Opinions on Theistic Evolution?

Question

What are your opinions that Evolution is God's answer to how we were really created? How do we know that the story of Creation isn't just an extremely complicated metaphor meant to satisfy people until Evolution came along?

http://www.godsci.org

Answer 1

It is heathen to even think such things!
Everyone know God doesn't use LOGIC!
You are heathen!!!!!! You will burn!!!!

Answer 2

You've highlighted the distinction between the two unrelated components in the evolution model.

First, there's the fact (easily provable, not really subject to debate) that different species are related, and that common attributes of species change over time. Humans have gotten taller over the past couple thousand years. Moths change colors. Island variants of species are often smaller. All of these are readily observable from available records.

The more complicated question is WHY do species change and HOW do related species emerge or die off. Darwin put for the guess (barely a theory) of "survival of the fittest", called adaptive evolution. This works great to explain the slow gradual changes, but is more shaky on the sudden big changes.

Moderate theologians countered with "Maybe that's true for the slow subtle changes. But we think that God has been tinkering with DNA and creating the big evolution leaps that have occurred." How do they know? Faith. Ok, unprovable but not inherently invalid.

How do we know? We don't. Not having been able to witness a sudden major adaptive shift, the best science can do is try to fit the theory to the available facts. That's what so annoying about the evolution/creationism debate.

We know that species are related, and that species change over time. We don't really know why or how. Can't people just cover the parts we're sure of and admit that science doesn't yet have all the answers?

Answer 3

Good question. I could go into a long answer here, but I will try to keep it relatively short. Every culture has a Creation story; Christians certainly do not hold the market on that one. I am a practicing scientist by background and trade- I have to think critically for a living. I am NOT an atheist, despite the prejudices I run into all the time.

I personally believe that science is one of the languages of the force that set creation in motion. The purpose of a language is to communicate with others who understand it. The natural world is not a static system- it is very much alive and growing. It is a constantly changing, evolving, beautiful, complex system. If one takes the time to learn the complexities, one sees that amidst all of the layers, there is a startlingly beautiful order. Most scientisits are not atheists, but rather just do not know what they believe yet. Buddhist thought is interesting- it teaches that you should discern truth based on what you see around you in the world, which is what a scientist does.

It is downright silly to say that human societies have not changed (dare I say "evolved"?) in the last 2000 years. We face new challenges, but have overcome most forms of slavery, have created a culture where an individual can ponder spritiual questions, only a few people grow the food that several thousand eat, etc. Most of our evolution recently has not been physical, but has rather been mental and spiritual. There is a small, but growing, sector of population with a "global concern" perspective, who consider what is best for all people, not just the nation, the tribe, the family, etc.

Evolution did not come along, it is part of the natural order of things, and has been since the spark of creation was ignited. The universe itself shows living forms in a state of change. The complexity and underlying order strongly suggest a purpose less random than chance, by default indicating a higher order or power. It is only through our own evolution as a society that we have learned the language of the natural systems. We have only been capable of understanding evolution for a very short period of time, and are nowhere near knowing all there is to know! We have only just entered the space where we know enough of the "language" to start "reading" what is written. We are not at the true communication or dialogue stages yet. To debate the existence of evolving systems, because you are afraid that accepting them somehow undermines your spiritual foundation, is to live dully in a cave of self chosen ignorance.

Finally, science should be approached as science. It is wrong to try to make science fit the mold of someone's religious belief. It should be allowed to be what it is, which is an objective, thoughtful way of looking at the world. It has not yet been able to answer the question of the soul, which maybe it never will. That's ok too. Let religion play the role of attending to the soul, for those who choose its path.

Science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive. They actually back each other up. If religious folks would stop frothing at the mouth every time they heard the word "evolution", and actually look at what evolution is, does and says, they would understand that the implications are more incredible than they could ever imagine. There are many who believe that changes themselves are evolving towards knowing their own source. Thus, they say, through science, we may come closer to knowing God.

Answer 4

I think some form of theistic evolution is inevitable for thinking Christians, depending on how the word "evolution" is defined. If "evolution" means simply the gradual unfolding of life on planet Earth over hundreds of millions of years, I think this is, while not "provable" in some absolute or positivistic sense, undeniable. Here are the sticky points, in my opinion, for someone trying to reconcile Christianity to the typical evolutionist program:

"Evolution" as is typically taught is not just a story about the progression of life. It also tells stories about philosophy, anthropology, hamartiology (the study of sin), and other things. On the other hand, Christianity as taught in the Bible, even if taken in large part metaphorically, is not just a story about philosophy, anthropology, hamartiology, etc.; it also makes claims about history.

1. For instance, why do men lust after women who are not their wives? Is this because natural selection favored polygamy, or because people have a sinful nature? This kind of question can be asked about any number of behaviors that are part of the human condition but have two radically different explanations under the two theories.

2. (This is a biggie.) How are we to understand "The Fall," and in the light of that, the rest of the salvation story? The thrust of Biblical theology teaches that death is not inherent to the created order, or at least the created order of humanity. (Romans actually teaches that all of Creation was subjected to the curse when Adam sinned.) This is why Jesus had to defeat death on the cross. His resurrection inaugurates a new era with no death. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches that death was part of creation from the beginning; in fact, death drives the whole machine of evolution, including the evolution of humanity. I don't think you can have it both ways. Either death and destruction are bad forces (tied up with the notion of "sin," whose wages are death) that Jesus had to come to defeat, or they are perfectly natural forces (an evolutionist wouldn't say they were good or bad) that by definition have always helped shape what survived and thrived.

3. What is the nature of man? Evolution tells of various different branches of the human family tree. Were Neanderthals or homo afarensis created in the image of God, or did they not quite make the cut? At what point did man become accountable for his actions?

A large number of Biblical scholars do believe that Genesis is metaphorical and intended as a spiritual text and not a science textbook, that, as they say, "the Bible doesn't tell you how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven." If you look at Genesis in the context of other Near Eastern creation myths of the time, Genesis 1 is much more in line with modern science than the alternatives. Try fitting the story of how Tiamat and Marduk had a big fight and the earth was created out of Tiamat's slain body into an evolutionist philosophy. Still, I think there are some issues to be worked through for the "theistic evolutionist," as I just outlined.

Evolution is an aggressive programme, attempting to explain EVERYTHING in a naturalistic scheme where God does not play an active role. Along the way it butts heads in a number of arenas with Christianity. It's not always easy to pick and choose which parts of evolution are usable (and which are not) and to hold your ground somewhere in the middle.

If I keep going I'm in danger of you not reading this answer. Feel free to write me. I think about this stuff a lot, even if I really don't have many answers.

Answer 5

As a person who knows some Hebrew, I feel qualified to answer this. The word used for Day in the book of Genesis is Yom (ie Yom Kippur, etc).

When attached with a specific number (the first day, the second day), it can only refer to a 24-hour period. The same word (Yom) is used about 400 times in the old testament, and everywhere it is taken to mean a 24-hour period of time.

Jewish people measured the day as starting and ending at sunset, which is where it gets the "morning and evening" idea. In summary, the Bible cannot teach theistic evolution, as there is no gaps in the Yom (goes from 1 to 7) and there is no other possible way to interpret the word without disgracing all of Jewish history.

Answer 6

I did not read the website-I have seen so many.
But to answer your question.
If there really is a God, and He is omnipotent, why could He not get it right the first time. Is God so dumb that He has to keep working on something to get it even close to right-evolution. Or, Couldn't He make it perfect from the beginning.
Evolution did not happen, there are just too many scientist who can not accept it. They may not believe in God-but they are honest when they observe nature and whats left of our past. When we look at nature we see the opposite of evolution-things are getting worse, not better. God is not impotent-He does not need evolution to help Him.

Answer 7

I think that if god wanted to tell people the truth about how somehting happened, they'd believe it. I mean if a loud voice from the sky boomed out that germs cause disease, are you going to doubt it?

Since I don't believe in god and value logic over emotion, any explanation trying to bring god back into the science of evolution just seems silly to me. It's always some form of "god of the gaps" or god was tricking us, or we weren't ready. Ancient greeks came up with the idea of the atom and some even hinted at evolution. We were ready for the truth. Why would you limit god's ability to teach us if you believe in him?

Answer 8

I don't believe that if there were a god, that he would have man write a book saying the world were created in 7 days, if it were really evolution and god at work. To me, the bible is just some men's way of explaining our existance, meaning for life, and the future of man after death. That's all it is.

Answer 9

Do you believe that the Hebrews were too dumb to understand evolution if it had been explained to them in layman's terms ? If you can make a 3 y.o. child understand it, an adult (even in a relatively unscientific culture) can understand it too.

If God had wanted evolution to be taught in Genesis 1, he would have spelled it out.

Anyway, TE seems to me like a way of trying to add God to a resolutely secular theory. Those who are in favor of the theory of evolution are convinced that it explains accurately how the different species came into existence, and it's not by compromising that we will prove them otherwise.
The only thing they'll believe if you say you think TE is correct is that God is a crutch for you and that you are so desperate to believe in him that you'll try to add him to any theory.

Answer 10

Rather, I would say, Evolution is man's answer to how God did it. Since the Bible is not a science text book, why look for scientific explanations in the Bible?

There is no conflict between God and science. (God created science, after all, and knows all about it.) The conflict is really between arrogant theologians and big-headed scientists. Both groups think they know it all, and are out to prove their superiority. Silly, isn't it?

Answer 11

Its not a bad theory and makes a little more sense (and easier to believe) that someone started things out and let them develop over time. on their own. Creation stories seem to be a great story that gets people together once or twice a week so the offering plates can be passed around.