent atheists who are against theistic evolution and proponents of theistic evolution who are against intelligent design.

The major criticism of theistic evolution by non-theistic evolutionists focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator. These critics argue that by the application of Occam's razor, sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by natural processes (in particular, natural selection), and the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity is not required.[40] Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins considers theistic evolution a superfluous attempt to "smuggle God in by the back door".[41]

(source: Wikipedia: Theistic evolution)

A number of notable proponents of theistic evolution, including Kenneth R. Miller, John Haught, George Coyne, Simon Conway Morris, Denis Alexander, Francisco J. Ayala, and Francis Collins are critics of intelligent design.

(source: Wikipedia: Theistic evolution)

 

[Chakra]

How much influence did God have on the evolutionary history in your opinion, D?

 

[Katzpur]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

Atheists will say it's not only "not acceptable," but "total nonsense." Many theists, such as me, believe this is absolutely the case. I have no trouble at all reconciling my belief in God with my belief that life evolved over billions of years.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists will say it's not only "not acceptable," but "total nonsense."

Excuse me? I am truly surprised.

 

[LuisDantas]

According to Johnson, the intelligent design movement is not necessarily against evolution; it's only against atheistic evolution.

That is interesting, since there is no such a thing as "atheistic evolution". It makes as much sense as "atheistic magnetism".

 

[Katzpur]

Excuse me? I am truly surprised.

You are? I'm wrong then?

 

[Deidre]

How much influence did God have on the evolutionary history in your opinion, D?

Just my opinion, I believe God is the impetus behind evolution, and was the 'guide' for humans to have souls and/or levels of consciousness, and consciences. Don't think that theists need to be scientifically ignorant in order to embrace both their faith and evolution. As an atheist, I used to think the two worlds couldn't coexist, however. lol

 

[Katzpur]

Just my opinion, I believe God is the impetus behind evolution...

Same here.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are? I'm wrong then?

Far as I can tell.

I don't think theistic evolution is distinguishable from plain vanilla evolution, which I suppose is what is meant by "atheistic evolution". That hardly means it is "total nonsense".

 

[Katzpur]

Far as I can tell.

Will you explain? I've always figured that, since atheists don't believe in God at all, they think that any attempt to reconcile the findings of science with a "Higher Power" is completely ridiculous. That's all I was saying. I must be misunderstanding you.

 

[Gambit]

Yea, it could be more of a fundamentalist issue, as if you take Genesis literally, then you'd naturally not be able to simultaneously support the TOE.

I don't think there is any doubt that the apostle Paul took the story of Adam and Eve literally. In fact, Paul's theology is predicated on it (see Romans 5). And since Paul's theology is the basis for Christianity, then Christianity itself is predicated on a literal interpretation of the story. So, it seems to me, that Christianity and evolution are fundamentally incompatible.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think there is any doubt that the apostle Paul took the story of Adam and Eve literally.

Given what "scientific" knowledge existed at the time, how could he have believed otherwise?