Is Theistic Evolution a viable theory?

Question

I recently came across Francis Collins book, __The_Language_of_God, where he lays out an outstanding case for Theistic Evolution. This coupled with similar views from one of my all time favorite authors, C. S. Lewis, has left me on the fence for this issue. I've started on Richard Dawkins _The God_Delusion_ and am also reading Lee Strobels _The Case_for a_ Creator. Leave some suggested readings with your answers. Thanks!

I do realize that almost every word in my question is loaded with semantic baggage. However, I’ve enjoyed the wide spectrum of responses, so I do not wish to clarify my question any further.

I’m always impressed with the caliber of the responses and appreciate the time of such learned people.

Answer 1

This is my personal opinion: It is unthinkable to consider Theistic Evolution. If God has a plan, why doesn't he carry it out and produce it?
I cannot even imagine a God who has an objective but wants to reach it through a cumbersome, painfully slow and lengthy process, full of flaws, sometimes producing species that will not even survive. At the same time, according to prevailing beliefs, there is no limit to the power of God.
There is an inconsistency there. He gave us a brain to use, but this same brain is not able to perceive or sense him. Otherwise, there would not be any doubt about his existence.
The birth of totally incapacitated human beings, who will never even have a thought process, severe congenital anomalies. is certainly a perplexing thought in the world of Intelligent Design.
The brain given to us by God can either be rational or irrational.
If we decide to be rational and observe the reality He alledgedly created,
there is no possible comprehensible place for Theistic Evolution.
I don't have any reading suggestions besides your citations.
If God has a plan and we analyze history, we are facing a real bizarre plan.

Answer 2

In a scientific sense, no, because it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.

A theory is a model of the way the world, or part of the world, works. A theory must follow these tenets:
1)A Theory must arise from, agree with, and explain the available empirical evidence (facts).
2)A Theory must be falsifiable. That is, it must be stated in such a way, such that it is conceivable to discover further empirical evidence, or concoct an experiment, that, depending on the nature of the evidence, or outcome of the experiment, the theory would be false.
3)A Theory must be extensible. It is insufficient for a theory only to explain what has happened in the past. It must also predict something about the future. This is a theory’s real power.
4)A Theory must be accountable. That is if empirical evidence is discovered that is counter to the theory, then the theory must either be modified, bounded, replaced, or discarded.

Creationism (including theistic evolution) fails as a scientific theory on counts 2 & 3.

Answer 3

Do you mean viable 'scientific' theory? If you can test it then, yes - if not than, no. Theistic Evolution, from my understanding, is just a way for religious believers to reconcile their 'texts' with current scientific knowledge - similar to intelligent design. I haven't read the Collins' book, though, so I don't know what the phrase 'outstanding case' means. Again, unless this 'case' is testable, it isn't a viable scientific hypothesis or theory. I think people get caught up in weather or not these new mergings of science and god make sense or not. A lot of hypotheses in science 'make sense'. In my own research I have been wrong about many of my own hypotheses, but in science, it's not about being wrong or right - it's about using the scientific method to move our understanding of life forward. Now, if you are asking if Theistic Evolution is a viable religious or philosophical theory, then it might just be . . . I'm definitely not qualified to comment on that, though. Good luck in your search!

Answer 4

You might try reading reading Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker. While you are working on the veracity of belief systems, you might want to look a the book by a Bible scholar by the name of Bart Ehrman. The title does sound controversial, but the content is not. The book is called "Misquoting Jesus". It explains in detail how scholars go about translating the Bible and the methods that are used. I found it absolutely fascinating. Another great read, in my opinion, is The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell. I was amazed at the number of stories in the Bible that are found in the myths of other cultures all over the world that predate the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religion. You might want to try some of Sam Harris's stuff too. His Letter to a Christian Nation just made the New York Times best seller list. Have fun reading!

Answer 5

Theistic evolution is not and can not be a scientific
theory because science can not deal with the
transcendent and supernatural. This is not to say
it is wrong, just that scientific methodology has no
way to handle it, and has found the theistic aspect
unnecessary, as Darwin showed long ago. Ross,
incidentally, is not a reliable source of information.
Try Unintelligent Design by Mark Perakh.

Answer 6

My personal opinion id that no, theistic evolution is not viable. There are so many creation stories out there that one of them has to be right. Right? Nope. We can trace the history of the earth back almost 4 million years and have a prety good idea of what happened during this time. Unfortunatly none of it involved a divine intervention.

Answer 7

Can one be both theistic ("God-believing") and accepting of what science has to say on evolution? Yes.

But I don't see what the point is in having something called "theistic evolution". I think it just confuses the issue further. People who think evolution outright contradicts theism are misinformed about what evolution is about.

Answer 8

be taught and understand the scientific approach first, then examine the 'debunking' of evolution utilising scientific journals (no longer pseudo-technology web pages), or arise at the same time with your guy or woman information. everyone who can disprove evolution stands to make countless money and recognition, yet so as to disprove a scientific concept, you are able to desire to observe the scientific approach. understand that for the duration of technology, a concept is a hypothesis it truly is supported via information. As in, the thought of gravity states if I push you out of an plane mid flight, you will fall in direction of the floor. it incredibly is purely a concept even with the undeniable fact that.

Answer 9

Yes and no.

Yes, it is a viable theory.
No, it will never be considered as true science since science needs an answer which can be boxed as "empirical".
However, science does have its limitations and theistic evolution is an answer which brings the whole story together.

A good resource is Hugh Ross. Here's his web site:
http://www.reasons.org/

Answer 10

"Theistic" isn't a scientific theory. It's a speculation, until such time as there's direct evidence of Intelligent Designer(s).