Theistic Creation

“There is an evident willingness to embrace ambiguity on the origin and existence of Adam and to live with unsatisfying theological models that challenge the historic consensus. There is little to no willingness to live with scientific models that challenge the scientific models of origins accepted in the contemporary mainstream. The wider commitments and priorities are clear.” The above quote seems to accurately describe the reality of those that embrace Theistic Evolution. In a nutshell, theistic evolution (hereafter TE) accepts and embraces the standard neo-Darwinian evolutionary (NDE) thesis concerning biological life: all of life has a common ancestor that evolved and progressed through natural selection acting on random changes in the genetic code to produce the myriads of new species and body plans that we see both today and in the fossil record. Theistic evolutionists then wed that belief to the Biblical creation narrative and the doctrines and theology that flow from these first chapters of Genesis. With little to no exception (as far as I can tell), all TEists embrace the founding principle that God created the world and universe. But beyond that, things get a bit fuzzy as to the degree that God is involved in His creation. Because it accepts the authority of science in the areas of anthropology and biology, TE has also embraced several related principals that are closely tied to the NDE scientific enterprise. First is what has been termed ‘methodological naturalism,’ or to put it simply, the belief that any explanation for features found in the biological realms must be given within a natural framework. There is no allowance for any outside or supernatural explanation for any process or feature. As we will see below in the chapters on biology, modern science for the most part embraces this undergirding principle with a fervor that immediately dismisses any challenge as being ‘un-scientific.’ Therefore, if someone submits that certain features or events have all the hallmarks of design by some form of intelligence, that claim is categorically rejected, not on the basis of the science, but on presupposition or worldview. And TE has readily accepted this naturalistic foundation as the only way to do real science, even if it seems to fly in the face of what the Bible tells us about God’s created beings. Second, scientific consensus has final say in nearly any area that it touches. This is akin to a groupthink mentality that allows little dissension or disagreement. Therefore, if the science has arrived at a “consensus” on a particular issue or idea (whatever that means and at what level it is reached we are usually not told), then that is that. To challenge it is to be a denier or unbeliever. And as we will see, for the most part TE has accepted the scientific consensus view, which means that any intrusion into the above-mentioned naturalistic worldview is not allowed and dismissed as non-scientific. Again, science facts and experimentation are not the issue; the underlying belief system is. Third, and tied closely to consensus, is the reach of scientific authority over nearly area of life. The authority of science in the modern western mind is so ubiquitous that one hardly notices its influence unless it is challenged. Recently while sitting at the dentist’s office I saw a Good Housekeeping magazine that had the following written on its bound edge: “Backed by Science, powered by Style”. This is a magazine dedicated to keeping a successful home and lifestyle, yet they found it profitable, maybe even necessary, to tell us that their work was backed by science. That tells us something of the power and influence science has in our culture. Read almost any TE book defending evolution and it becomes clear that they have accepted the authority of science, to the point that it overrides the text and authority of the Bible. Granted, they will tell you that the issue is not that science overrules the text, but that for over 2000 years Jews and Christians have misinterpreted the first pages of the Genesis text. And so there have been efforts to reinterpret the text so that it either more closely aligns with science or, more often, is set aside as having no bearing at all on the creation of the material world and humanity, as we will see.