Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Gold Dragon, Sep 16, 2005.

  1. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    webdog made this claim in another thread. I didn't want to hijack the thread so I'll start this one.

    Oxymoron. This is like a christian atheist. </font>[/QUOTE]I would agree that for many Christians, theistic evolutionist is an oxymoron because their understanding of evolution is patently atheistic. Primarily this view comes from YEC definitions of evolution who approach evolution with the pre-understanding that it is wrong.

    However, the scientific community and those responsible for defining, researching and promoting evolution would not describe evolution as atheistic.

     
  2. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dragon, theistic evolution denies God's Word. It marginalizes the God of the Bible to something man thinks he can cope with. It puts God below man.

    Evolution says we all came from some proto-bacteria which, through time, chance, mutations, and natural selection, evolved into bears, beetles and banyan trees.

    First of all, the Bible specifically denies that, stating that organisms were created according to kind and instructed to replicate within kind. That is exactly what we see.

    Secondly, there is no evidence in genetics or biology at all which supports evolution. There is only the desire for it and the interpretations of data which are based on the presuppositions of evolution.

    The data speak otherwise, proclaiming the truth of the Bible.

    Therefore, although evolution does not 'deny the existence of God', it does deny His Word and the evidence in His creation in favor of something made up by and supported by men who were trying to replace God with man -- Aldous Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog" knew very well he was replacing one religion with another. He referred to his science lectures as lay sermons and spoke of wanting to replace the Anglican religion (he was English) with a humanist, or scientific, religion.

    That is exactly what has happened.

    By marginalizing God and calling His Word untrue, or "needing to be understood in light of modern science", evolution might as well be saying there is no God, for there is none of any account in evolution.

    You cannot serve two masters, sir. Either God knows what He is talking about in the Bible and knows, and has always known, full well how to communicate with people, or God either did not know what He was talking about (for the Genesis presents itself as eyewitness accounts, not as handed-down stories -- and you must accept it or reject it on its own claims, not on made-up claims) or could not and cannot communicate clearly.

    Which is it?

    THAT is why theistic evolutionism is an oxymoron. What you are really saying is that you will believe only in the "God of the gaps." Where evolution cannot explain it you might be willing to put God.
     
  3. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll weigh in strongly against the last post.

    Theistic evolution is NOT an oxymoron.

    Many theologians suggest that the Genesis story was intended to be theological epic and not literal history.

    As we all know most (if not nearly all) experts in the field suggest that the earth and the universe are very old.

    I am not an expert in geology or astronomy nor am I an expert in theology but I have a fair understanding of both - enough understanding to see that there is room for debate in both of these areas .

    Helen - I respect your views here but you ARE basically asserting that your opinion is correct (don't we all) but you are also asserting that your view is held by the majority of experts which is not true.

    I am not a theistic evolutionist but I strongly affirm that one can be a theistic evolutionist and still be a Christian.
     
  4. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I disagree that evolution denies God's word. It does deny certain interpretations of Genesis 1.

    I agree that it is pathetic when some abuse evolution and take it outside of its scope as a scientific theory to be a substitute for religion. I also think it is sad when folks abuse the bible and take it outside of its scope as narrative literature to be a scientific text.

    The bible is most definitely true and does not need to be understood in light of modern science. Modern science has no comment on our biblical hermeneutics.

    There is also no mention of God in General Relativity. Is that also atheistic?

    God knew exactly what he was talking about. And he communicated very effectively what he was trying to communicate. The error is not with God but with our understanding and interpretation of what he was trying to communicate in Genesis. Is God trying to present a scientific thesis on origins in Genesis?

    I would disagree that the literary structure of Genesis is a series of eye-witness accounts. If they were, the text would have mentioned the witnesses of those accounts or used first person pronouns (I saw ...).

    Theistic evolution is very different from the "God of the gaps". God is not the explanation for things that can't be explained by evolution. God is the explanation FOR evolution.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The scientific aspect of evolution, like any scientific aspect, does not address the creator. It only seeks to ask the question "how", now "why" or "who". Theistic evolution, like ID and similar topics, is a philosophical issue, not a scientific issue. As a philosophical issue, if it is shown that the earth changes in accordanve with evolutionary models, then the very fact that I believe God exists requires that such changes are within the ability of God.
     
  6. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man was created in the image of God. The theory of common descent is in conflict with the uniqueness of man in creation.
     
  7. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    The theory of common descent is about our physical bodies.

    If man being created in the image of God is also about our physical bodies, what is God's physical body like?
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Theistic evolution is false. You can call it an oxymoron if you choose.
     
  9. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Theistic evolution is right on and therefore cannot be an oxymoron.
     
  10. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen, [​IMG]

    Oxymoron? Yes, with heavy emphasis on the last two syllables. It isn't stupid but, it is foolish. It attempts to explain how God did what God did and when He did it, without including God in the process. It is like explaining how we got the telephone but having as a guideline that we can't invoke Alexander Graham Bell in our explanation.

    Get your own dirt.
     
  11. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    So does Germ theory, Newton's laws of gravity, Einstein's general relativity, heliocentrism and every single thing the scientific community has discovered.

    Just because God isn't included in the explanation of the process doesn't mean God didn't create and design that process.
     
  12. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    What God has not commented about in the Bible is one thing. However God said very plainly the earth and universe were created in six literal days and that all organisms were created according to kind in that time.

    It's true. It is not an interpretation to read Scripture in a straightforward manner. It IS an interpretation to pretend it says something other. I am not interpreting Scripture, I am believing it.
     
  13. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think it is very plainly expressed in scripture that the six days are not days as we understand them with the rising and falling of the sun since the sun was not created until day four. This was considered by students of the bible way before evolution and even around the time of Christ.

    I believe it is very dangerous to think that just because you use one method of biblical interpretation (ie. plain sense) that you are not interpreting scripture. That is how Christians have confused their fallable and errant understandings of God's word for God's word itself.

    I recognize that it is impossible for me to read any text, scripture or not, without some level of interpretation. And I definitely believe in scripture.
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    The sun is not necessary for day and night. The earth rotating on its axis in relation to a directional light source is. If you look out into space (back into time) you will see there are quasars in the middle of each galaxy, associated with the black hole there. As you come closer and closer in both space and time, you will find these quasars dim and finally go out. All we have left in our galaxy is a black hole with occasional x-ray bursts. But at the beginning that quasar was there, with light much more powerful than our sun. It was lit, along with the population II stars -- the morning stars of Job -- on day one. That was the directional light source until day four when the sun, a population I star, was lit, along with the other population I stars.

    The days were 24 hour days.

    The Bible knows what it is talking about. Creation confirms it.
     
  15. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Interesting theory. I've never heard this one before. How far away was this quasar and what happened to it on day 4 so that there wouldn't be two conflicting light sources for daylight?
     
  16. bapmom

    bapmom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me ask, doesn't the BIble say that there was no death until Adam and Eve sinned? And doesn't the Bible say that Adam and Eve were created (not evolved from...btw) on the SIXTH day?

    And if they sinned sometime AFTER the sixth day, how in the world can all those other 5 days beforehand have meant millions of years? Theistic Evolution purports that there were millions of years before Adam and Eve got there....millions of years of death, some species "making it", and others falling by the wayside because they weren't as "well-evolved."

    Either there was death BEFORE sin came into the world.....and the "days" are millions of years, OR the Bible is totally right when it says that there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned.....

    And Dragon, in the first chapter of Genesis each and every one of those days are designated specifically to have consisted of THE evening and THE morning. God tried to make it as clear as possible. They were 24hr days.
     
  17. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    God did not lie. That day, He surely died.

    Was the death that day a physical one?

    The bible is totally right. But our understanding of death with respect to the fall isn't.
     
  18. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    The theory of common descent is about our physical bodies.

    If man being created in the image of God is also about our physical bodies, what is God's physical body like?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Of course being created in the image of God isn't about physical representation (although He is Christ incarnate). It's about our spirit, the fact that we are moral beings.

    So turn the question - if man descended from one common ancestor, why is it that God didn't state that something else other than man was created in His image? What is it about man that is special?
     
  19. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    A most excellent question.

    Why did God not state that something else was created in His image? Because nothing else was. Man was created in his image. Even though physically there isn't much different between our cells and organs and those of animals, there is a lot that is unique and special non-physically about humans. God's image.
     
  20. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it was both physical and spiritual.
     

Share This Page

Loading...