10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution

[Revmitchell]

Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps

Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God

Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined

Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts

Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

What Does Theistic Evolution Involve?

The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:

The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and their subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
The present is the key to the past.
There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
Evolution will persist into the distant future.

In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:

God used evolution as a means of creating.
The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary worldview.

* This section is adapted from Werner Gitt’s, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.
Footnotes

This article has been adapted from chapter 8 ‘The Consequences of Theistic Evolution’, from Prof. Dr Werner Gitt’s book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany. Back
E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, München, 1979, p. 412. Back
Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, München, 1984, pp. 21-22. Back
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316. Back
H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19. Back

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/theistic-evolution

 

[Revmitchell]

What is Theistic Evolution?

...First, many theistic evolution proponents assert that because Darwinian evolution is by definition “undirected.” God could not have actively guided the evolutionary process, contrary to traditional Christian teachings about God’s sovereignty. Indeed, God supposedly cannot even know with certainty or specificity how the evolutionary process will turn out. Applied to human beings, this means that God did not know beforehand whether the evolutionary process would produce human beings or some other rational creature such as a big-brained dinosaur.

Second, many theistic evolution proponents repudiate traditional Christian teaching about the original goodness of creation and its subsequent “Fall.” According to Karl Giberson in Saving Darwin, human beings were flawed and sinful from the very start because they were produced by an evolutionary process driven by selfishness. Thus, there was no “Fall” from original goodness in the history of humanity. The foreword to Giberson’s book was written by fellow theistic evolutionist Francis Collins.

Third, theistic evolutionists who seek to retain the idea that God guided the evolutionary process typically insist that God’s guidance in biology is hidden from us. Such theistic evolutionists claim that God created evolution to look like “a random and undirected process,” even though it isn’t. These theistic evolutionists repudiate the consensus view of Jewish and Christian thinkers who for more than two thousand years maintained God’s design could be clearly observed throughout nature.

http://www.discovery.org/a/10091

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

All ten are excellent points, Rev. Thought provoking. Some of these dangers I hadn't even thought of, or if I had, hadn't though through thoroughly.

 

[Revmitchell]

Two elements are essential in any evolutionary scheme, whether it be theistic or atheistic: long periods of time and the assumed validity of the molecules-to-man evolutionary scenario. Atheists care little for the biblical account, except to ridicule its statements. Theistic evolutionists, however, profess a certain allegiance to the Scriptures and must attempt to harmonize the biblical account with the evolutionary scenario. The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days; evolutionists suppose at least six billion years. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists harmonize the two is known as the day-age theory....

....A Refutation of the Day-Age Theory

Most Bible-believing creationists maintain the day-age theory is an unbiblical option for the following reasons:

(1) An improper interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8.

(2) The inadequacy of a thousand-year day

(3) The demands of primary word usage.

(4) The demands of context.

(5) The numerical qualifier demands a 24-hour day.

(6) The terms "evening and morning" require a 24-hour day.

(7) The words "day" and "night" are part of a normal 24-hour day.

(8) Genesis 1:14 distinguishes between days, years, and seasons.

(9) Symbiosis requires a 24-hour day.

(10) The survival of the plants and animals requires a 24-hour day.

(11) The testimony of the fourth Commandment.

(12) The testimony of the rabbis.

(13) The testimony of the church fathers.

(14) The theological problem of sin and death.

(15) The feasibility of the events of the sixth day.

Conclusion

Much could be said about the scientific fallacies of the evolution model and the scientific superiority of the creation model3 but that is beyond the scope of this essay. The emphasis here has been on the professing Christian who is attempting to unequally yoke together two entirely opposing scenarios (creation and evolution) and who is using an unscriptural methodology (the day-age theory) to accomplish this unholy matrimony.

Ecclesiastes 4:12 speaks about a three-fold cord being not easily broken. This essay has woven together a fifteen-fold cord that is not easily broken. The day-age theory, according to the above evidence, is not permitted by Scripture and is therefore false. Elijah said, "How long will you waver between two opinions....(1 Kings 18:21). Each of us needs to decide where he stands on this vital issue.

References

1 There are very few, if any, of these "exceptions" that actually require the meaning of a period of time other than a solar day.
2 Note that the order of the Bible is not the order required by evolution. See the writer's article "Significant Discrepancies Between Theistic Evolution and the Bible." (Christian Heritage Courier, August, 1979). Also see John C. Whitcomb's book The Early Earth, (1972), and Henry M. Morris' book Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) - both available from CLP Publishers, P.O. Box 15666, San Diego, CA 92115.
3 See Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: CLP Publishers, 1974).

* Mr. Richard Niessen is Associate Professor of Apologetics at Christian Heritage College. El Cajon. California, and is a popular lecturer on Bible-science topics. He received his B.A., Th.B. (with honors) from the Northeastern Bible College. N.J.; his M.A. (cum laude) was earned at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinois; and he is currently a Ph.D. candidate.


http://www.icr.org/article/164/

 

[Luke2427]

...First, many theistic evolution proponents assert that because Darwinian evolution is by definition “undirected.” God could not have actively guided the evolutionary process, contrary to traditional Christian teachings about God’s sovereignty. Indeed, God supposedly cannot even know with certainty or specificity how the evolutionary process will turn out. Applied to human beings, this means that God did not know beforehand whether the evolutionary process would produce human beings or some other rational creature such as a big-brained dinosaur.

Second, many theistic evolution proponents repudiate traditional Christian teaching about the original goodness of creation and its subsequent “Fall.” According to Karl Giberson in Saving Darwin, human beings were flawed and sinful from the very start because they were produced by an evolutionary process driven by selfishness. Thus, there was no “Fall” from original goodness in the history of humanity. The foreword to Giberson’s book was written by fellow theistic evolutionist Francis Collins.

Third, theistic evolutionists who seek to retain the idea that God guided the evolutionary process typically insist that God’s guidance in biology is hidden from us. Such theistic evolutionists claim that God created evolution to look like “a random and undirected process,” even though it isn’t. These theistic evolutionists repudiate the consensus view of Jewish and Christian thinkers who for more than two thousand years maintained God’s design could be clearly observed throughout nature.

http://www.discovery.org/a/10091

I commend you for a thorough post. It seems you want to have a real conversation, and I am glad.

Men like Michael Horton and Hugh Ross believe that Adam was the first human being and that all human beings descend from him. That alone takes care of most of the dangers listed.

That's enough to discuss for now.

 

[Revmitchell]

I commend you for a thorough post.

Well that is up to you.

Men like Michael Horton and Hugh Ross believe that Adam was the first human being and that all human beings descend from him. That alone takes care of most of the dangers listed.

That's enough to discuss for now.

I reject this argument as it has no substantial backing and is simply a unsubstantiated claim. And I posted much more than just those dangers listed.

However, your statement makes it appear that you are more of a progressive creationist than a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Luke2427]

Well that is up to you.



I reject this argument as it has no substantial backing and is simply a unsubstantiated claim. And I posted much more than just those dangers listed.

However, your statement makes it appear that you are more of a progressive creationist than a theistic evolutionist.

That Adam was a special creation of God and is the progenitor of the human race has no backing and is unsubstantiated?

 

[Revmitchell]

That Adam was a special creation of God and is the progenitor of the human race has no backing and is unsubstantiated?

Ok well I can see this will go no where.

 

[Luke2427]

Ok well I can see this will go no where.

I said:

"Men like Michael Horton and Hugh Ross believe that Adam was the first human being and that all human beings descend from him. That alone takes care of most of the dangers listed."

You responded:

"I reject this argument as it has no substantial backing and is simply a unsubstantiated claim. "

Its pretty obvious that you are off here.

 

[convicted1]

Do the T.E's believe that Adam, as the first man, came from something other than the dust of the earth? That, over the years, his lineage came from some other form, and not the dust of the earth, iow?

 

[Luke2427]

Do the T.E's believe that Adam, as the first man, came from something other than the dust of the earth? That, over the years, his lineage came from some other form, and not the dust of the earth, iow?

The ideas vary among that group. They are not monolithic.

The fact is that Adam was the first human being, he lived in a real place called the Garden of Eden, he sinned and all his progeny inherited a sin nature from him. Christ was the second Adam who cures the problem the first Adam left us.

That's the Gospel. You have to cling to those truths to be a Christian.

But none of those truths are contradicted by the belief in an old universe or that God used evolution.

 

[convicted1]

The ideas vary among that group. They are not monolithic.

The fact is that Adam was the first human being, he lived in a real place called the Garden of Eden, he sinned and all his progeny inherited a sin nature from him. Christ was the second Adam who cures the problem the first Adam left us.

That's the Gospel. You have to cling to those truths to be a Christian.

But none of those truths are contradicted by the belief in an old universe or that God used evolution.

Gonna have to disagree with you Brother Luke:

Genesis 1:26,27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

According to the bible, God formed Adam from the dust of the earth, and he wasn't evolved through a process, imo.

 

[quantumfaith]

Gonna have to disagree with you Brother Luke:





According to the bible, God formed Adam from the dust of the earth, and he wasn't evolved through a process, imo.

Convicted, wanted to share this interesting read.

http://skipmoen.com/tag/genesis-27/

 

[Luke2427]

Gonna have to disagree with you Brother Luke:





According to the bible, God formed Adam from the dust of the earth, and he wasn't evolved through a process, imo.

That's not disagreeing with me. I believe that.

 

[convicted1]

That's not disagreeing with me. I believe that.

So, are you an advocate of TE, Brother Luke? I ask this so that I know what angle you're coming from.......

 

[Luke2427]

So, are you an advocate of TE, Brother Luke? I ask this so that I know what angle you're coming from.......

I believe Adam was made specially by God as the first human being and that all human beings descended from him.

As to the age of the earth and whether or not God used evolution to make most species what they are today? I do not know. I think the evidence points to that and I don't think the Bible says anything to contradict it.

 

[OldRegular]

Following are some interesting remarks by Dr. Jason Lisle of the Institute for Creation Research. Lislle has a PhD in Astro Physics from the University of Colorado.

Letting Science 'Interpret' Scripture Is Slippery Slope, Says Young Earth/Universe Creationist
National Conference on Christian Apologetics Includes Debate on Universe's Age

BY ALEX MURASHKO, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
October 13, 2013|12:33 pm

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina – A "young earth" creationist, who also believes the universe is much younger than many astronomers calculate, says once people begin to rely on science rather than the Bible to answer questions about our origin, even for just parts, they are asking for trouble.

"It's a very slippery slope when you decide that there are some sections of the Bible that you are going to allow the secular scientist to tell you what it really means," said Dr. Jason Lisle, during an interview with the press shortly after his debate at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics with astronomer and pastor Dr. Hugh Ross, who argued for a universe that is nearly 15 billion years old.

"You've opened a very dangerous door," Lisle continued. "Basically, you've decided to say that 'I'm going to make the secular scientist my ultimate standard by which I interpret the scriptures' and if you are consistent with that, and most people are not, thank goodness, but if you are well, hey, most scientists don't believe the resurrection of the dead is possible."

In other words, people become susceptible to their own interpretations of the Bible at other points in its books and chapters as well.

"Some people will say they can live with the inconsistencies. They'll tell me: 'Well, it's just Genesis that I allow the scientists to tell me what it meant,' Lisle explained. "But, what we've found is that children will see that inconsistency, and they will be more consistent, they will reject all of the Bible. They'll say, 'Well, mom and dad don't really believe in the Bible because they don't believe in the first few chapters. Why should I believe in the Gospel?' We've seen that happen. The statistics are just alarming. We see the students walking away from church in droves."

Lisle and Ross gave presentations for their cases during a session of the Southern Evangelical Seminary and Ravi Zachariah International Ministries hosted event at First Baptist Church Indian Trail in the Charlotte area. The debate centered on whether the science of astronomy proves the universe is billions of years old.

"The best measurement on the age of the universe is 13.79 billion years, plus or minus .05, but Jason holds the view that it's less than 10,000 years old," Ross, who calls himself a "middle-age creationist" as opposed to an "old-age" one, told The Christian Post after the debate. "We are a factor of about a million a part from one another."

Ross founded Reasons to Believe in 1986, and focuses his ministry on "harnessing the power of science for evangelism. "Science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies," his bio states.

Lisle is the director of research at the Institute of Creation Research. His team of scientists investigate and demonstrate the evidence for Creation. Lisle's full-time apologetics ministry is focused on the defense of Genesis. He has authored numerous books demonstrating that "biblical creation is the only logical possibility for origins."

In answering questions posed by Dave Garrison of the Faith & Liberty radio talk show, Lisle said that science is not the end all when it comes to answering questions about the age of the universe of the earth.

"When you make an age estimate scientifically you have to make certain assumptions, and for that reason you can never really prove the age of something scientifically," Lisle said. "You need a history book and fortunately we have a history book and not just any history book. It's the history book by the one who actually did the creating, the one who never lies and the one who knows everything – that history book is the one written by God."

Lisle was asked about his thoughts on the argument by some that the origin's age is not an issue of salvation.

"In a sense it's not. You know, believing in six days [for the creation of the earth] is not a requirement for salvation … God makes it very clear in His word – we're saved by His grace received through faith in Christ and not by works. It's not requiring to have our theology exactly right, but that doesn't mean we should be sloppy in our theology. The time scale of creation does have an effect on Christian theology," he said.

"I would argue that although you can be saved apart from believing in six days, in a way, salvation does not make sense apart from creation in six days. If you believe in millions of years, if you believe the fossils are millions of years old, you have death before Adam sinned, in which case death cannot be the result of Adam's sin if it was already there for millions of years. If death is not the penalty for sin then why did Jesus die on the cross?

"The Gospel message which is predicated on death being the penalty for sin and Christ paying that for us. That itself is predicated on Creation, that goes back to a literal Genesis," Lyle concluded.​

From: http://www.christianpost.com/news/l...says-young-earth-universe-creationist-106525/

 

[Luke2427]

Following are some interesting remarks by Dr. Jason Lisle of the Institute for Creation Research. Lislle has a PhD in Astro Physics from the University of Colorado.

Letting Science 'Interpret' Scripture Is Slippery Slope, Says Young Earth/Universe Creationist
National Conference on Christian Apologetics Includes Debate on Universe's Age

BY ALEX MURASHKO, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
October 13, 2013|12:33 pm

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina – A "young earth" creationist, who also believes the universe is much younger than many astronomers calculate, says once people begin to rely on science rather than the Bible to answer questions about our origin, even for just parts, they are asking for trouble.

"It's a very slippery slope when you decide that there are some sections of the Bible that you are going to allow the secular scientist to tell you what it really means," said Dr. Jason Lisle, during an interview with the press shortly after his debate at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics with astronomer and pastor Dr. Hugh Ross, who argued for a universe that is nearly 15 billion years old.

"You've opened a very dangerous door," Lisle continued. "Basically, you've decided to say that 'I'm going to make the secular scientist my ultimate standard by which I interpret the scriptures' and if you are consistent with that, and most people are not, thank goodness, but if you are well, hey, most scientists don't believe the resurrection of the dead is possible."

In other words, people become susceptible to their own interpretations of the Bible at other points in its books and chapters as well.

"Some people will say they can live with the inconsistencies. They'll tell me: 'Well, it's just Genesis that I allow the scientists to tell me what it meant,' Lisle explained. "But, what we've found is that children will see that inconsistency, and they will be more consistent, they will reject all of the Bible. They'll say, 'Well, mom and dad don't really believe in the Bible because they don't believe in the first few chapters. Why should I believe in the Gospel?' We've seen that happen. The statistics are just alarming. We see the students walking away from church in droves."

Lisle and Ross gave presentations for their cases during a session of the Southern Evangelical Seminary and Ravi Zachariah International Ministries hosted event at First Baptist Church Indian Trail in the Charlotte area. The debate centered on whether the science of astronomy proves the universe is billions of years old.

"The best measurement on the age of the universe is 13.79 billion years, plus or minus .05, but Jason holds the view that it's less than 10,000 years old," Ross, who calls himself a "middle-age creationist" as opposed to an "old-age" one, told The Christian Post after the debate. "We are a factor of about a million a part from one another."

Ross founded Reasons to Believe in 1986, and focuses his ministry on "harnessing the power of science for evangelism. "Science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies," his bio states.

Lisle is the director of research at the Institute of Creation Research. His team of scientists investigate and demonstrate the evidence for Creation. Lisle's full-time apologetics ministry is focused on the defense of Genesis. He has authored numerous books demonstrating that "biblical creation is the only logical possibility for origins."

In answering questions posed by Dave Garrison of the Faith & Liberty radio talk show, Lisle said that science is not the end all when it comes to answering questions about the age of the universe of the earth.

"When you make an age estimate scientifically you have to make certain assumptions, and for that reason you can never really prove the age of something scientifically," Lisle said. "You need a history book and fortunately we have a history book and not just any history book. It's the history book by the one who actually did the creating, the one who never lies and the one who knows everything – that history book is the one written by God."

Lisle was asked about his thoughts on the argument by some that the origin's age is not an issue of salvation.

"In a sense it's not. You know, believing in six days [for the creation of the earth] is not a requirement for salvation … God makes it very clear in His word – we're saved by His grace received through faith in Christ and not by works. It's not requiring to have our theology exactly right, but that doesn't mean we should be sloppy in our theology. The time scale of creation does have an effect on Christian theology," he said.

"I would argue that although you can be saved apart from believing in six days, in a way, salvation does not make sense apart from creation in six days. If you believe in millions of years, if you believe the fossils are millions of years old, you have death before Adam sinned, in which case death cannot be the result of Adam's sin if it was already there for millions of years. If death is not the penalty for sin then why did Jesus die on the cross?

"The Gospel message which is predicated on death being the penalty for sin and Christ paying that for us. That itself is predicated on Creation, that goes back to a literal Genesis," Lyle concluded.​

From: http://www.christianpost.com/news/l...says-young-earth-universe-creationist-106525/

Lisle is assuming that people like Hugh Ross ARE letting "science" dictate to them what the Scripture teaches.

This is a false assumption.

Secondly, he assumes that science and the Bible are at odds. They are not- ever.

There were people who thought science was at odds with the Bible when Galileo said the Earth was not the center of the galaxy and that it rotated around the sun rather than vice versa.

The problem was not Galileo's SCIENCE- it was the Church's poor hermeneutics.

That's the same problem today.

It is not that the Bible says the earth is very young and science says the Bible is wrong.

It is that the Bible does NOT say the earth is very young and people who are interpreting it improperly are wrong.

 

[Revmitchell]

Letting Science 'Interpret' Scripture Is Slippery Slope, Says Young Earth/Universe Creationist​

Yea they do not like to admit it but that is exactly what they are doing.​

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is not that the Bible says the earth is very young ...

Actually, that is exactly what it says.