Theistic evolution


#1

Statistics show that most people in the US believe in a sort of theistic evolution, where God starts the process of evolution and guides the process of evolution all the way up to the creation of man.
But the problem that i see with this( other than the fact that it would contradict the book of genesis) is why would God create the world in a way which wold ultimatly lead people away from him? We know that the theory of evolution has lead to people rejecting God and becoming athiests, so why would God create life using evolution, if the theory of evolution would cause people to become athiests?


#2

Consider this question: why would God allow evil and suffering in the world, if evil and suffering would “cause” people to become atheists?

The theory of evolution doesn’t “cause” anyone to become atheists (and neither does evil and suffering). People become atheists because they choose to do so.


#3

I think your question should really be “Why does God allow free will?” Without free will, no one would choose to turn from Him for any reason.

Peace

Tim


#4

I dont understand how Christians can believe in a theistic evolution. It is illogical and contradicts the scripture from cover to cover. It is important to question the motivation behind Darwinism. Charles Darwin, his grandfather Erasmus, Lyell, Wallace, Huxley, Haeckel, all of those big names were anti-Christians with an agenda. There is absolutely no need for a Christian to believe in Darwinian evolution and I wish ALL churches should stand together in this!


#5

The motivation was to explain observations. Just like all other scientific theories.

Peace

Tim


#6

Observations have been explained by Bible believing Christian scientists as well.


#7

Yes they have. Unfortunately for them, their explanations are not consistent with the observations, only with their literal reading of Genesis.

Peace

Tim


#8

The explanations you are talking about are ways of interpretation and yes, the Darwinian interpretation of the world history strongly contradicts Genesis. In modern science however the only things which are proven are natural selection and evolution of different species. Creationists dont deny that. But there is no evidence for macroevolution whatsoever (or why do you think Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium?).

Concerning the age of the earth, you can line up PhD scientists who will tell you it`s billions of years old. You can also line up PhD scientists who will confirm that is impossible and argue for a young earth. It is a matter of interpretation.


#9

Hah! You must know a different creationism than that put forth by every single creationist I have had the pleasure to converse with.

But there is no evidence for macroevolution whatsoever (or why do you think Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium?).

First, you are wrong about macroevolution. Second, you need to study Gould a little bit if you are going to use him as part of your argument. You also might want to study punctuated equilibrium before using it to refute macroevolution.

Concerning the age of the earth, you can line up PhD scientists who will tell you it`s billions of years old. You can also line up PhD scientists who will confirm that is impossible and argue for a young earth. It is a matter of interpretation.

No, it is a matter of honesty. The science is very strong in this area.

Peace

Tim


#10

This is clearly the joke of the century.

Suddenly I lost all interest in talking to you.

Peace.


#11

No joke on my part. I’m sorry you can’t back up your assertions with science. Make sure you don’t let the facts cloud your zeal.

Peace

Tim


#12

Tim, if you`re a Christian, how do you back up your belief in evolution biblically? Is Darwin a higher authority than God?


#13

<< Tim, if you’re a Christian, how do you back up your belief in evolution biblically? Is Darwin a higher authority than God? >>

Finding Darwin’s God (new cover) Catholic biologist
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation evangelical geologist
Coming to Peace with Science evangelical biologist
The Language of God evangelical geneticist

Read these, and come on back.

Glenn Morton has a good article on “plain reading of Genesis 1”

And of course, Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict on Genesis:

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities. But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason.”

In The Beginning (commentary on Genesis 1-3)

Phil P


#14

[quote=PhilVaz;2080192
]

Why dont you just try answering the question in your own words. Read the questions, think about it and come on back.
[/quote]


#15

Two different realities?? How`s that possible? Inner unity of creation and evolution? What?!


#16

Genesis 1 does not contradict evolution, for the very simple reason that Genesis 1 is not a scientific text, & is therefore not concerned with science.

What it talks about can be seen from a scientific perspective, & studied scientifically, but that is entirely unrelated to how Genesis 1 approaches what it is talking about.

So the entire evolutionism versus creationism controversy is founded on a misunderstanding. It’s too ridiculous for words, as well as being a massive waste of trees & CO2. Genesis 1 should be compared, not with modern science, but with the other creation-myths of its time; that is how to understand what it is about.


#17

All Old Testament miracles as well as the ones Jesus did are myths too. Because they are scientifically impossible.

Genesis 1 is not a scientific text but is it a historical?


#18

Pedja, the opening chapters of the book of Genesis are metaphor. It’s a myth, like the creation myths of countless other cultures (please note I’m not using the term in a pejorative sense here; I am simply describing what it is as a story). It is not an authoritative scientific text, nor was it ever intended to be. The purpose of Genesis is nothing more or less than to give people a satisfying answer to the question ‘how did we get here?’.

‘And God said, Let there be nuclear fusion’ just isn’t the sort of thing an ancient Semitic tribesman would have been able to understand, you know? Nor would an early Israelite get much at all out of a long list of begats from a single-celled organism through a lizard through a dinosaur through Archaeopteryx to an ostrich – and it’d make for ferociously dull reading at that. The text is meant to show the glory of the creator through the creation, not to substitute for a PhD in paleontology.


#19

I don’t know why miracles are being dragged in, as they are completely irrelevant to to the present subject.

As to the question: no, it is not historical - the creation is a reality, but it did not occur within history, which is a human reality; because history is an element of human experience, as human beings are conscious of the passage of time, & of their relation to it, & to each other. It is this relation to time & to its “contents” that makes history. And the creation came “before” there were any human beings, & therefore, before there was anyone to be conscious of the passing of time. So stones have no experience of history, nor do angels - they do not experence time, or its content or its passing, as we do; which is simply to say they are not human beings.

Which is a reason why Genesis 1 is included in the body of text called the “primeval history”, which takes in the first 11 chapters of Genesis; these are not in any proper sense historical, the creation narratives least of all. That does not at all mean they are not worth reading - on the contrary, they are among the most important parts of the entire Bible. But that does not, & need not, make them history.


#20

I heard a radio show tonight talking about evolution. JPII himself said that evolution in itself was not wrong, and that catholics could believe in it as long as they don’t believe that the soul is a material creation.

I find that most people DON’T understand evolution, especially most Christians. And that’s where the problem starts.

Evolution doesn’t create atheists. Atheists have grabbed a hold of evolution as a means of proving their position. Because they read into the theory.

I have never had problems resolving God as creator and my faith in him with evolution. As far as I’m concerned they go hand in hand.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.