Theistic Evolution... Anti-God? (Part 1)

By Bernie Dehler
9-21-07

  So far in my studies, I'm leaning more and more to the theistic evolution standpoint.  The main reason is that it seems to me that most scientists who are also Christians seem to be of the general consensus that biological evolution is pretty much proven, by looking at the human genome and comparing it to the genomes of other animals.

  In that vein, I'll look at some reasons why Christians are so against any kind of evolution, even theistic evolution.  I'll respond to the weblink entitled "10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution" at ChristianAnswers.net (click here to see the original).

  First I'll comment on its introduction, where it says:

The atheistic formula for evolution is: Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods. In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added: Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God. In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.

  First, I can agree with its equation, adding God into the evolutionary process.  How much God interacts is debatable... maybe He manipulates the DNA in history to create new species, or maybe He designed it all upfront so brilliantly that humans can eventually evolve to our present state with no outside help at all.

  Second, I'll deal with its statement "In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things..."  To that, I'd ask "why do you say that?"  How does God, creating through evolution, reduce his omnipotence?  To me, it shows even more how brilliant God is, to come up with such a system.

  Third, I'll deal with this part of the statement "In the theistic evolutionary system ... whose Word (the Bible?) has to be taken seriously by all men... "  I think what the author is trying to say is that the theistic evolution position demotes the Bible from a place of being "infallible and inerrant" to being something that may contain errors.  That is true.  Also, that the Bible has technical errors, is a proven fact.  Maybe that factoid should be more heavily understood and digested.  Here's an example:

II Samuel 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the Syrians the men of
seven hundred chariots, and forty thousand horsemen...   

I Chronicles 19:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians the men of
seven thousand chariots, and forty thousand footsoldiers... 

  If one has a position that "the Bible is without error," of course they have to close their eyes to this instance.  And by the way, it only takes one documented error to prove that a document has errors, just as in Christian theology it takes only one sin to make a man a sinner.  I think the real danger and error is elevating the Bible to a place of "Godhood," by claiming it is without error.

  Lastly, I'll deal with this part of the statement "In the theistic evolutionary system ... He (God) is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy "  So what?  They go on to explain why this is so bad, in their 10 following reasons, and I'll respond to each one of them separately in upcoming blog articles.

Comments

[Bernie of www.sciligion.org]

Aaron said: (The weblink said) The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

I think it is true. The authority of Scripture is impaired if there is an error in it. However, just because that is true, doesn't mean we have to conclude that the Bible in inerrant. It is like saying the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and everything he says must be true or else the authority of the Catholic Church is impaired,,, therefore, the Pope is inerrant. The Catholics don't actually say that (close, but not that far out), but it would be the same if they lifted the Pope to the same level of authority as Scipture. I think Scripture has been elevated above it's rightful place, when it is claimed it is inerrant. It is a witness, but not inerrant, as only God is inerrant. The Bible is not God.

Anyway, I learned in Seminary that the reason those claim the Bible is inerrant is because of faith... not fact or evidence. It is logic:
1. God doesn't lie or error.
2. The Bible is God's word.
3. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.

The difficulty comes in step 2-- it is a highly loaded statement. For example, those who believe in inerrancy don't actually believe the words were dictated by God, exactly, but that God used humans as conduits (God didn't use human writers as dictating machines). Contrast that to Muslims who think their Holy Book (Quran) is the very actual words of God.

...Bernie

[Aaron]

I reviewed this link:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

It is somewhat terrifying in it's prospects for the search for truth, while the summary statements are generally acceptable, the following statement is particularly flawed:

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

So, in essence, this states that while the Bible is totally true, any inerrancy found should remain unspoken because of it's possible damage to the church and the individual. Therefore, they basically identify that some inerrancy may exist but it is more important to protect the true focus of their worship (the inerrant Bible) than to pursue the truth regardless of the consequences to what the balance of evidence proves to be somewhat flawed literature written through the perspective of sinful men though inspired by a perfect God.

Makes me wonder how they feel about the following verse:

"for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Cor 14:35b

Call me a purist, but I highly doubt that God considers woman as the chattel that this chauvinistic statement identifies them to be. But, then there are several verses that were likely inspired by God, but then adjusted through the filter of the patriarchal "necessity" of the time. So God's truth in context and inspiration: sure; after regurgitation from the sinful heart of a human author: not so much.

Regardless, thanks for the link, I found it interesting if disturbing. It appears that they disbanded already but I would have loved to read their opinion in support of reinstituting the selling of indulgences.

As to the 700 to 7000 killed charioteers, I'm in agreement with you that it may very well be a smoking gun of Biblical errancy. But from a specific mathematical evaluation if you slew 7000 charioteers, you would be required to slay 700 as well. It all depends on the author, maybe he left shortly after the slaying began and didn't wait for the final count (joke).

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and keep up the great work!

[Bernie of sciligion.org]

Aaron said: "This is not an accurate model of my thoughts on the process, below would be a more accurate formula: Theistic evolution = God's Design (matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death)) + very long time periods."

Aaron- good catch. The original tried to downplay theistic evolution by saying it is simply atheistic evolution + God. However, if it is God's true design, then everything starts with God's design, as you put it. You could then say:
"atheistic evolution" = "theistic evolution" - God
rather than the original basically saying:
"theistic evolution" = "atheistic evolution" + God

Mathematically, it looks the same, but there's a huge difference. It's like the old joke of the ski resort where girls are looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls... it's not as parallel as it sounds. Think about it.

...Bernie

[Bernie of sciligion.org]

Aaron said: "You used this as proof of inaccuracy, when in fact it could be accurate ... If David slew the men of seven thousand chariots, he actually did slay the men of seven hundred chariots. The ommission perhaps being that he did it 10 times, fancy that."

First, that's like me asking "How old am I?"
A. 5
B. 10
C. 45
D. All of the above.

All answers are correct, because I'm 45, which includes 5,10, and "all of the above."

Also, if the different numbers in chariots were 700 and 1050, would you still say they could be right... in the case of 700, he did it 1.5 times? I know you aren't really that serious about it... just elaborating your point... with fraction multipliers (or are whole number multipliers the only ones allowed?)

Also, those who claim the Bible is "inerrant" actually redefine what "inerrant is." See this:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html .

...Bernie

[Aaron]

This is a great post and I look forward to reading the next. A couple of things I thought of while reading:

I consider myself more in line with the theistic evolution advocates (being married to a biologist helps), so I want to point out what I consider to be the fallacy of the "10 dangers" equation above:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

This is not an accurate model of my thoughts on the process, below would be a more accurate formula:

Theistic evolution = God's Design (matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death)) + very long time periods.

In addition, to literalists I offer this-

Read Genesis 1:1 to 3:24, so would a literal chronology of creation go something like this:
Day 1 - Light
Day 2 - Separate water from water
Day 3 - Dry ground and vegetation
Day 4 - Separate day from night
Day 5 - Birds and fish
Day 6 - Livestock, wild animals and man
Day 7 - Rest
Day 8 - Woman created, some forbidden fruit, a walk by God in the cool of the day, the fall.

So God was busy on the 8th day, because there was no indication that there was evening and there was morning at all. So how can it be said that, since Adam and Eve were created to live forever, the 8th day could not have lasted thousands (if not millions) of years.

Weak evidence I know, but an interesting brain teaser for the looneyligionists.

Next...

You used this as proof of inaccuracy, when in fact it could be accurate:

II Samuel 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the Syrians the men of seven hundred chariots, and forty thousand horsemen...

I Chronicles 19:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians the men of seven thousand chariots, and forty thousand footsoldiers...

If David slew the men of seven thousand chariots, he actually did slay the men of seven hundred chariots. The ommission perhaps being that he did it 10 times, fancy that.

I am in complete agreement with the following statement:

"I think the real danger and error is elevating the Bible to a place of "Godhood," by claiming it is without error."

I wonder if that extends to the worship of the cross(as a symbol, made of wood by man and all that), I would think a more appropriate symbol of the hope we have in Christ would be an empty tomb. But I guess a donut shape may be harder to market (who knows).

Anyway, I think this post is terrific, and I do not mean to demean it in any way with my poor attempts at humor. Great job!