Is Theistic Evolutionist An Oxymoron?

Hello Buz,It occurs to me that it's been quite a while since we both took part in a discussion. I think it's because you tend to gravitate toward theology/prophecy discussions while I spend most of my time in the science fora. So how've you been?Anyway, since you refer to me in your OP it seems appropriate that I give my point of view on the question.Technically, since I am both a theist and an evolutionist, that makes me a "theistic evolutionist". However, I am reluctant to use this term to describe myself as it implies a conflation of the two terms that I think is misleading. My being a theist should not influence how I read the evidence nor give me cause to make unsupported assumptions about a scientific theory. Neither does the fact that I accept the theory of evolution influence my faith in God.
It's like making a distinction between "theistic mathematicians" and "mathematicians". There's no reason to believe that the two groups do their math differently, so the distinction is irrelevant. But you're wrong. I do not see how merely accepting the theory of evolution influences one's ideology. The ToE does not tell me how to live my life, or influence my moral or political decisions. I don't contest that to some people it might. Perhaps for some people "evolutionism" really is deserving of that -ism, and perhaps some people really can make a religion or an ideology out of it. Social Darwinism comes to mind, which I guess is an ideology, but that's taking the ToE out of the realm of science and using it to justify political actions.My theism OTOH has an impact on my life and does influence my decisions and ideology. So my faith and my acceptance of the ToE have no bearing on each other, just as my belief in the existence of carrots does not influence my belief in God.Hope that clarifies,-Meldinoor

Not necessarily. Most people who have read the Bible will agree that it contains segments that are undeniably allegorical and/or mythical. That doesn't mean that it's all myth. Also, just because portions of the Bible may be legend and myth does not mean that they're less important than the historically accurate records in there. The Genesis account conveys God's role as the Creator of all that is, His relationship to humanity, our fallen nature etc. Even if the myth is not literally true, the underlying message is still there. I would argue that these lessons are far more important to the Christian faith, than the trivial details of how God went about Creation. But I was just saying that, to me at least, the ToE is NOT an ideology. It does not share "characteristics" with theism, because we're comparing apples and oranges here.
I'm tempted to quote Galileo here to make my point:

quote:

---

The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go

---

Of course, the Bible teaches much more than just how to go to heaven, but it was never intended as a science book. To view it in that manner over-trivializes it and distracts from the more important lessons it contains. I'm sorry, but the truth is far too precious to me to make me want to twist the facts to fit a just-so interpretation of an allegorical text. If I espoused creationism I would be dishonest, as I can see no way to make the evidence fit your view on creation. And I would rather be honest and wrong, than dishonest and right.
If you could show me how all the evidence supported your "theory" better than the ToE, I'd come around in a heartbeat. But to consciously ignore the truth would be an act of dishonesty toward myself, toward God, and toward my fellow humans. Did I say I didn't believe in miracles? I do. In fact, I may even have experienced a few myself. And by the way, how is the creation of a universe with all the laws and constants capable of producing life less miraculous than a six day creation? Come on, Buz. I never said I didn't believe in a miraculous Creation. I just think that Creation was much grander and more in line with the evidence than your theory of creation. Be careful not to conflate evolution with atheism or secularism. I don't think the ToE is compatible with a literal reading of the genesis account. But when you read Genesis as an inspired myth, there are no longer any contradictions. All of the core tenets of Genesis are compatible with evolution. Let's take a look at them:1. God created everything (compatible)
2. God chose the human species to be made "in his image" spiritually (compatible)
3. Humanity fails to live up to God's standards (compatible)
4. God promises to redeem humanity (compatible)None of these are contradicted by evolution (they all fall outside the realm of modern science). Harsh and judgmental words, Buz. I think, if you carefully re-read our posts, you'll find that you've misrepresented us gravely. Understanding that parts of the Bible were never meant to be taken literally does not reduce it to a pile of horseshit. I have the same respect for the Bible that you do, but I worship God, not the Bible. Hence Christian, not Biblian.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Before this thread goes the way of the dinosaurs; do you feel that your question has been properly answered in this thread?Have you reached a conclusion about Theistic Evolutionism, and whether you think it is an oxymoron or not. And do you see where we're coming from?Just curious.-Meldinoor

Hi Buz, Certainly. I believe in the God of the Bible. And I also "believe" in Electricity, Gravity, Heliocentrism and Evolution. I also believe in the existence of carrots. None of these beliefs conflict. Buzsaw, your misrepresentations are starting to annoy me. In my last post (did you even read it?) I wrote about how the central tenets of Genesis 1 and 2 don't conflict with the ToE. Do you really think someone who holds to these tenets fits your definition of a Deist? Please read my posts carefully before responding. What qualifies you to demote the Genesis record to mere history? Whatever the intents of the fallible (albeit perhaps inspired) human authors were, a simplistic literal reading of the account set forth in Genesis clearly contradicts the evidence we have of the past. Well, creation for one. I don't know how God created the universe (whether through "natural processes" operating "before" the Big Bang, or just ex nihilo), but I think it qualifies as a miraculous event. And the resurrection of course.
Beyond that, I won't deny the plausibility of most of the miracles in the Bible. I'm not qualified to judge which ones are mythical or historical, so in the absence of contrary evidence, I don't. I do believe that God is fully capable of performing any miracle described in the Bible. I just did.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi Buz, Are you sure the plants came first?-------------------------------- I haven't taken away a word. Just because I realize that parts of the Bible are not literal history, does not mean that I want to put the scissor to it. Au contraire. I'm overjoyed when my beliefs are faulted. I remember when I was in elementary school, my parents told me there was a troll living in the river next to my house (to keep me from playing in the water and drowning). Imagine if that belief had never been faulted. I'd still be afraid to go near running water.The same applies to other more recent beliefs as well, of course. Nope. In fact, if I rejected supernatural revelation I would have rejected the foundation of my belief in God. Nope. Clearly he cared enough about the world to redeem us and make the ultimate sacrifice.Once again you've grossly misrepresented my position. The "Buzsaw interpretation" of the written record isn't even compatible with itself, let alone the geological record. At least I don't have that problem. That's interesting. Last I checked, spirits were a bit on the undetectable side. But I'll keep a look out. Maybe next time I see a fatal car crash I'll keep an eye out for the victims' "spiritual image form" flying off to heaven. Evidently, created man was not perfect enough to resist the temptation of forbidden fruit. The record is not about primitive man, so your point is irrelevant. As history, Genesis 1-2 is mostly worthless. As a mythology it provides an insight into the beliefs and influences of the original writers. Not only does it communicate the aforementioned core tenets, a historian could actually use it to learn about the people who wrote it, and discover how it relates to the creation myths of other contemporary cultures. I never claimed that science is infallible, nor that God is an ignorant trickster. You're misrepresenting me again (one-trick pony?). Why are you getting so worked up when everybody else in this thread is keeping their cool? It ill-suits you. I never called you a "dummie". And I'm not trying to debunk you. I'm explaining why my belief is valid, I'm not trying to change yours. As for being a spokesperson, I'm sure you'll find that my opinions differ from the majority of other members, and I've even sparred occasionally with other "theistic-evolutionists". No. Perhaps when you've calmed down enough to be civil you can explain.Respectfully,-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.