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
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.
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.
Evolution that is 100% random and unguided is probably not what is meant by Theistic Evolution.
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?
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"? - #6 by beaglelady
Or any of the many long and involved threads here about the compatibility of Neo-Darwinsim and Christianity or the idea of randomness.
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.
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.
Hello Nick,
That’s OK, because evolution is not random.
2 Likes
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.
Semantics.
1 Like
What about the accusation that Theistic Evolution is “compromise”? Any thoughts about that one?
I think this comes from a strict division of the world into “us” and “them.” Anytime you start to sound like the people who have been designated “them,” it is labelled compromise, regardless of what you are actually saying. For example, I work for a faith-based NGO that partners in many countries with UNESCO. Some Christians have decided that UNESCO is “them” and therefore, our partnership is a compromise. If we talk about “empowering women” or “fighting the disenfranchisement of minority populations” we sound too much like “them” to some people and it doesn’t seem to matter how many Bible verses or parallels with Jesus’ ministry we point to, it is all taken as evidence of liberal corruption. Scientists are “them.”
2 Likes
Compromise?
I think Compromise is saying: Genesis is figurative and a-historical … but Exodus… yep,
it happened long before the Philistines ever arrived in the region.
Hello George,
No, I say that because selection is the antithesis of randomness. Drift is random, but I’d bet my firstborn that drift is not the aspect of evolution to which Nick is objecting.
What I was saying is that evolution that is unguided is atheistic evolution. Evolution that is guided is theistic evolution. Also, what I am hoping to do with this thread is to create a concise list of all of the objections to theistic evolution so that I can create a concise list of refutations to those objections.
1 Like
Drift can be random to scientists … and STILL guided by God…it’s a matter of definitions…
1 Like
The person who leads the area Reasons To Believe group emailed around that his church is having Genesis Academy do a multi-week presentation. The first will be tomorrow evening. I offered to attend as moral support. This should provide some interesting material, assuming I live through it.
2 Likes
Me:
No, I say that because selection is the antithesis of randomness. Drift is random, but I’d bet my firstborn that drift is not the aspect of evolution to which Nick is objecting.
I agree completely, George. I was trying to point out the irony of associating randomness with Darwin, when in fact the only truly random type of evolution is NON-Darwinian.
1 Like