Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by JesusFan, Jun 22, 2011.
Or are both just simply "junk Science?"
NEITHER a viable option for a believer in the Word of God?
They are both equally wrong and contrary to God's word. Evolution leaves God completely out of the picture, while theistic evolution says that God got the ball rolling and then let evolution take over.
I wouldn't say they are equally wrong. Theistic evolution at least accepts the existence of God. Evolution as a worldview does not necessarily leave any room for God.
IMO, however, theistic evolution is internally inconsistent. If the evolutionary process presupposes randomness as central to the evolutionary process, this seems to contradict any notion of theistic intervention.
A deistic approach (which is the closest to what you describe) is somewhat more internally consistent (still wrong, though), but it is essentially evolution with God tacked on the front.
I suppose there are various interpretations of "theistic evolution" that would need to be considered.
I wouldn't consider them "junk science," however. Evolution is the best theory of origins, if you assume a materialistic worldview. The problem is that the worldview is flawed.
Theistic evolution is less about science and more about philosophy and theology, anyway, at least a philosophical understanding of the integration of science and faith.
Try reading some of the great fundamental theologians on theistic evolution such as A.H. Strong and B.B. Warfield, both theistic evolutionists and consistant theologians.
I have been a theistic evolutionist most of my life. I never see any critics of my theology and bible teachings. Most people just don't understand theistic evolution. It has no comparison to Godless Darwinian Evolution!!!!
Part of the paper I wrote.
Theistic evolution doesn’t correspond with the Biblical model of creation. This concept was developed by some religious leaders in an attempt to counter the ages of the earth and Archaeological finds espoused by the Evolutionist. It’s proponents say “that the order for the creation as recorded in Genesis is the same as that proposed by the major evolutionary model,” this according The Beginnings Under Attack, written by Bill Sheffield.
In researching this subject Dr. Morris has written Scientific Creationism. Chapter eight has a section in it titled Theistic Evolution and he dedicates several pages to the subject. In his book is found a list of the different concepts of the theory. These are “orthogenesis (goal-directed evolution), nomogenesis (evolution according to fixed law), emergent evolution, creative evolution and others.” He notes for the reader “none of these concepts are acceptable among modern leaders of evolutionary thought.” Then he suggests, “This Theory might be called Biblical Evolution.”
The term Theistic is to be understood in order to realize its full meaning. Theistic or actually Theism is the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the Universe, without rejection of revelation. Therefore Theistic evolution in its simplest form means, God used evolution as the means of creation. That God became the outside agent needed for evolutionary steps to begin and continue the process.
We do NOT deny the biblical account of creation. I know very little about actual science, so I am not trying to make the bible fit science. I am attempting to account for a lot that is left out of the bible, especially in the animal kingdom.
I am also accounting for the world outside the biblical earth which dealt with Israel.
I have read a lot of material about theistic evolution and the majority misses the boat entirely.
Would you agree though that Theistic would deny the uniqueness of God creating man in His own image, breathing life into him, a soul?
As Theistic postulates that man is end product of an Evolutionary process shaped/guided by God, but man NOT a divine special creation by God?
And that all of the Species were NOT cretaed after their own selves, as per Bible, but cross mutated to create new species? Go far enough back, dogs/cats/man had a common ancestor?