Theistic evolution

[maestroanth]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

This is the first I heard of it.

1. Doesn't it undermine the logic of the bible accepting that God created evolution when in all the fricken religious texts it says nothing about a God using evolution?

2. Doesn't this feel like religious people are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when trying to accept and/or explain certain sciences through their doctrines?

3. Who can live with such a psychological dichotomy in their heads!? I rather keep my sanity and choose either the evidence of the bible or the evidence shown through nature instead of a forced unification of these two.

[ignoramus]

Agree Kit. But the plate still needs to go around.

[Alex K]

If the course of evolution is actively steered by God e.g. in order to make certain species such as humans, evolution loses its explanatory power and is simply arbitrary magic.
If God only indirectly influences evolution by setting up the initial conditions such that everything comes out precisely as HE intended, one has still a valid scientific theory to which God is a pretty useless addition.

[robvalue]

If you think it needs any active direction, then you don't understand it.

If you're going to resort to magic, then any sort of evolution is just God pissing about instead of making what he wants in the first place.

[brewer]

If Theistic evolution were a dance, instead of being an elegant-precise-beautiful waltz movement, it would be the gator. The dance equivalent to a tonic/clonic seizure.

[Neo-Scholastic]

With respect to the OP, the idea of theistic evolution seems odd. The whole point of evolution is to explain speciation in terms of purely mechanical processes that do not require outside intervention. I pretty much agree with that, so even as a believer I do not see how adding God to the mix accomplishes anything.

This may not be directly related to the OP. This paper contrasts Intelligent Design with a Thomistic approach to evolution. It may shed some likght on how some believers, like me, reconcile evolution and religious faith:

https://biologos.org/uploads/projects/be..._essay.pdf

[vorlon13]

It's clear creationist's arguments against evolution have evolved over the years.
Yet having the tenets of a religion evolve seems to me like another craven ploy to avoid the obvious:

the religion is false, and hammering it after the fact to fit new discoveries falsifies the religion, it doesn't rehabilitate it.


If it was of an omniscient deity it would have been correct in the first place.

[Mr Greene]

This is the way Catholics, Anglicans and the vast majority of European christians see it. Mostly they don't stop to consider that there could be an incompatibility, though given all the contradictions in the bible to start with this doesn't even register.
Literal creationism was dead in the late 19th century and revived by some loon from Colorado around the time of WWI, frankly how this zombified notion survived and grew to become the abomination it is now is the greater mystery.

[madog]

Aren't xtians fortunate that they have scientists to show how life evolved ...

They now just need to edit their bible

1 In the beginning natural events created the universe and then the earth.
2
3
4
5
6
7 And on the seventh day man created God/s

[Fake Messiah]