What is the difference between Atheistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution and Evolutionary Creationism?

[LotsofThoughts]

Hi folks!

I wanted to open up this conversation and ask each of you your genuine thoughts on how theistic and atheistic evolution differ in terms of their agents, implications, processes, etc?

Other questions that I have are: What is your gut impression? Do you have concerns or struggles about one or the other? Why does this concern you? How does this make you think or believe otherwise? How does this compare to what you do believe?

I ask that when you reply, please include at least two thoughtful questions of your own to help the group continue this page as a discussion.

Before we get started, please refrain from behaving like the following:

• “You are completely out of your depth”
• “I am not going to repeat this because you have already dismissed it”
• “Feel free to try to explain your way out of this”
• “You have yet to admit that you are wrong”
• “I think that the only reason why you have said this is to annoy me.”
• etc

This conversation is here for mature, kind, and intelligent dialogue only.
That being said, let’s have fun!

[Randy]

Greetings and welcome.

I am curious what you think. I would have a hard time nailing down a single interpretation. I know @DOL Dr Denis Lamoureux, for example, is both an evolutionary scientist, researching in the development of gills into teeth, and also reports as a Pentecostal that he experiences miracles every day.

Thank you for your insight!

[LotsofThoughts]

So, given my limited understanding . . .

In a birds-eye-view, I see atheistic evolution in the sense that God is nowhere in the picture, neither to initiate, design, intervene, or be involved. Here, there is no inherent purpose or meaning, rather, it simply showed up and happened the way it happened. Same natural mechanisms as theistic evolution, but without design, purpose, or involvement by God, since there is no God in this scenario. Furthermore, there is no “why” to the evolution of homo sapiens any more than there is for the evolution of any other species. We were just an accident of sorts, or rather, just another thing that occurred, which happens to have created self-conscious and moral beings. In my experience, this is just so unsatisfactory and leaves so many questions unanswered.

On the other hand, in the most general sense, I see theistic evolution as the process of evolution with God’s involvement to some capacity, and importantly, during and after providing that initial something from nothing (ex-nihilo) for everything to eventually get going and unfold. Since it is not deistic evolution, theistic evolution cannot simply be just initiating the Big Bang and otherwise walking away.

But now we get into interesting questions of how much God is and or was involved. As you mentioned about Dr. Lamoureux, we could say that in theistic evolution, God directly interacts with and is present in the world around us via his own supernatural acts and influence. This could involve suspending or modifying the laws of nature, and could be on a somewhat regular basis. We could then ask ourselves, was our arrival as it were a miracle? Was that the very act of God nudging evolution at the right time? Or was that evolutionary outcome already built-in to the process somehow? Both? I honestly don’t know, and am ok with not knowing.

Personally, when thinking of our past evolution and the early history of our planet, I don’t believe that God had to command and touch and guide everything as if it couldn’t already function and develop on its own accord by way of his pre-planned and built-in design. If he had to hand-hold the evolution, I struggle to see it as being evolution in its truest sense since it would rather be more of an illusion or something else, but I can’t put my finger on it at the moment.

However, I do believe in miracles despite not truly knowing how it all works, if at all. Here’s the thing. If we think about God miraculously healing someone who was very sick or injured, we could say that God took things off of auto pilot and somehow made the normal processes function in such a way as to cause healing when otherwise there would be no healing, or very little of it. And we would naturally think it impossible, because the body when left to its own devices in that scenario would not normally be able to heal that effectively. We could perhaps chock it up to chance or some other natural factor, but it would still be a miracle because of God’s mysterious involvement.

I’ll pause here for now. Does that kind of answer your question? And, is there something that you know that I don’t seem to have considered before? I’m curious to see people’s take on things, including what theistic evolution is, much less evolutionary creationism, if it is significantly different.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

It annoys me when you won’t admit how far out of your depth you are in trying to explain your way of all this - already dismissing any replies you’ll get … etc.

Oh - woops - now I see your stipulations at the end … sorry about that!
[just to be clear - that was an attempt at humor above - maybe not a good way to welcome somebody into the forum.]

More seriously … you raise good questions (and now I see your just-added further response above.) I’ll just chip in a bit on your original prompt:

@LotsofThoughts

…thoughts on how theistic and atheistic evolution differ in terms of their agents, implications, processes, etc?

One response (which is mine at the moment) is to note that in terms of “agents” and “processes” there wouldn’t be any difference between the two (other than that most theists probably don’t dissallow the agency of God) - but in terms of our ordinary observations and descriptions of agency, we’ll all (atheists and theists alike) refer to the physically observable things, keeping our observations universal in that regard. Since God can’t be seen (at least not directly as such), then whatever God may directly choose to do (at least in terms of what we may think of as ‘special actions’), wouldn’t be a matter of scientific regularity and therefore not a universal part of our scientific discourse. So when “talking science” there wouldn’t be any difference between the theist or the atheist when speaking of processes or physical causality. As to ‘implications’ - that could get more interesting depending on where all one takes it.

I agree with you (as a Christian) that the deistic and distant God is not a satisfying theological answer, and doesn’t appear to me to be consistent with who God is shown to be in Christ.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@LotsofThoughts

I see theistic evolution as the process of evolution with God’s involvement to some capacity, and importantly, during and after providing that initial something from nothing (ex-nihilo) for everything to eventually get going and unfold. Since it is not deistic evolution, theistic evolution cannot simply be just initiating the Big Bang and otherwise walking away.

It is not essential that God’s continued involvement would manifest as occasional ex-nihilo creations or evident miracles. In principle he could achieve his purposes through what to us is statistically or phenomenally indistinguishable from natural processes, thus neither deistic nor detectably supernatural.

[Laura]

You could probably ask the same question about what is the difference between theistic germ theory and atheistic germ theory. Personally, when I use a term like “theistic evolution,” I’m not really making any claims about what God’s “involvement” in it might be (which is why on a scientific level, there is no difference), only that I don’t see evolution as some “be all end all” of our existence. Other than that, your speculation is as good as mine. I think a lot depends on what is meant by “God’s involvement,” and that’s where different people come up with very different ideas depending on their spiritual past and present.

[St.Roymond]

For me that’s easy:
There is no room in the text of scripture for anything atheistic about any aspect of Creation, whether star formation or evolution. There is only room for God being in charge every moment everywhere in all things.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@LotsofThoughts

I wanted to open up this conversation and ask each of you your genuine thoughts on how theistic and atheistic evolution differ in terms of their agents, implications, processes, etc?

This will be brief because you appea to hae watched other “converstions” i have had.

As far as i am concerend you have got it basically right,

Atheistic evolution uasumes that there is no Godly intevention and provides scientific"alternatives" to get the job done.

Theistic evolutions asummes that God did more then "light the blue touch paper and reture immediately.

Why do I thnk it matters?

Because of my inderstanding of God. and the princiles that appear to drive ToE.

The truth is that, as @St.Roymond puts

@St.Roymond

For me that’s easy:
There is no room in the text of scripture for anything atheistic about any aspect of Creation,

but then fails to see (admit) hoow ToE denies that.

Which then results in the exchanges you are trying to avoid.

It boils down to personal view and understandng.

Richard

[DOL (Denis Lamoureux)]

Hi. Maybe this will help the discussion. My definition is Evolutionary Creation is: the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and living creatures, including humans, through an ordain, sustained, and intelligent design-reflecting evolutionary process. I don’t any need to God-of-the-gaps interventions in this process. Hope this helps.
Blessings,
Denis

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@DOL

an ordain, sustained, and intelligent design-reflecting evolutionary process

Does tht mean a self contained process? (light the blue touch paper and see, even know, what happens).

I think that is the majority christan with science view. (because that is how meteorology, and other scientific processes work, or at least seem to)

The crit against it is the emphasis of evolution on might or strength (adaption) over weak and unfortunate (not adapted). that does not reflect the usual understanding of GGod (Who helps the helpless, and fights / discourages against oppression)
IOW the mechanics as described by scientific evolution do not reflect how God works, contrary to Romans 1

Richard

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

Firstly,
I do not agree that there is any such notion as crewrionist evolution. From a theological scientific persepctive, that is a contradiction…not on these forums, but in social generally.

The fact is, evolution is not considered by the majority in society to be creationist…almost all in mainstream society who are presented with these two terms view them as opposing views of our origins. Its pointless to try to argue around that fundamental.

For me the biggest difference between the two main world views being presented with regards to creationism and atheism…its not the evolutionary bit…its the God bit.

Either there is a God or there isnt.

The rest of what goes on here on these forums is little more than a bunch of individuals fighting (intellectually) over table scraps. We do this probably because either we have nothing better to do or, we like the convenience and safety of being on the winning side of armchair wars.

[T_aquaticus]

@LotsofThoughts

I wanted to open up this conversation and ask each of you your genuine thoughts on how theistic and atheistic evolution differ in terms of their agents, implications, processes, etc?

Coming from the atheist side of the discussion . . .

When atheist and theist scientists discuss evolution there isn’t a difference in how they describe the scientific explanation of evolution. It’s the same mechanisms and processes. God isn’t mentioned because there isn’t a way to scientifically test for God in any natural process that we are looking at. Theists may believe that God is involved in the natural process in some way that is not scientifically detectable, and atheists will not. However, their science is the same.

It is no different than medicine. A theist may believe God is involved in clearing an infection they had, even though they took antibiotics which can naturally clear an infection. They would even agree that the antibiotic was vital in clearing the infection, but God was still involved on some level. An atheist wouldn’t believe that, but the theist and atheist would have no problem agreeing on the efficacy of antibiotics.

Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory when it comes to belief in God. If you can understand how God is not a part of our scientific theories dealing with germs or weather, then you should also be able to take that same approach and apply it to the scientific theory of evolution.

Also:

https://biologos.org/articles/atheistic-meteorology-or-divine-rain

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@LotsofThoughts

I wanted to open up this conversation and ask each of you your genuine thoughts on how theistic and atheistic evolution differ in terms of their agents, implications, processes, etc?

“atheistic evolution” This is what religionists call theoretical biology when they demand the authority to simply dictate to everyone the nature of reality, what happened and and how God has done things. The implication is that scientists cannot be Christians and must pay for their salvation by giving up their right to think for themselves and simply believe what they have been told. This is the product of those who have turned Christianity into a tool of power in the world.

“theistic evolution” and “evolutionary creationism” both are primarily about an assertion that Christianity and science are compatible. The difference between them is subtle and not well defined (despite my efforts below).

“theistic evolution” This the earlier term and leans a little more to the idea God had a role in the process of evolution to guide it according to His desires.

“evolutionary creationism” This is a modification coined by Biologos, and leans more towards the emphasis on God as the creator of life and the species despite accepting the scientific theory as it is without any need for a modification by adding God to it (particularly rejecting both the theology of Deism and the pseudoscience of intelligent design).

@LotsofThoughts

Other questions that I have are: What is your gut impression? Do you have concerns or struggles about one or the other? Why does this concern you? How does this make you think or believe otherwise? How does this compare to what you do believe?

As a scientist who has become a Christian I, of course, reject the rhetoric of “atheistic evolution” completely. I am firmly behind both of the other two terms: “theistic evolution” and “evolutionary creationism.”

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory when it comes to belief in God.

You keep repeating that. You seem to believe it. I do not and I am not alone

@adamjedgar

I do not agree that there is any such notion as crewrionist evolution

Fine, bury your head in the sand. This whole website is based on the notion that there is. (And that science and Christians can embrace each other)

@adamjedgar

From a theological scientific persepctive, that is a contradiction

That would depend on your view of theology (and the Bible in particular)

@adamjedgar

The fact is, evolution is not considered by the majority in society to be creationist

I doubt that most people give it a second thought. Evolutiion is promoted as fact, and that is that. My guess is that there are more people who do not care about whether God created, or not. If they belive He did, then they may not even join the dots between evolution and creationism.

@adamjedgar

Either there is a God or there isnt.

And?

If you beleive in God you wll expect Him to be the creator. That is all you need. to believe. How? Who cares! (you do, I guess)

@adamjedgar

The rest of what goes on here on these forums is little more than a bunch of individuals fighting (intellectually) over table scraps.

I think you will find that most of the reguar posters look at it more seriously than that.

They seem to want to be both right, and assertive.(Teaching etc)

It is a shame really. Forums like this should be more about bouncing around ideas (IMHO)

Richard

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@adamjedgar

I do not agree that there is any such notion as crewrionist evolution.

Agreed. I find nothing when I google this term. Where did you get it?

Oh I get it… ha ha… near misses on a phone right? w not far from a and r next to t

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

Well atheistic evolution is presumably the same as the standard theory of evolution only the rejection that anything supernatural exists. The theory of evolution itself is not theistic or atheistic.

Theistic evolution can mean different things. Generally it means someone believes in a god and also accepts the theory of evolution. Could be Muslim, Buddhist or whatever. Some fall more along standard theories and some fall more along thinking god directed or guided it somehow.

Evolutionary creationism is essentially the same as theistic evolution which again depends on who you ask. Some think that god directed evolution or that the universe inherently pushed towards love and so on.

There is another which is now my preferred term. Christian naturalism. Again, this term is used in different ways. The way I use it, and it does not matter if I use any of the terms with a religious undertone to it I’ll have to explain it anyways. I’ve went through phases of using the various terms.

Anyways I landed on Christian naturalism. It means my faith is Christianity, albeit it’s one heavily devoid of supernatural beliefs and leans more towards everything possibly being metaphorical and hyperbolic even to the accounts of the resurrection. The naturalism in the term is my understanding of the natural world. I think it’s through natural selection, epigenetics and so on. I don’t think God actually created us. I don’t think God guided evolution. I don’t think God actually planned us.

I am essentially live as an atheist. I see absolutely no reason to believe in God. Not a bit of evidence. I’ve had some experiences but it could be confirmation bias and just coincidence. So logically I don’t see a reason to believe in God. However, I have a feeling that I can’t shake. A delusion, a hope, a whatever you want to call it where I decide , and it’s a choice, to accept this feeling as from another power and so I choose to worship God. I take some things at face value. I take it at face value, not evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Don’t know if it was spiritually or physically. It may even just me metaphorically that he lives on through us teaching his messaging. Don’t know and don’t care. I pray as a ritual. I don’t think it actually makes any difference. Why? Because I never see it doing that. If Dale was still here this is where he would copy and paste the two times where prayer was seemingly answered and I think it was. So it sounds like a contradiction, and it is. I also don’t care. 2 out of million…. That’s faith. I live by this motto. God will never fail me but once if all I do is pray to live another day.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@SkovandOfMitaze 's post made want to respond with what I believe as well. So I found the following as the reason why he would answer this way.

@LotsofThoughts

How does this compare to what you do believe?

I think I would describe myself as someone with layers, one built on top of another: science (Einstein as my first hero), then liberalism and psychology (from my parents), then existentialism (Camus and Kierkegaard) on top of that, then Aristotelian hylomorphism, then pragmatism (C.S. Pierce), then Christianity. Yep Christianity is not the root of my thinking but the outermost surface. If you dig deeper looking for the reasons WHY I believe then you find one these other things down beneath it.

@SkovandOfMitaze

Christian naturalism

Definitely not me. I do not see science as defining reality. I only see being consistent with the limited findings of science as a condition on what we can reasonably believe. But I have no problem believing in all kinds of things outside the scientific worldview. I take most of the Bible much at its word, though some parts like Job (and probably Jonah) are not historical… and the Garden story employs symbolism (not a literal fruit, snake, flaming sword, or the making of Adam and Eve like magical golems of dust and bone). The resurrection of Jesus is, as Paul says in 1 Cor 15, a bodily resurrection to a spiritual body not a physical body. And I am very suspicious of using Revelations for too much theology as a rather cultish thing to do.

My less orthodox beliefs are these…

Agnostic theist: I don’t believe any objective knowledge of God is possible.

Open theist: God writes the future together with us… at least to the degree of which we still have some freedom from the enslavement to sin which I think is a complete freedom at the time of birth.

Sin consists of self-destructive habits not disobedience. Original sin thus only means the first sin and an inheritance by imitating the overwhelming number of examples of others.

Metaphorical Atonement: Christ died for our sins in much the same way as soldiers have died for our freedoms. The death of Christ was not a requirement of God but a human demand – our unwillingness to change unless we see the innocent suffer from what we have done. Jesus is not a patsy – an innocent to take the blame for our sins, nor a human/divine sacrifice as if such a thing really has any magical power or that God needs some kind of magic in order to forgive anybody. Salvation is really all about change not forgiveness – getting rid of these habits which are destroying us.

Angels have very little free will: Lucifer was assigned the role of adversary and is portrayed with goat-like features because he is essentially a scapegoat. I reject the book of Enoch (and other stories of an angelic rebellion at the beginning) as works of complete fiction.

I essentially live as a Christian intellectual.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

You keep repeating that. You seem to believe it. I do not and I am not alone

Then can you name a scientific theory that does include God? Is the theory of evolution the only scientific theory that excludes God? Are there a separate Germ Theory of Disease for Hindus, Pagans, Christians, Muslims, and Jews?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Then can you name a scientific theory that does include God?

That is not the point. It has never been the point. Andas long as you look at it in those terms you will never understand what I mean or think.
I have tried, more times than I can number, to explain, but you have never understood.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

That is not the point.

Yes, it was the point.

“Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory when it comes to belief in God.”

That’s what I said previously. This is the position of theistic evolutionists. If you disagree with that view, then it just means you aren’t a theistic evolutionist. This is the question from the opening post:

" I wanted to open up this conversation and ask each of you your genuine thoughts on how theistic and atheistic evolution differ in terms of their agents, implications, processes, etc?'"

It isn’t asking for the implications of Richard’s beliefs. It is asking for the implications of the belief of theistic evolutionists and how it contrasts with the views of atheists.

@RichardG

Andas long as you look at it in those terms you will never understand what I mean or think.

Again, this isn’t a thread about what Richard believes. This is a thread about what theistic evolutionists and atheists believe.