Progressive creation vs Theistic evolution

[Storyteller]

Can someone please explain (in simple terms) the difference between the two?

Am I right in thinking TE believe in evolution and PC dont?

[RickD]

It's not as simple as PC not believing in evolution. Many PCs believe in certain kinds of evolution. And some TEs believe in special creation.



This may help:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ssive.html

[Storyteller]

I will need to read that a few times I think but, yeah, it helps

I'm stil trying to figure which view makes the most sense to me. So far all I've done is discount the gap theory (personal choice)

Mind you, its more of an interest than a need. I still marvel at the sheer wonder of it all. Love the supernova in feb story. How awesome is that?

[RickD]

I will need to read that a few times I think but, yeah, it helps

I'm stil trying to figure which view makes the most sense to me. So far all I've done is discount the gap theory (personal choice)

Mind you, its more of an interest than a need. I still marvel at the sheer wonder of it all. Love the supernova in feb story. How awesome is that?

Annette,

Take your time. There's a lot to learn. And don't feel like you need to rush into choosing one or the other. Theistic Evolution has a very broad range of beliefs. It almost overlaps into Progressive Creationism.

[Storyteller]

Will do

I am in no rush to decide anything.

I suppose I kind of know what I believe, I`m just not sure what label (if any) to give to it.

I`m not sure that I think God created the universe in 6 24 hour days, I lean more towards Genesis explaining the order of events rather than a time scale. I can accept evolution up to a point but I`m not totally convinced by it.
I`m still confused by the difference between theistic evolution and progressive creationism. I read the article and I`m not really much clearer.
I`m thinking that as I study the Bible more and listen to God I will be drawn to what rings true for me.

I guess it`s just a little frustrating that although I have a strong faith and all I really need to know is that God loves me and that through Christ I am saved I can`t really offer any view on any details. Maybe it will come with time. I have to admit that there are several threads on here that when I read them they make sense to me, even if I don`t fully understand them. I did read somewhere that sometimes we just have to let our spirit understand things that our mind doesn`t. I think, one day, when I meet God, I will go "Ah! So that`s what I believe is called.

I am actually enjoying exploring all this, it`s fascinating, wonderous and exciting. Each step brings me closer to God but leaves me wanting to get even closer.

[RickD]

If you have any specific questions, maybe we can help.

[Storyteller]

Mainly, what are the differences between Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution? Are they not really the same thing, just with a different name? So far, with what I have read, I can`t really tell the difference. I suppose I`m confused as I have read a bit about the Gap theory and for me it doesn`t hold water (sorry ACB!) but what I`ve read about TE and PC, I just find myself agreeing. What am I missing?

[RickD]

This is a pretty good basic explanation of Theistic Evolution.

And this is a pretty good basic overview of Progressive Creationism.


If you have any specific questions, ask away.

[RickD]

Mainly, what are the differences between Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution? Are they not really the same thing, just with a different name? So far, with what I have read, I can`t really tell the difference. I suppose I`m confused as I have read a bit about the Gap theory and for me it doesn`t hold water (sorry ACB!) but what I`ve read about TE and PC, I just find myself agreeing. What am I missing?

Sorry,

I posted my last post while you were posting.

I think the biggest differences between the two, is that in general, TE believes biological evolution is true. And PC does not. Instead of believing life evolved slowly over millions of years, PC teaches that God created different kinds of life over millions of years.

And theologically, PCs in general, believe in a literal biblical interpretation. While TEs in general, do not believe in a literal interpretation of scripture, at least regarding creation.

In general, both TEs and PCs believe in an old earth. Both believe the fossil record shows an old earth.

In general, PCs believe Adam was the first modern human. TEs do not. And that gets back to biblical interpretations.

[Storyteller]

Thanks Rick

I think I shall ponder over those for a while.

Need to look into micro and macro evolution. Am I right in thinking micro is change within a species and macro is evolving into a new species?

I think so far Theistic is appealing to me more at the moment.

Have looked into day age creationism and that makes sense except how can it fit with both theistic and progressive? Sorry if these are blindingly obvious questions but they`re not to me

[RickD]

ST wrote:

Need to look into micro and macro evolution. Am I right in thinking micro is change within a species and macro is evolving into a new species?

Basically, yes. But I don't think PC necessarily rules out new species.

Have looked into day age creationism and that makes sense except how can it fit with both theistic and progressive? Sorry if these are blindingly obvious questions but they`re not to me

Day Age is a specific, if not the most common kind of PC. Day age basically refers to the creation days as long ages.

Putting "Theistic" in front of evolution, just means that God is the one who put evolution in motion.

[Audie]

Will do

I am in no rush to decide anything.

I suppose I kind of know what I believe, I`m just not sure what label (if any) to give to it.

I`m not sure that I think God created the universe in 6 24 hour days, I lean more towards Genesis explaining the order of events rather than a time scale. I can accept evolution up to a point but I`m not totally convinced by it.
I`m still confused by the difference between theistic evolution and progressive creationism. I read the article and I`m not really much clearer.
I`m thinking that as I study the Bible more and listen to God I will be drawn to what rings true for me.

I guess it`s just a little frustrating that although I have a strong faith and all I really need to know is that God loves me and that through Christ I am saved I can`t really offer any view on any details. Maybe it will come with time. I have to admit that there are several threads on here that when I read them they make sense to me, even if I don`t fully understand them. I did read somewhere that sometimes we just have to let our spirit understand things that our mind doesn`t. I think, one day, when I meet God, I will go "Ah! So that`s what I believe is called.

I am actually enjoying exploring all this, it`s fascinating, wonderous and exciting. Each step brings me closer to God but leaves me wanting to get even closer.

I wonder why you'd be spending your time trying to choose among religion-based theories? "Gap" is not even a theory, and I dont think the others qualify either.

You will notice RD referred to a range of, yes, beliefs.

You surely would not study religious versions of math, geography, chemistry, etc, why make it the way to study geology and biology?

Understanding (gasp "secular") chemistry would not lead one away from belief in god, would it?

when I read them they make sense to me, even if I don`t fully understand them.

Sites like AIG are good at presenting material in a convincing, easy to understand way.
They mix in charts, graphs, scientific jargon, and factual material in quite a professional looking way.

That is, you know, the method of a con man. Mix in good verifiable material in a convincing way.

A person without a good background of knowledge is too easily swayed by a demagogue, snake oil salesman or a good pitch on any topic.

AIG is a team of professional liars. So are all of the creationist sites.
They take in many a person, dont let them take you too.

[Storyteller]

Will do

I am in no rush to decide anything.

I suppose I kind of know what I believe, I`m just not sure what label (if any) to give to it.

I`m not sure that I think God created the universe in 6 24 hour days, I lean more towards Genesis explaining the order of events rather than a time scale. I can accept evolution up to a point but I`m not totally convinced by it.
I`m still confused by the difference between theistic evolution and progressive creationism. I read the article and I`m not really much clearer.
I`m thinking that as I study the Bible more and listen to God I will be drawn to what rings true for me.

I guess it`s just a little frustrating that although I have a strong faith and all I really need to know is that God loves me and that through Christ I am saved I can`t really offer any view on any details. Maybe it will come with time. I have to admit that there are several threads on here that when I read them they make sense to me, even if I don`t fully understand them. I did read somewhere that sometimes we just have to let our spirit understand things that our mind doesn`t. I think, one day, when I meet God, I will go "Ah! So that`s what I believe is called.

I am actually enjoying exploring all this, it`s fascinating, wonderous and exciting. Each step brings me closer to God but leaves me wanting to get even closer.

I wonder why you'd be spending your time trying to choose among religion-based theories? "Gap" is not even a theory, and I dont think the others qualify either.

Because I believe in God.

You will notice RD referred to a range of, yes, beliefs.

You surely would not study religious versions of math, geography, chemistry, etc, why make it the way to study geology and biology?

Understanding (gasp "secular") chemistry would not lead one away from belief in god, would it?

I`m not using them to study those things. I`m using them to study Creationism.

when I read them they make sense to me, even if I don`t fully understand them.

Sites like AIG are good at presenting material in a convincing, easy to understand way.
They mix in charts, graphs, scientific jargon, and factual material in quite a professional looking way.

That is, you know, the method of a con man. Mix in good verifiable material in a convincing way.

A person without a good background of knowledge is too easily swayed by a demagogue, snake oil salesman or a good pitch on any topic.

AIG is a team of professional liars. So are all of the creationist sites.
They take in many a person, dont let them take you too.

"They" won`t "take" me anywhere Audie. No-one can, or will, tell me what to believe. I believe in researching stuff idependently and coming to my own conclusions.
I`m sorry but I don`t see Creationist sites, or people who believe in it as liars. I see them as people looking for the truth. I believe God created the universe so it makes sense to, at least look at any evidence and ideas that are put forward. (No idea who AIG are, btw )

Spirituality and science are two different things to me and they don`t necessarily have to come into conflict, not for me anyway. [/quote]

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
I wonder why you'd be spending your time trying to choose among religion-based theories? "Gap" is not even a theory, and I dont think the others qualify either.

The Gap Theory isn't a theory? You sure you wanna stick to that?

Is a crab apple not an apple?

Is a Ford Truck not a truck?

Is a dwarf star not a star?

Is a Vegemite sandwich not a sandwich?

Is the Pope not catholic?*




*I just threw that one in there to see if you were paying attention.

[PaulSacramento]

Scientifically speaking the "gap theory" is not a theory but, at best, a hypothesis.

Theory:
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

Hypothesis:
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts