Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Man was created in the image of God. The theory of common descent is in conflict with the uniqueness of man in creation.

 

Theistic evolution is false. You can call it an oxymoron if you choose.

 

Theistic evolution is right on and therefore cannot be an oxymoron.

 

Helen,

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Yes, it was both physical and spiritual.