What are the arguments against Theistic Evolution? What specific scriptures do you think contradict Theistic Evolution?


(nicolas andulsky allen) #1

Please list whatever arguments you can think of, such as the “evolution is bloody and cruel and against the character of God” argument. However, if you are citing scripture, please include the chapter and verse. Thanks.


How can Genesis be interpreted to agree with Theistic Evolution?
(Larry Bunce) #3

I saw a delightfully circular argument against TE on a creationist website. It went, “The idea that God would use the atheistic process of evolution is the biggest oxymoron in the world.”

Another argument against TE, also based on preconceptions about God, is that God seems less than omnipotent if He required billions of years to create the universe, rather than magically making it all happen in a six-day workweek.


(Chris Falter) #4

This is interesting. One of Augustine’s arguments against 144 hour creation week, and in favor of instantaneous creation, was that anything less than instantaneous creation made God seem less than omnipotent.


(Larry Bunce) #5

I had forgotten that St. Augustine considered the six days of Genesis as being symbolic because he thought God had created the world instantly. The Big Bang Theory would certainly support Augustine’s hunch.

Another argument against TE concerns the theological problem we have with Christ’s death on the cross if Adam and Eve were not the historical ancestors of all humans, so that we are not their direct descendants and therefore did not inherit Original Sin. I personally believe that Original Sin refers to the human tendency to disobey God’s rules, and works just as well if Adam and Eve represent the original group of humans or were historical figures, but some people find that a valid concern.


(George Brooks) #6

I think the SINGLE MOST important text is

Romans 5:12
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned".

Followed by
1 Corinthians 15:22
"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."


“Paul believed that Adam’s transgression in a mysterious way affected the nature of the human race. The primeval sin, a Pauline creation with no biblical or post-biblical Jewish precedent, was irreparable by ordinary human effort.”

Source: Vermes, Geza (2012). Christian Beginnings from Nazareth to Nicea. Allen Lane, Penguin Books. p. 100.

I think these texts can be reasonably reinterpreted…


(nicolas andulsky allen) #7

I agree that these texts can be reasonably reinterpreted. I also agree that representative Adam makes the Federal Head theory unnecessary.


(nicolas andulsky allen) #8

I find it strange that folks don’t see how arbitrary this argument is. One could just as easily say that God’s creation of the universe over billions of years is more magnificent, and that slapping the whole thing together in a week is slapdash and diminishes God. I’m no mathematician but I’m fairly sure that a billion is more than 6. More importantly, when people start talking about what they think god should be like or what kind of god they want to worship, then they are treating God like an abstract concept, subject to their approval, instead of like the all powerful creator of the universe who is that he is, entirely independent of our approval or opinion or conception of him.


(nicolas andulsky allen) #9

I find it strange that folks don’t see how arbitrary this argument is. One could just as easily say that God’s creation of the universe over billions of years is more magnificent, and that slapping the whole thing together in a week is slapdash and diminishes God. I’m no mathematician but I’m fairly sure that a billion is more than 6. More importantly, when people start talking about what they think god should be like or what kind of god they want to worship, then they are treating God like an abstract concept, subject to their approval, instead of like the all powerful creator of the universe who is that he is, entirely independent of our approval or opinion or conception of him. X


(Christy Hemphill) #10

I think it depends on what a person means by “theistic evolution,” but it seems to me that passages that speak of God’s purposes, plans, goals, and predestined ends for human beings and for creation challenge a view of evolution that is 100% random and unguided.


(Larry Bunce) #11

Biblical passages that treat Adam as a historical figure only show that St. Paul and Jesus read Genesis literally, as did most people until modern science began to indicate that the world was more than a few thousand years old. Until that time, there was no reason to think of the Genesis account of creation to be anything other than historical fact. in the original Hebrew, the name Adam means “the man” and the Hebrew name for Eve is a play on words for “mother of all living,” so it doesn’t appear that the writer of Genesis necessarily considered Adam and Eve as historical figures.

Even if Adam and Eve are taken to be stand-ins for the first humans, nothing about humanity’s relationship with God changes.


(nicolas andulsky allen) #12

Evolution that is 100% random and unguided is probably not what is meant by Theistic Evolution.


(nicolas andulsky allen) #13

Bearing in mind that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God, and that this implies that Jesus was present at the creation of the world, one would think that Jesus knows if Genesis is literal or not. Perhaps we need a better understanding of what Jesus taught about creation? What did Jesus say about creation?


(Christy Hemphill) #14

It is what is meant by some at least some Christians when they talk of evolution. See this other thread: Time to retire the term "Theistic Evolution"?

Or any of the many long and involved threads here about the compatibility of Neo-Darwinsim and Christianity or the idea of randomness.


(nicolas andulsky allen) #15

I followed that link and read the article. The article seems to be saying that the term “Theistic Evolution” implies that God directed or interfered with evolution to create people. I think that is accurate.


(George Brooks) #16

@Christy,

I certainly agree with you in the way you describe it.

But this brings us all the way back to what we mean by “random” and “unguided”.

When scientists say Evolution is “random” … they can’t possibly assert that from the divine cosmic viewpoint.

So I would hope we don’t encourage this particular objection.


(Benjamin Kirk) #17

Hello Nick,

That’s OK, because evolution is not random.


(George Brooks) #18

@Benkirk,

And I suppose you say that because your view is that “evolution following natural laws” is definitionally not random.

I’ve seen this back-and-forth dispute (which is really a dispute about definitions) 4 or 5 times already here at BioLogos.


(nicolas andulsky allen) #19

Semantics.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #20

@Nick_Allen
@gbrooks9

Not semantics.

Philosophy! There is a huge difference.


(nicolas andulsky allen) #21

What about the accusation that Theistic Evolution is “compromise”? Any thoughts about that one?