Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Library - Books and Books
>
Theistic evolution
date
newest »
newest »
Is Moreland for or against theistic evolution? I recall having a problem with how he reads the Bible. But I could be wrong.
Great interview by Sean McDowell. I'm glad they're all for intelligent design.Should be a great book. If only we had it 70 years ago.
This is on my to-read for 2018. So far, I’ve gotten through Moreland’s & Grudem’s chapters to great disappointment. Moreland’s central argument is that theistic evolution removes the Bible as a source of knowledge. However, that’s only a critique of the narrowly extreme “we should change our interpretations of the Bible based on science” view endorsed by folks like Francis Collins. Same for Grudem’s chapter. This book does not appear aimed at the sophisticated, synoptic views of serious theistic evolutionists outside of the BioLogos popularisers.
Can one of you apologists out there give me a concise overview of intelligent design, theistic evolution, and naturalistic evolution; and tell me the most substantive differences from a scientific and theological perspective? Please make it as brief as you can.
Hmmm...God does it.
God did it.
Nothing miraculously does it.
We will be arguing about the actuality for the next thousand years or more.
Brilliant, thank you! Mind if I use it? I'm going to anyway.
I gave it 10 seconds of thought. It's not tested fully. And there are variations and space aliens to consider.
ID - Uses abduction (inference to the best explanation) to theorize a designer of the universe. ID makes no theological claims as to the identity of the designer and leaves further investigation to the observer. Example: when a sculpture is excavated by archaeologists, the best explanation for its existence is that it was created by a sculptor, regardless of whether the identity of the sculptor is known.TE - Is complicated to nail down, as adherents possess a wide range of views. Takes a more impersonal, distant view of God, who acts through creation in subtle, barely perceptible ways to achieve His ends, though many would take issue with my assessment. TE is syncretism; "amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought." It uses an interpretive method of imposing the latest scientific views (subject to constant revision) onto the Bible to arrive at modern conceptions of reality. "Proposes that God's method of creation was to intelligently design nature so — after the initial miraculous creation event — physical structures and biological organisms would naturally evolve." Therefore, TE is not far from deism and could even be comfortably embraced by pantheists.
NE- Again, comprising many disparate views and infighting among its adherents. Generally, Darwinism; the belief that nature is the cause of its own existence, that nature can and does create its own order, and advances itself through small, successive steps of modification by "chance and necessity." NE is atheistic and materialistic, going so far as to assert that the mind itself is a mere product of chemical reactions in the brain and cannot be immaterial. Therefore the mind does not and cannot direct material reality, it is the other way around. Many, including myself, assert that this feature makes NE a self-refuting philosophy.
I note that you left creationism out. People sometimes assume that ID and creationism are identical. They are not. Creationists are unapologetic and unabashed that God created the universe complete in six days, as a plain reading of Genesis demands, and that he takes a vital, active role in creation according to His divine plans. It leaves no room for speculation as to the identity of the Creator.
This is not to say that ID is bad, it is just limited in its scope.
Yeah, what Ned said. Mine was boastfully shorter though. I get points for that.
LOL! I enjoy both Ned's and Rod's respective approaches!
I carefully re-read what Ned had to say, and I think it's spot-on. Very nicely done. I had never before considered the deist/pantheist leanings of TE. My two cents ... a young earth and an old earth matters not to me. I find both arguments to be interesting. But this I do know - naturalists absolutely MUST have an old earth for their worldview to make sense. Although it's arguable (in house, among Christians), a Christian isn't painted into an age of the earth corner like atheists are.
Christ is king, no matter what.
Thanks, Wade.I am currently reading The Kingdom of the Occult and it made me realize that the depersonalization of Satan from a real being to an impersonal force is the other side of a two-sided coin. They both commit a like error. One side distorts the nature of the true God, the other the reality of Satan. Both sides have a problem with a literal readimg of God's word. Find one and you will likely find the other. Just thought this was worth mentioning.
From the book:"Stripping Satan of personhood and mythology makes him as harmless as a kitten. Extracting the person of Satan from the Bible renders the biblical struggle between God and Satan meaningless. Dr. George Eldon Ladd succinctly summarized the effects of demythologizing biblical history: “The result of demythologizing the biblical teaching of a God who is the Creator and the Lord of history sacrifices an essential element in the gospel and grows out of a philosophical concept of God which is other than the biblical revelation.”
Ned wrote: "From the book:"Stripping Satan of personhood and mythology makes him as harmless as a kitten. Extracting the person of Satan from the Bible renders the biblical struggle between God and Satan mea..."
Satan is Man's nemesis, not God's. God cannot be tempted nor defeated, but Man can. The kitten is "a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour." He crouches at the gate to steal, kill and destroy those who are isolated, lame, inattentive or rebellious.
I agree, Ned. Evil is real. Satan is real. God is ultimate reality. Your greatest personal enemy, and mine, is Satan. Those who say otherwise have either been bitten, or are about to be bitten. Those who have been bitten and been "saved" from Satan's jaws should know better than to foo-foo "the myth".
But, "like a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly."
"Oh wretched man that I am. Who can save me from myself? Praise God for sending Christ Jesus, our Lord."
Good link, Ned. Thanks. I proposed that Satan is a defeated foe in the spiritual realm. He is a pesky fly awaiting his eventual swatting. But you and I and every man are his valid prey. He remains our nemesis, which thwarts the plan of God for our lives and destiny. Your thoughts?
Satan is God's enemy/nemesis in the sense of opposing Him, and one dedicated to thwarting his plans. Of course Satan is not equal to the task, and has no hope of "winning" other than in the sense of dragging unfortunate souls down with him. Satan's defeat is both past and future, though I agree that it is as good as done from God's perspective. His first battle was lost, the war is ongoing, and a second epic battle remains until Satan's final defeat. As the "prince of the power of the air" and "god of this world" he is still very much active. Satan awaits being chained for 1,000 years, then the Great White Throne Judgment where he will be finally cast into the lake of fire forever. He is not yet defeated in a final sense, even in the spiritual realm where he commands "principalities and powers" and exercises "spiritual wickedness in high places." I think we should be cautious of belittling Satan, as he is a powerful foe who even Michael the Archangel would not personally rebuke. There are ongoing battles by spiritual forces that we have little inkling of, though Daniel gives us some idea.https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/d...
Ned wrote: "Satan is God's enemy/nemesis in the sense of opposing Him, and one dedicated to thwarting his plans. Of course Satan is not equal to the task, and has no hope of "winning" other than in the sense o..."Big time AMEN on this, Ned!
I thought demons were supposed to be smart: they are legion - and mostly inhabit and annoy. Like a drunken frat group.
If you are in favor of an all-controlling God who must oversee the life of even the most insignificant gnat, then you have no room for evolution or free will. If you envision a slightly whimsical God who gives nature a somewhat free rein to see what she'll turn out and believe he gives man the freedom to accept or reject him then you might be able to entertain at least a soupcon of independent, logical thought.
I absolutely agree with Ned. Satan is alive and roaring, but he is also crouched at the door waiting to pounce when we (I) least expect it. Like gnats demons oppress us, but if we let down our guard and they penetrate us the will possess us. I would rather deal with oppression than possession but demons are serious adversaries either way. I will run to the light and hide behind the rock of my salvation.
Eric - if you believe and have salvation what are you worried about? Demons are a nonissue and, though Satan tempts always, we have put on the armor of God so are more than up to the task. Christianity should give you peace through strength, not turn you into a hand-wringing worry wart.
Robert wrote: "Eric - if you believe and have salvation what are you worried about? Demons are a nonissue and, though Satan tempts always, we have put on the armor of God so are more than up to the task. Christia..."Thanks Robert. I am secure in my salvation, but I also sense that Satan would sift me like wheat if I allow my pride to well up and become a little cocky. It has happened to me before, and I have prayed I will not take the bait offered up on the Mount of Temptation. That's all.
Eric - We all have to be cognizant of exactly the scenario you described.Staying out of places and situations where Satan does his most recruiting helps a lot!
Zachary wrote: "This is on my to-read for 2018. So far, I’ve gotten through Moreland’s & Grudem’s chapters to great disappointment. Moreland’s central argument is that theistic evolution removes the Bible as a sou..."Where does Francis Collins say that we should reinterpret the Bible in light of science? BioLogos knows fully well that the ancient Hebrews believed in their creation stories as written in Genesis, that the world was surrounded by a dome and is a recent creation, etc. I am curious as to why you call these men 'popularizers' or somehow lacking in their theological rigor.
Ned wrote: "There is a new book coming out called Theistic Evolution that is available for pre-order on Amazon. It is a 1000 page critique of theistic evolution. J.P. Moreland, who I respect, is a major contri..."I'm definitely going to have to add this one to my list. I'm not 100% against theistic evolution, but I think ID has more evidence to support it.
https://stream.org/critique-theistic-...