quote:
I was reading a thread of another topic, a comment by Meldinor that he, being an evolutionist and a theist, had a problem being called a "theistic evolutionist" because, as he put it, "I don't like to describe myself as a "theistic evolutionist". The term implies a belief that evolution requires a 'divine tinkerer' to work. And I don't think that's been scientifically evidenced."
Meldinoor's interpretation, then is that a "theistic evolutionist" is someone who believes that a God intervened in the course of evolution. Since "theism" means either "belief that there is a God or gods" or (when opposed to Deism) "belief that there is a God or gods who intervene in this universe" the term is clearly not oxymoronic on that count. On the other hand this same belief is very close to modern evolutionary theory (and none of the interventions need actually contradict the theory - they may simply guarantee outcomes which were possible but would not otherwise occur). Michael Behe as of his last book appears to follow a belief of this sort, although he does insist that certain evolutionary stages require divine intervention.
So on this interpretation the term is not obviously oxymoronic, and is is certainly theistic.
The more common interpretation is that the term refers to the belief that God set up the universe so that it's ordinary operations bring about the desired results. While this view is consistent with Deism it does not rule out intervention in human history so it cannot be said that it is opposed to theism. And it fully accepts evolutionary theory, so this reading is certainly not oxymoronic.
quote:
I think it is an oxymoron. I see it as a vain attempt to gain the best of both ideologies; that of secularisim which essentially absolves one from contradicting establishment scientific academia and that of theism which offers a purpose for existence and a hope of a blissful existence beyond this life.
I don't think that it is fair to describe even science as an ideology and to describe theism in that way is absurd.
quote:
It is aximoronic in that it implies a creationless deity, contradictory to the Biblical record, essentially reducing that record to the status of myth. On the other hand it promotes a godless explanation of origins relative to all that exists.
What do you think?
Both Meldinoor's reading and the more common reading would generally be accompanied by the view that the universe was created by (a) God. Meldninoor's reading might well include the view that the first life was created by God. Since neither point contradicts evolutionary theory we can see that the term usually refers to someone who DOES believe in a creator God.
Since even the narrower reading of "theism" is not restricted to religions who consider the Bible sacred, contradicting the Biblical creation myths cannot be considered an issue. Even among Judaism, Christianity and Islam and their offshoots there are many who do not insist that those myths must be accepted as literally true (not least due to the clear contradictions between the two accounts).
So your argument that the term is an oxymoron is based on the assumption that all theists must agree with your doctrines. That assumption is certainly false.
Edited by PaulK, : Corrected a couple of typoes.
™ Version 4.2