Theistic Evolution vs. Christian Worldview

[superdave5221]

What is the difference between Christians who claim theistic evolution and those with a Christian Worldview?

I am not claiming here that a Christian must believe in any Creation Theory in order to be saved. The bible makes it clear that those who are saved are those who have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, our Savior.

But I will make a case that it is impossible to believe in theistic evolution and at the same time to have a Christian Worldview. What is a Christian Worldview? A worldview is a lens through which we see the world around us. As Christians, we should see the world through the lens of Christ's Spirit, who lives within us. This means that we begin and end with God's Word in all that we do (Mat. 4:4). We do not compartmentalize the word of God, as man says to do in his unrighteousness. God's word is true in all things, including science and philosophy.

In determining the truthfulness of any opinion, we must all, not just Christians, but all people must have a starting point. Most people, who have studied epistemology, understand that truth begins with first principles. These are those things that are self-evident. In other words, they do not need to be proven, nor can they be proven. Examples are, "we exist", and the law of noncontradiction, i.e. "something cannot be both true and false at the same time". These are self -evident. We use axioms in mathematics as starting points in proving relationships and properties in geometry, for example. Starting points are necessary for without them, every argument would simply be an endless regression, and no conclusions could be drawn.

According to Romans 1:20, Paul says that it is self evident that there is a God. This is self evident because we can look at the world around us and know that God exists. There is an order and beauty in creation that cannot be accounted for by any atheistic theory. Science would not be possible, if it were not for the natural laws that exist so that reasonable conclusions can be drawn. If there are laws, there is certainly a lawgiver. Atheists reject Romans 1:20 outwardly, and deny God in their unrighteousness, (Romans 1:18).

It is my opinion that Christians who embrace Theistic Evolution also reject Romans 1:20. For if you truly have a Christian worldview, you will begin with the word of God, and see those evidences of His existence in all things. Those who believe in evolution, begin with man's word, and make God's word fit what they see as a necessary reconciliation of God's word with what man claims as truth.

The world would have us think that to believe in God's word on creation is ignorance and superstition. But this is simply not the case. Those who would make an effort to study the evidence would find that there is strong support in the evidence for the Christian Worldview.

The world would have us believe that there are two views on the evidence. One they claim is objective, and the other religious. This is simply not the case. There is no neutral starting point. Jesus said that either you are with me, or you are against me. It is either supernatural (God), or naturalistic (man). Don't let atheists make you believe that they do not have a starting point. For without a starting point, their argument is meaningless.

Every worldview must have a starting point. My starting point is the Word of God. The other starting point is the word of man. Man was not there in the beginning, when the world was created. God WAS. Who are we to believe. Do we believe man, who is often wrong, lies, and puts self interest first? Or do we believe God, who sent His Son to die on a cross for us.

Many exegetical hoops must be jumped through to conclude that Genesis 1-11 is not talking about literal 24 hour days. Jesus makes it clear that in the beginning God created Adam and Eve, and Paul makes it clear that it is because of Adam's sin that death and evil entered into the world. Does a God who hates evil say that a world full of death and destruction is "very good"? Would a God who upholds the universe and everything in it resort to billions of years of death and destruction to create man in His image from an ape? Do not impugn God's character in this way, for God is jealous of His name.

I affirm that Romans 1:20 is self evident, and I will believe God before man, in all areas of life.

 

[crossnote]

Romans 1:19-21 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

[Nautilus]

What is the difference between Christians who claim theistic evolution and those with a Christian Worldview?

I am not claiming here that a Christian must believe in any Creation Theory in order to be saved. The bible makes it clear that those who are saved are those who have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, our Savior.

But I will make a case that it is impossible to believe in theistic evolution and at the same time to have a Christian Worldview. What is a Christian Worldview? A worldview is a lens through which we see the world around us. As Christians, we should see the world through the lens of Christ's Spirit, who lives within us. This means that we begin and end with God's Word in all that we do (Mat. 4:4). We do not compartmentalize the word of God, as man says to do in his unrighteousness. God's word is true in all things, including science and philosophy.

In determining the truthfulness of any opinion, we must all, not just Christians, but all people must have a starting point. Most people, who have studied epistemology, understand that truth begins with first principles. These are those things that are self-evident. In other words, they do not need to be proven, nor can they be proven. Examples are, "we exist", and the law of noncontradiction, i.e. "something cannot be both true and false at the same time". These are self -evident. We use axioms in mathematics as starting points in proving relationships and properties in geometry, for example. Starting points are necessary for without them, every argument would simply be an endless regression, and no conclusions could be drawn.

According to Romans 1:20, Paul says that it is self evident that there is a God. This is self evident because we can look at the world around us and know that God exists. There is an order and beauty in creation that cannot be accounted for by any atheistic theory. Science would not be possible, if it were not for the natural laws that exist so that reasonable conclusions can be drawn. If there are laws, there is certainly a lawgiver. Atheists reject Romans 1:20 outwardly, and deny God in their unrighteousness, (Romans 1:18).

It is my opinion that Christians who embrace Theistic Evolution also reject Romans 1:20. For if you truly have a Christian worldview, you will begin with the word of God, and see those evidences of His existence in all things. Those who believe in evolution, begin with man's word, and make God's word fit what they see as a necessary reconciliation of God's word with what man claims as truth.

The world would have us think that to believe in God's word on creation is ignorance and superstition. But this is simply not the case. Those who would make an effort to study the evidence would find that there is strong support in the evidence for the Christian Worldview.

The world would have us believe that there are two views on the evidence. One they claim is objective, and the other religious. This is simply not the case. There is no neutral starting point. Jesus said that either you are with me, or you are against me. It is either supernatural (God), or naturalistic (man). Don't let atheists make you believe that they do not have a starting point. For without a starting point, their argument is meaningless.

Every worldview must have a starting point. My starting point is the Word of God. The other starting point is the word of man. Man was not there in the beginning, when the world was created. God WAS. Who are we to believe. Do we believe man, who is often wrong, lies, and puts self interest first? Or do we believe God, who sent His Son to die on a cross for us.

Many exegetical hoops must be jumped through to conclude that Genesis 1-11 is not talking about literal 24 hour days. Jesus makes it clear that in the beginning God created Adam and Eve, and Paul makes it clear that it is because of Adam's sin that death and evil entered into the world. Does a God who hates evil say that a world full of death and destruction is "very good"? Would a God who upholds the universe and everything in it resort to billions of years of death and destruction to create man in His image from an ape? Do not impugn God's character in this way, for God is jealous of His name.

I affirm that Romans 1:20 is self evident, and I will believe God before man, in all areas of life.

Tehistic evolution also acknowledges the existence of a GOD hence the term THEISTIC. So not sure how in any way that would go against Romans 1:20? TO be fair the main difference is more God created everything simultaneously versus God guided and molded the evolutionary cycles to form man in his image. End result in both is God making man in His image to be fair.

 

[superdave5221]

Tehistic evolution also acknowledges the existence of a GOD hence the term THEISTIC. So not sure how in any way that would go against Romans 1:20? TO be fair the main difference is more God created everything simultaneously versus God guided and molded the evolutionary cycles to form man in his image. End result in both is God making man in His image to be fair.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

There is the difference. Because you accept the word of man, over the word of God in Genesis 1-11, glorifying man, instead of God. It is because you cannot see the difference, that it is evident that you are lacking in a Christian worldview.

By the way. Deists also recognize the existence of God. Theistic evolution fits perfectly into the Deist worldview.

 

[JackH]

Many exegetical hoops must be jumped through to conclude that Genesis 1-11 is not talking about literal 24 hour days.

So do you believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old?

If not, how old do you believe the earth is?

 

[superdave5221]

So do you believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old?

If not, how old do you believe the earth is?

Starting from my belief in God's Word, I must believe in a young earth. Gaps may exist in the genealogies, but certainly not millions of years. Therefore, I must believe in an earth that is somewhere between 6000-20000 years old.

Theistic evolution is untenable with Scripture, as is the Day Age and Gap theories.

Young earth models, while not perfect, have been able to explain the observed geology in at least as consistent a way as old earth models. Natural chronometers and radiohalos in rocks are inconsistent with old earth models.

I think that you should realize that there are and have been highly respected scientists that have believed in young earth geology. It is a myth, perpetrated by a few people in our godless society, that we must somehow compromise God's word, or be seen as uneducated, or anti-intellectual, and anti-science.

 

[JackH]

I must believe in an earth that is somewhere between 6000-20000 years old.

Let's be real, let's not make a joke of ourselves.

 

[ThomistColin]

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

There is the difference. Because you accept the word of man, over the word of God in Genesis 1-11, glorifying man, instead of God. It is because you cannot see the difference, that it is evident that you are lacking in a Christian worldview.

By the way. Deists also recognize the existence of God. Theistic evolution fits perfectly into the Deist worldview.

Actually no. Even the Talmud shows that the Jews of the early centuries AD believed that the seven days of creation were an image of explanation in which Moses tried to convey the unknowable and inconceivable. So, let us first be honest. There is a difference between a differing views on the interpretation of Scripture and denying God as first.

 

[superdave5221]

Let's be real, let's not make a joke of ourselves.

To assume arbitrarily, a priori, that God created the matter of this globe in the most imperfect state to which the gross imagination of man can contrive to reduce it, which it effectually does, by reducing the creative Fiat to the mere production of an amorphus elementary mass; and then to pretend, that His intelligence and wisdom are to be collected from certain hypothetical occult laws, by which that mass worked itself into perfection of figure and arrangement after innumerable ages; would tend to lessen our sense either of the divine wisdom or power, did not the supposition recoil with tremendous reaction upon the supposers, and convict them of the clumsiest irrationality.

The supposition, is totally arbitrary; and not only arbitrary, viciously arbitrary; because, it is totally unnecessary, and therefore betrays a vice of choice. For the laws of matter could not have worked perfection in the mass which the Creator is thus supposed to have formed imperfect, unless by a power imparted by himself who established the laws. And, if He could thus produce perfection mediately, through their operation, He could produce it immediately, without their operation.

Why then, wantonly and viciously, without a pretense of authority, choose the supposition of their mediation? It is entirely a decision of choice and preference, that is of the will, for, the reason is no party in it, neither urging, suggesting, encouraging, or in any way aiding and abetting the decision, but, on the contrary, positively denying and condemning it.

The vast length of time, which this sinistrous choice is necessarily obliged to call in for its own defense, could only be requisite to the Creator for overcoming difficulties obstructing the perfecting process; it therefore chooses to suppose, that He created obstructions in matter, to resist and retard the perfecting of the work which He designed; whilst at the same time He might have perfected it without any resistance at all, by His own Creative act.......To suppose then, a priori, and without the slightest motive prompted by reason, that His wisdom willed, at the same time, both the formation of a perfect work, and a series of resistances to obstruct and delay that perfect work, argues a gross defect of intelligence, somewhere, either in the Creator or in the supposer, and I leave it to this science, to determine the alternative.

Granville Penn

My thought is the gross defect in intelligence is not in the Creator, but in the supposer, in this case, one JackH.

 

[ThomistColin]

To assume arbitrarily, a priori, that God created the matter of this globe in the most imperfect state to which the gross imagination of man can contrive to reduce it, which it effectually does, by reducing the creative Fiat to the mere production of an amorphus elementary mass; and then to pretend, that His intelligence and wisdom are to be collected from certain hypothetical occult laws, by which that mass worked itself into perfection of figure and arrangement after innumerable ages; would tend to lessen our sense either of the divine wisdom or power, did not the supposition recoil with tremendous reaction upon the supposers, and convict them of the clumsiest irrationality.

The supposition, is totally arbitrary; and not only arbitrary, viciously arbitrary; because, it is totally unnecessary, and therefore betrays a vice of choice. For the laws of matter could not have worked perfection in the mass which the Creator is thus supposed to have formed imperfect, unless by a power imparted by himself who established the laws. And, if He could thus produce perfection mediately, through their operation, He could produce it immediately, without their operation.

Why then, wantonly and viciously, without a pretense of authority, choose the supposition of their mediation? It is entirely a decision of choice and preference, that is of the will, for, the reason is no party in it, neither urging, suggesting, encouraging, or in any way aiding and abetting the decision, but, on the contrary, positively denying and condemning it.

The vast length of time, which this sinistrous choice is necessarily obliged to call in for its own defense, could only be requisite to the Creator for overcoming difficulties obstructing the perfecting process; it therefore chooses to suppose, that He created obstructions in matter, to resist and retard the perfecting of the work which He designed; whilst at the same time He might have perfected it without any resistance at all, by His own Creative act.......To suppose then, a priori, and without the slightest motive prompted by reason, that His wisdom willed, at the same time, both the formation of a perfect work, and a series of resistances to obstruct and delay that perfect work, argues a gross defect of intelligence, somewhere, either in the Creator or in the supposer, and I leave it to this science, to determine the alternative.

Granville Penn

My thought is the gross defect in intelligence is not in the Creator, but in the supposer, in this case, one JackH.

I disagree, but interesting logic. I'll look into this more deeply.

 

[JackH]

I disagree, but interesting logic. I'll look into this more deeply.

Granville Penn died in 1844. He didn't know much about evolution.

He was a big fan of Bishop Ussher though, the person most responsible for young earth creationism.

 

[psychomom]

superdave!!!!!

i was away for a while, and i am glad to see you!

evolution, schmevolution. (in any way, shape, or form, i.e.-theistic)

but. eh, i wouldn't expend the energy to argue it.

i'm too busy being happy to see you.

~ellie

 

[JackH]

Actually no. Even the Talmud shows that the Jews of the early centuries AD believed that the seven days of creation were an image of explanation in which Moses tried to convey the unknowable and inconceivable. So, let us first be honest. There is a difference between a differing views on the interpretation of Scripture and denying God as first.

The Pope and the Catholic Catechism appear to have a reasonable position on evolution. Chalk one up in the plus side for Catholic and one on the negative side for Evangelical and Fundamentalist on this issue, in my opinion.

 

[superdave5221]

The Pope and the Catholic Catechism appear to have a reasonable position on evolution. Chalk one up in the plus side for Catholic and one on the negative side for Evangelical and Fundamentalist on this issue, in my opinion.

Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

I would say Jesus had a pretty reasonable position on evolution.

Or did Jesus think that the beginning of Creation was after 4.5 billion years???

 

[superdave5221]

Granville Penn died in 1844. He didn't know much about evolution.

He was a big fan of Bishop Ussher though, the person most responsible for young earth creationism.

Granville Penn died in 1844, He didn't know much about evolution, He liked Bishop Ussher, (so you say, though I doubt you know much about Penn other than what you looked up on Wikipedia), and so His logic is flawed.

That's the scientific objectivity we have grown to love so much.

 

[superdave5221]

superdave!!!!!

i was away for a while, and i am glad to see you!

evolution, schmevolution. (in any way, shape, or form, i.e.-theistic)

but. eh, i wouldn't expend the energy to argue it.

i'm too busy being happy to see you.

~ellie

Hey Psychomom!!

It's great to see you as well. I know, I shouldn't expend the energy to try and convince those who cannot think for themselves. But I can't help it. It's in the blood. It is truly uplifting to see a kindred spirit!!!

 

[4enlightment]

A person can't believe in two totally different books unless they put one first over the other as the over all truth. Whatever they've learn from one must coincide with the one that they have chosen it to be the truth. But they must not ever start rejecting the one that they have chosen as the over all truth, or it will be consider not the truth. A person can only serve one as the over all, but not two and which that doesn't make any sense in the first place. Only thing that a person can't compromise with the word that came from God, but you can compromise with the ones that translated in their own versions of the word, but not what is written. Science should be use as a tool to prove that the word is true, but not twisted around to make like science is the truth.

 

[Kerry]

This is just another form of the church accepting the world and it's money. No church that stands on the word of God will ever accept evolution.

 

[psychomom]

Hey Psychomom!!

It's great to see you as well. I know, I shouldn't expend the energy to try and convince those who cannot think for themselves. But I can't help it. It's in the blood. It is truly uplifting to see a kindred spirit!!!

i was just speaking for my (lazy ) self.

you should totally do what you think is right!

 

[superdave5221]

i was just speaking for my (lazy ) self.

you should totally do what you think is right!

You're not lazy, you are just pacing yourself.

How come you are only showing 44 posts. Were you off for awhile?