Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

[KenH]

Looks like an interesting forthcoming book.

"Featuring two dozen highly credentialed scientists, philosophers, and theologians from Europe and North America, this volume provides the most comprehensive critique of theistic evolution yet produced. It documents evidential, logical, and theological problems with theistic evolution, opening the door to scientific and theological alternatives—making the book essential reading for understanding this worldview-shaping issue."

https://www.crossway.org/books/theistic-evolution-case/

 

[Deacon]

Although they promote it as a book against BioLogos but they've got a contributor from there.

The science section disappoints me - as if they don't understand the philosophical arguments related to the debate.

I've read Grudem - his arguments about this are generally old and tired.

The list of contributors interests me but at $60 a pop, I'll pass.

Wait two years and you can probably get it on Kindle for $10 (still too pricey)

Rob

 

[AwesomeMachine]

Same thought here: too pricey. I don't anticipate it will be very convincing, since the theoretical side of creation hasn't been around very long. I personally believe that natural selection is valid. Within each species there is some latitude for genetic change to adapt to a changing environment. I do not believe one species can change into a different species that is incapable of mating with the species it came from. And neither did Darwin!

 

[Yeshua1]

Same thought here: too pricey. I don't anticipate it will be very convincing, since the theoretical side of creation hasn't been around very long. I personally believe that natural selection is valid. Within each species there is some latitude for genetic change to adapt to a changing environment. I do not believe one species can change into a different species that is incapable of mating with the species it came from. And neither did Darwin!

Darwin did hold to species changed though, as he saw evolution/nature has having built into it by God the capacity to affect that change, Totally bogus viewpoint though!

 

[HankD]

Looks like an interesting forthcoming book.

"Featuring two dozen highly credentialed scientists, philosophers, and theologians from Europe and North America, this volume provides the most comprehensive critique of theistic evolution yet produced. It documents evidential, logical, and theological problems with theistic evolution, opening the door to scientific and theological alternatives—making the book essential reading for understanding this worldview-shaping issue."

https://www.crossway.org/books/theistic-evolution-case/

Theistic Evolution: A step in the right direction, but I how about a leap of faith to believe the scripture.

HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

Theistic Evolution: A result of interpreting scripture through the lens of man made science.

 

[Yeshua1]

Theistic Evolution: A step in the right direction, but I how about a leap of faith to believe the scripture.

HankD

Actually, worse than Darwinism form, as it tries to make the scriptures fit into the lens of error, and should be the scriptures as the lens that comes thru!

 

[Yeshua1]

Theistic Evolution: A result of interpreting scripture through the lens of man made science.

Yes, as its people force feeding the bible to accept "scientific truths" that are far from factual!

 

[HankD]

Actually, worse than Darwinism form, as it tries to make the scriptures fit into the lens of error, and should be the scriptures as the lens that comes thru!

I stand by my statement!

HankD

 

[Gold Dragon]

I consider theistic evolution one way of using God's general revelation in creation to interpret his specific revelation of scripture with regard to the 1 chapter in the bible that refers to his creation of species in the bible.

Just like the heliocentric model of the solar system helped us interpret the few verses in the the bible that referred to the relative movements of the earth and the sun.

It is fine that other Christians don't agree. There are many things Christians disagree about and we can still further the gospel in spite of those disagreements. But our disagreement can be done in ways that bring glory to God or in ways that bring shame to him. Let's bring glory to God.

Regarding this book, it does look like an interesting read and I am always open to thoughtful critique of my views so I'll have a look out for it. Thanks.

 

[HankD]

As mentioned before this book caters to neo-evangelicalism, which like certain compromising evangelical crusades is better than all out godlessness BUT others might debate to the contrary - the pure word of God or nothing at all - which would be my goal as well but from this pseudo-techno field platform as a personally dissenting element and not one of feigned agreement.

IOW I'm not afraid to give credit where credit is due but afterwards I'm not afraid to put on the gloves get in the ring and earnestly contend for the faith.

Isolationism and separatism are two different things.

There can be a fine line between compromising dialogue and dissenting debate.

HankD

 

[JonC]

Theistic evolution is a compromise. I say it is a compromise because it goes back to Scripture and arrives at a new interpretation based on scientific theory with the weight given to science. It is a dangerous compromise not because it calls into question a “literal” view of Creation but because it determines the driving force to be scientific theory. It is incompatible with Scripture not because it rejects a literal six day Creation account but because it nullifies the nature of death as the consequence of sin therefore diminishing the doctrines that are founded on the principle. It is an unnecessary concession.

 

[KenH]

As mentioned before this book caters to neo-evangelicalism, which like certain compromising evangelical crusades is better than all out godlessness BUT others might debate to the contrary - the pure word of God or nothing at all - which would be my goal as well but from this pseudo-techno field platform as a personally dissenting element and not one of feigned agreement.

How does an anti-theory of evolution book do this? I don't understand your point.

 

[Revmitchell]

Theistic evolution is a compromise. I say it is a compromise because it goes back to Scripture and arrives at a new interpretation based on scientific theory with the weight given to science. It is a dangerous compromise not because it calls into question a “literal” view of Creation but because it determines the driving force to be scientific theory. It is incompatible with Scripture not because it rejects a literal six day Creation account but because it nullifies the nature of death as the consequence of sin therefore diminishing the doctrines that are founded on the principle. It is an unnecessary concession.

Exactly or more succinctly, it views scripture thru the lens of man made science.

 

[church mouse guy]

Theistic evolution is a compromise. I say it is a compromise because it goes back to Scripture and arrives at a new interpretation based on scientific theory with the weight given to science. It is a dangerous compromise not because it calls into question a “literal” view of Creation but because it determines the driving force to be scientific theory. It is incompatible with Scripture not because it rejects a literal six day Creation account but because it nullifies the nature of death as the consequence of sin therefore diminishing the doctrines that are founded on the principle. It is an unnecessary concession.

I really didn't want to comment on this topic, but I think that most Christians believe in theistic evolution nowadays. I was surprised that Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox hesitates on this subject in his televised debates with atheists.

The problem is that it makes God cruel to say that He used death to create the animals and man. Scripture teaches that death was caused by the disobedience of Adam. Lennox argues that plants die and surely plants died to support Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, Scripture is clear that plants are not life in the sense of animals and human beings but are provided for food for all. Before Adam's sin there was no death.

 

[JonC]

I really didn't want to comment on this topic, but I think that most Christians believe in theistic evolution nowadays. I was surprised that Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox hesitates on this subject in his televised debates with atheists.

The problem is that it makes God cruel to say that He used death to create the animals and man. Scripture teaches that death was caused by the disobedience of Adam. Lennox argues that plants die and surely plants died to support Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, Scripture is clear that plants are not life in the sense of animals and human beings but are provided for food for all. Before Adam's sin there was no death.

I don't know that it would make God cruel (the sacrifice system, for example, was ordained of God and it entailed the slaughter of animals). Also, we don't know that plants died to support Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Personally, I doubt this the case as they were to "tend the Garden" and eat of its fruit. I believe that God subjecting even the earth to futility was a significant portion of the curse.

 

[HankD]

How does an anti-theory of evolution book do this? I don't understand your point.

I speak within the scope of evangelicalism. Neo-Evangelicalism supports theistic evolution as long as God ultimately gets the credit/glory

But the essentials of neo-evangelicalism support of theistic evolution supports the denial of the essentials of the Genesis creation account of humanity - cellular life from the sea as opposed to the first human being - Adam created out of the earth thereby reversing the order of human sin followed by death to cellular death preceding human sin and death.

HankD

 

[HankD]

I don't know that it would make God cruel (the sacrifice system, for example, was ordained of God and it entailed the slaughter of animals). Also, we don't know that plants died to support Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Personally, I doubt this the case as they were to "tend the Garden" and eat of its fruit. I believe that God subjecting even the earth to futility was a significant portion of the curse.

God gave our father Adam both herbs and fruit from trees to eat.

Eating the fruit of trees (e.g. pears, apples, peaches) in no way harms the tree. The flesh of the fruit is eaten and the seeds are either thrown away or eliminated in corporal waste into the earth.

In fact the tree benefits from this in that those eating the fruit assist the tree in its reproductive cycle - there is no death to the free by eating the fruit.

As for herbs: I have a basil plant growing in a pot on the kitchen window sill.
I occasionally snip off some leaves for spaghetti sauce and whatever, the plant responds by sending out new tendrils with more leaves,
the plant lives on and on and on and ... getting bigger and bigger. No death only more growth.

Same for oregano plants when I had them in my garden, The picking of the leaves provoked more growth to the oregano plant.

HankD

 

[Sapper Woody]

I have a hard time believing that there was absolutely no death before the fall. I'm sure Adam accidentally stepped on an insect a time or two. Or an animal slipped next to a cliff. Or an insect got trapped in the sap of a tree.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't know that it would make God cruel (the sacrifice system, for example, was ordained of God and it entailed the slaughter of animals). Also, we don't know that plants died to support Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Personally, I doubt this the case as they were to "tend the Garden" and eat of its fruit. I believe that God subjecting even the earth to futility was a significant portion of the curse.

It causes generations of death according to evolution--billions of years--for God to create. God designed the world free of death in the Garden of Eden. Adam, as you know, caused two types of death. God did not require sacrifices in the Garden of Eden (a preview of Heaven), only obedience. It is Darwin who said that creation resulted from billions of years of death before Adam, which is an attack on God.