What are the Strongest points of Theistic Evolution

[Canuckster1127]

I reviewed the book on Amazon and I found some of those elements too. I was a little disappointed that the book in places mirrored Lewis' Mere Christianity and didn't bring what it was titled. However, the appendices bring a lot of the evidence into play. Collins was the head of the Human Genome project and is now the head of NIH in Bethesda MD. There's no question that he's a brilliant man and among the strongest scientists.

His refutation of "creationist's" arguments in his book, I assume you mean Young Eart Creationist. Theistic Evolution is by definition a creationist position. Evolution in that context speaks to means, not cause.

In terms of "bias toward evolution" that's a trifle overstated, don't you think? That's the point of his book. What is he supposed to lean toward if not what his position is and why he believes and is able to reconcile his faith with what he knows (more than most) in terms of the science of life?

The question of the OP were what are the strongest points of Theistic Evolution. The leading voices of that position today include Collins so he's worth reading to learn more about the position.

Others who are strong voices include:

(Wikipedia list so take it in that light)

Paleontologist Robert T. Bakker

R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London

Microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator

Geneticist Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health and director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in which he has suggested the term BioLogos for theistic evolution. Collins is also the founder of the BioLogos Foundation.

Biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science

Biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)

Evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)

Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God" (Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" in the 2001 PBS special "Evolution")

Biologist Joan Roughgarden at Stanford University is author of various books including Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist

Paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe

Philosophers, theologians, and physical scientists who have supported the evolutionary creationist model include:

Eco-theologian Fr. Thomas Berry

Eco-theologian and evolutionary evangelist Rev. Michael Dowd

Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory

Astronomer Owen Gingerich

Physicist Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene College, author of several books: Worlds Apart: The Unholy War between Religion and Science, Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story, The Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists Versus God and Religion, and Saving Darwin.

Theologian and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham and contributor to the BioLogos Foundation.

Theologian John Haught of Georgetown University.

Biochemist and theologian Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford.

Theologian Thomas Jay Oord of Northwest Nazarene University (known for saying, "The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant.")

Pope John Paul II, who is famous for praising evolutionary biology and calling its accounts of human origins "more than a hypothesis"[46]

Ted Peters, co-author of the book Can You Believe in God And Evolution?

Physicist and theologian Rev. John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University.

Theologian Rev. Keith Ward, former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, author of God, Chance, and Necessity

Theologian-philosopher Rev. Michał Heller, professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Kraków, Poland, and an adjunct member of the Vatican Observatory staff.

Theologian-philosopher catholic archbishop Józef Życiński, professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Kraków, Poland.

Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, University of Munich, author of "Toward a Theology of Nature."

Of these, Miller is the one I've seen most referred to in other literature. There's no shortage of proponents. Usually the best way to understand a position is to listen to the people who hold it, not take the word of those who characterize the positions of others with whom they disagree.

[PaulSacramento]

Francis Collins' "The Language of God" is a strong book that gives the reasons,

Personally, I've read "The Language of God", and I found it quite confusing. A considerable part of the book is the author's personal testimony, but as for the "evidence for belief", I struggled to find any. Most of the time he actually dealt with refuting creationists' arguments (the weak ones, of course), all the time stating like "But that shouldn't discourage us from believing." Honestly, his work gives the impression that the belief in God is actually a biological need, or a God-of-the-Gaps scenario. Plus, I found the obvious bias towards evolution irritating, and more importantly, unsubstantiated. My conclusion - a disappointing book.

Really? I found it the total opposite.
I don't ever "judge" what causes one person to convert to Christianity, the Lord speaks to Us all in the way that makes the most sense to us as individuals.
But for me, it was nice to see how the more a scientist learned about the universe and the human body, in particular DNA and the Genome, that the more he felt convinced of God.
Everyone finds their own path to God, with Collins, as with many others, it was science.
I didn't see any God- of - the gaps at all.

[Reactionary]

Really? I found it the total opposite.
I don't ever "judge" what causes one person to convert to Christianity, the Lord speaks to Us all in the way that makes the most sense to us as individuals.
But for me, it was nice to see how the more a scientist learned about the universe and the human body, in particular DNA and the Genome, that the more he felt convinced of God.
Everyone finds their own path to God, with Collins, as with many others, it was science.
I didn't see any God- of - the gaps at all.

Well, it's certainly a good thing that such a renowned scientist declared his belief in God, and I didn't make any objections towards his testimony at all, I just complained about his arguments. He dismisses creationism without much reference or evidence, states that it's ignorant to judge evolution because of a lack of transitional fossils, in fact, if I remember it right, he even once stated that transitional fossils have been found.

Why I mentioned God-of-the-Gaps is because I believe that this type of approach may lead exactly to that - if one relies his faith upon something like the complexity of the human genome, he could be disappointed if we maybe discover how exactly it became complex. Furthermore, evolution guided by an intelligent agent doesn't by itself prove the case for Christianity, it just implies that there is a creator, not who that creator is. That's why I wasn't impressed by this book, it seemed more deist than Christian to me. But that's just my opinion - as you said, paths are different.

[Seraph]

I've read Collins book, and love it. It was one of the writings that made me see darwinian evolution as something other than an "enemy" philosophy.

I also like the speech he gave at Berkeley where he covered many of the ideas in the book and further defended theistic evolution.
If anyones interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

[FearlessLlearsy]

neo-x wrote: But if death occurred only then, then it was just for humans and as a result of sin other wise I do not think that God made everything without death, including, animals, ocean creatures etc etc, because that would imbalance natural, no deaths and ever increasing numbers in other species would have forced a problem in the long run. It is a known scientific fact that there is a food chain, which means there is a balance between everything God created. So everything remains in order in balance, even our own planet has its own mechanism to replenish it self, refreshing it self. That to me is the astounding wonder of God's hands and how he made everything in its perfect balance.

Friend, we all should be reminded that God initially created all animals as vegetarians. Should we look at Scripture?
Genesis 1:29-30
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

I think you were overthinking it right? Is not it amazing how much sometimes we complicate our conclusions when the answer is staring at our faces? I just wanted to let you know, with God, ANYTHING can happen. Just a share of insight,

[Canuckster1127]

From Rich Deem's article of No Death before the Fall on the main page.

Genesis 1:29-301 says that God created plants with seed and fruit and gave it to the animals for food. However, the verse does not say that all animals ate only plants. It merely says that the plants were given as food. Ultimately, all animals rely upon plants for food - even the carnivores. In addition, this decree was never rescinded as it was for humans.6 There is no verse in the Bible stating that animals could, at some point, start eating meat. Genesis 1:29-30 applies only to a specific class of animals. The text indicates that plants were given to the nephesh7 creatures - those that have a soul (mind, will, and emotion). A partial list is given, including the beasts of the field, the birds, and the creatures that creep around. Notably missing from the list are the large creatures of the sea, created on the fifth day. With few exceptions, these animals are all carnivores. Did God make them starve until after the Fall? Finally, as we shall see, Genesis 2 specifically tells us that animals did eat each other prior to the Fall.

Additional information can be found too in Rich's article here http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/carnivores.html

I think you were overthinking it right? Is not it amazing how much sometimes we complicate our conclusions when the answer is staring at our faces? I just wanted to let you know, with God, ANYTHING can happen. Just a share of insight,

This shows in my opinion the danger of attempting to draw a broad conclusion, from a narrow claim in scripture and why it's important to look at all passages referring to a particular claim and weighing all of them to come to a conclusion. What we read in English and what was written in Hebrew carry different nuances of meaning that aren't always fully caught in translation.

[zoegirl]

I liked the book, I though Collins did a fine job....I am somewhere between Progressive creationsims and TE.

TE doesn't have to include the philosophy baggage.

[FearlessLlearsy]

The article you showed me made so great points lad. However, could you be more specific?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Genesis 2 specifically tells us that animals did eat each other prior to the Fall.

May i ask Where exactly in Genesis 2 does it say that?

Canuckster1127 wrote:
The text indicates that plants were given to the nephesh7 creatures - those that have a soul (mind, will, and emotion). A partial list is given, including the beasts of the field, the birds, and the creatures that creep around. Notably missing from the list are the large creatures of the sea, created on the fifth day

According to Wikipedia, Nephesh (נֶפֶש) is a biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). Though it is commonly rendered as "life" or "soul" in English translations, Bible scholar Dr. Joel M. Hoffman notes that the word refers to the tangible aspects of life.Human beings and animals are both described as having nephesh.

Are large sea creatures animals? Do they possess life? Blood? I believe they do. Why would not they be part of the nepesh group?
One last thing, verse 30 says:

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food

Here, what does the passage means when it says everything that has life in it? Do large sea animals qualify as organisms that have life in them? I suppose,
On an end note, thank you for sharing the article with me,

[FearlessLlearsy]

And BTW, great point you brought up, when it said the Bible does not mention when Animals could start eating meat,

[Canuckster1127]

The article I linked to under the original comment:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/carnivores.html

it points out the use of the terms in Genesis 2 as they relate to the different terms used for carnivores and herbivores in the Hebrew language. Sorry I wasn't clear enough, but that article was what I was intending to show the elements from Genesis 2 and the use of those terms to some of the animals specifically are used of carnivores.

I'm not a Hebrew Scholar, so I'll have to avoid trying to speak overly authoritatively on the subject. When I say this, please listen to all I have to say before drawing a conclusion. Many people do not listen to all of this and make some assumptions that go beyond what I am saying.

Genesis 1 and 2, as I'm sure you know, are two accounts of the same event, namely the creation of the world. Some disagree with this and believe that there were two separate creations. This is often called the Gap Theory. Most however believe, that these are indeed two descriptions of the same event. Further, the form of the Hebrew that is used in both chapters is somewhat poetic. This makes sense because, these passages, even before they were written down as they are in Genesis were likely part of Oral Tradition or Oral History. Stories (and by that I don't mean to imply that this is fiction) when they are told in this manner, take on a form that is designed to make it easier to remember and easier to tell. There's a cadence or rythm that builds. There's rhyme to the words. In Hebrew, there's a poetic device known as parallelism which repeats things in different ways to draw emphasis.

That's in part what is happening in part in verse 30 that you requote above. Look at the first part before the dash "all the beasts of the earth, and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground" and then how that idea is repeated "everything that has the breath of life in it." Remember the context here is in a specific region, the Garden of Eden and so it's not speaking of every creature created to include sea animals. They are not included in the first part and the second part is a repetition of what is said in the first.

We can get into problems, in my opinion, when we try to take the words of Genesis 1 and 2 and treat them as if they were prosaic statements in English giving just scientific fact. Some get nervous when this is pointed out. I'm not stating that Genesis 1 and 2 are just poetry or just metaphors and that there is no literal sense to the words or what it is describing. I'm stating that those elements are there by virtue of the nature of the language and how we understand them has to take those elements into account.

The book of Genesis, in my opinion, and based on my study, was written by Moses (yes I believe Moses wrote it) and it was written during the Exopdus while Moses and the Israelites were in the desert in their 40 years of wandering. Moses and God through him, were bringing Israel from 400 years of bondage and in that time they lost a great deal of their sense of identity as a nation. Most of Genesis from Chapter 12 - 50 speaks of the specific history that shows how Israel came to be God's favored nation. Chapter 1 - 11 provide general history (prehistory actually) such as the creation of the world, the great flood, Babel etc. Moses would know some of the oral tradition and that factored into this and it looks to me that this oral tradition, along with the guidance of God through the inspiration and moving of the Holy Spirit preserved and repeated some of this in the familiar forms they had.

The point of this, in general was not to give a precise scientific relating of how God accomplished everything in this time. The point was that God was the creator and from the very beginning of the earth and all of history, God had a plan with Israel at the center of that plan. The Hebrews in the desert were not particularly worried about many of the issues that we now bring to this text in our day and age and the questions that we ask of the text. That doesn't mean those elements are not important or even that they are not present to some degree, but they were not the over-riding point and why God provided Genesis to these Israelites. It was to give them a sense of identity and purpose as to who they were and what God was going to do through them (Christ is being looked forward too as well in the midst of all of this.)

Think broader themes here. Look for the parallelism. Don't dissect and try to make scientific statements out of language that is broad, expansive and tying to those broad themes.

I hope that helps. Understanding something literally isn't just a matter of taking something at its simplest face value. It's understanding what it meant in terms of the language, culture, the persons speaking and those listening and then tying as well the over-reaching plans of God. I think when you bring those to the text, it becomes clearer and we can better understand what is being said as well as what is not being said. We have to try to enter into the thinking and the experiences of the nation of Israel in the desert to understand what is being said as well as how it is being said to a non-scientific society.

Hope that helps anyway. Sorry to go so long with the point.

[mandelduke]

I feel so old fashion, when I want to read about creation I go to Genesis!

[DRDS]

Hey there guys, I was wanting to try and participate in on the discussion. I was wanting to ask you Serapah what your top reasons for believing darwinian evolution are. I've always have wanted to ask people who hold to evolution what their main reasons are, but since so many of them are the hateful atheist type, all I would get is a hateful God cursing rant with a few bits and pieces actual of evidence mixed in with it. Since you are a Christian and a theistic evolutionist you could be a very big help to me and others who really want to see what kind of evidence there is for evolution. So if it's ok, what evidence, convinces you the most, that evolution is true? A few things that stick out in my mind from what I've studied so far are things like junk dna, transitional fossils, and microevolution of things like finch beak and moth color changes that promote survival advantages. But if you don't mind, let me know what you think is the best evidence. So far, I think the evidence is iffy at best, a equally good case can be made for either a old earth creation or intelligent design model. But if you can show me a very good case that trumps these two models I may consider switching over. But anyway, thank you for your time and participation.

[FearlessLlearsy]

Thank you for the info, althought the first paragraph that you wrote is not so clear regarding the Hebrew language

it points out the use of the terms in Genesis 2 as they relate to the different terms used for carnivores and herbivores in the Hebrew language. Sorry I wasn't clear enough, but that article was what I was intending to show the elements from Genesis 2 and the use of those terms to some of the animals specifically are used of carnivores.

I'm not a Hebrew Scholar, so I'll have to avoid trying to speak overly authoritatively on the subject.

But it is alright, since really none of us is a Hebrew scholar. I looked at the verses, and Genesis 2 is not one of them. I read Genesis 2 over again myself, and i did not see the mention of Animals eating meat before the Fall of Man?

This makes sense because, these passages, even before they were written down as they are in Genesis were likely part of Oral Tradition or Oral HistoryI

I agree that Moses is the Writer, but how do you think he knew all of these information? Where is the evidence that this was oral tradition? They may have, but are you 100% sure, because you use the word likely? The informations could have been revealed from God.

[Canuckster1127]

I agree that Moses is the Writer, but how do you think he knew all of these information? Where is the evidence that this was oral tradition? They may have, but are you 100% sure, because you use the word likely? The informations could have been revealed from God.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. God's revelation doesn't preclude Moses incorporating or using those elements of tradition that he was familiar with too. I don't know for sure. Israel however, although they were in captivity for 400 years still identified as a unique people and had their own histories and oral traditions no different than other peoples of the same region and time.

I don't believe God dictated verbally to Moses everything. Moses was a part of the process with his memories and vocabulary. This is often called Verbal Plenary inspiration. Guided by the Spirit and preserved from error, bit still including and incorporating the personality and will of the person writing.

[Reactionary]

So if it's ok, what evidence, convinces you the most, that evolution is true? A few things that stick out in my mind from what I've studied so far are things like junk dna, transitional fossils, and microevolution of things like finch beak and moth color changes that promote survival advantages. But if you don't mind, let me know what you think is the best evidence. So far, I think the evidence is iffy at best, a equally good case can be made for either a old earth creation or intelligent design model. But if you can show me a very good case that trumps these two models I may consider switching over. But anyway, thank you for your time and participation.

Just to jump in, I believe that many things about evolution will be clarified in the next 20-ish years, now that we're finally able to decode the genomes. Various research results are being reported on a daily basis, and as far as I see, the evidence doesn't really favour evolution - turns out that naturalists were falling into an evolution-of-the-gaps situation, especially as the so-called "junk DNA" was debunked. One thing though - when creationists and evolutionists research the same thing, both will finally state that the results corroborate their case.

This sometimes makes me confused as I was never good at biology - I study social sciences, I'm also formidable at physics, chemistry, mathematics, but I could never digest biology... rather frustrating, as I can't judge the situation myself.