EVOLUTIONARY CREATION

Follow the Author

---

For example, the miraculous resurrection of Jesus shows us that He has conquered death so He can offer us eternal life. The next section asks a question: If we believe that miracles occur in salvation history, should we be open to the possibility that miracles also occurred in formative history? Which universe is more impressive? But miracles are also impressive and glorifying and they eliminate the need for total self-assembly. There might be an essential tension between operation and assembly, and perhaps a universe with optimal operation cannot also be self-assembling.

Should engineers try to design a self-assembling car? Walter Bradley asks whether a car designed to change its own spark plugs would be a good design, or if this unnecessary requirement would hinder the car's effectiveness in other, more important ways. Maybe God enjoys interacting with his creation, like a gardener caring for a garden by preparing the soil, planting seeds, watering, pulling weeds, and harvesting.

Or, in a musical analogy we can ask whether God designed nature so during formative history it would be like a normal piano requiring input by a performer or a player piano without a keyboard so it can only play automatic music or an electronic keyboard with automatic music available but also letting a performer play. In our search for truth, when we ask "Is the universe self-assembling? Some people want the universe to be self-assembling, while others prefer miracles during assembly. At one extreme there is a feeling not based on the Bible that a God who is worthy will never do miracles because he will "play by the rules he established" and will not "interfere with the nature he designed.

Between these extremes is a range of views that seem consistent with Bible-based Christian theism.

Featured Authors

Two theological arguments are outlined above: Both arguments are worthy of careful consideration. But neither seems sufficiently compelling to negate what we learn by a scientific study of nature, using evidence evaluated by logic, in our efforts to determine if the universe actually is capable of total self-assembly by natural process. And if we believe that miracles occur in salvation history, then we should be open to the possibility that miracles also occurred in formative history.

Instead of thinking it is necessary to assume a naturalistic formative history, scientists who are Judeo-Christian theists should feel free to follow the evidence-and-logic wherever it leads, in a liberating open-minded approach to searching for truth. Is methodological naturalism theologically acceptable? During formative history, did God use both modes of action or only natural process?

The evidence and logic of science can help us in our efforts to determine which phenomena were produced by each mode of action, to learn whether everything could be produced by divinely designed natural process as claimed in theistic evolution or whether as claimed in old-earth creation occasional miraculous-appearing divine action was also used.

But either way, whether God created with or without miracles, the process and results of creation are awesomely impressive and glorifying for God.

Customers who bought this item also bought

With our current state of knowledge it seems impossible to know with certainty, so instead of criticizing either way as being "less worthy" it seems wise to adopt a humble attitude. Each of us should admit, like Job, that "surely I speak of things I do not understand, things too wonderful for me to know" and decide that either way — whether it happened with two modes of action or one — God's plan for design-and-creation was wonderful and is worthy of our praise.

Therefore, a proponent of old-earth creation or young-earth creation should be willing to praise God for designing a universe that was totally self-assembling by natural process, with no formative miracles, in case this is how He did it.

Similarly, a proponent of evolutionary creation should be willing to praise God for using both modes of creative action, for cleverly designing nature to produce most phenomena without miracles, and for powerfully doing miracles when natural process was not sufficient, since this might be the way He did it. We can be humble while we explain — using arguments based on theology and science, based on our interpretations of scripture and nature — why we think our "if" is more plausible than the "if" proposed by other views.

For example, Haarsma and Gray acknowledge that "the jury is still out," but the main goal of their chapter, and of the preceding chapter by Gray, is to explain the scientific support for a natural production of self-organization and increasing complexity. And they close their chapter by claiming that "it seems most promising — both scientifically and theologically — to study biological complexity expecting to find more evidence that God designed into it the ability to self-organize.

We should respect each other, but respect does not require agreement. You can respect someone and their views, while vigorously criticizing their views. If we are searching for truth, we should avoid the intellectual laziness of postmodern relativism, because for most questions about origins a skillful use of evidence and logic can be a valuable source of knowledge, leading to improved understanding. For dedicated Christians who care for both people and ideas, the goal is an appropriate humility , and this requires a balance between two desirable qualities — confidence which if overdeveloped can become rude arrogance and humility which can become timid relativism — that are in tension.

But most of us tend to err in the direction of overconfidence in our own theories, so trying to develop the virtue of modest humility will usually have a beneficial effect. Theistic evolution just extends this general acceptance into other areas. Scientific evidence for a design of the universe favors all theistic theories, including theistic evolution, over similar nontheistic theories.

When scientists discover that natural properties are "just right" for important natural processes — such as the production of sunshine due to the size of nuclear and gravitational forces, mass-energy conversions, A theory of theistic evolution proposes that God designed nature so it would naturally produce not just stars in astronomical evolution but also life in chemical evolution and complex life in biological evolution.

As explained earlier in criticizing a bad argument a nontheistic interpretation of neo-Darwinism assumes that biological evolution was driven by only chance and selection, which were not guided by God. But theistic evolution can disagree with this extra-scientific claim which is the conventional assumption of mainstream biology by proposing a designing of natural process by God, and also a guiding of natural process by God. Could unguided evolution achieve the goals of God? A theory of evolutionary creation proposes that God designed a universe which would naturally produce complex physical and biological structures like stars and life so total evolution astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological would occur by natural process.

But does it claim that natural process was materially sufficient to produce physical and biological complexity or theologically sufficient to achieve the goals of God? When thinking about this question, we need to ask: Did God want to produce exactly what occurred in nature's history, or would something slightly different, or very different, have been satisfactory?

If the history of natural evolution was allowed to "run freely with unguided natural process" a hundred times, would the outcomes be divergent producing different results or convergent with similar results? Even if evolutionary history was more convergent than most scientists think, it seems that some guidance would be necessary to achieve the goals of God, unless these goals were extremely flexible. This guidance, which would produce a desired natural result instead of another natural result, would seem especially useful in creating humans with the characteristics physical, mental, emotional, ethical, spiritual and environment planetary, ecological, What makes it theistic?

What is "theistic" about theistic evolution? In what ways does theistic evolution with God actively involved differ from deistic evolution with God setting nature in motion and then just "letting it run"?

Were the creative actions of God restricted to an initial designing and continual sustaining of the universe, or was there also theistic guidance during formative history? Would some guidance be necessary to achieve the goals of God? What types and amounts of guidance are proposed, by various scientists, in their theories of theistic evolution? Some advocates of theistic evolution try to avoid deism by saying "God actively sustains the universe," which is true but is not sufficiently theistic because since sustaining-TA does not guide history it does not help us understand how God could achieve his "goals for the creation" unless, as described above, these goals were very imprecise and flexible.

On the other hand, some evolutionary creationists are more explicit about guidance. The following statements are from an excellent book, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. The editor, Keith Miller, says: Some theologians see God's action exercised through determining the indeterminacies of natural processes God is as much in control of the outcome of the process as he is if he had zapped things into existence without any process. Obviously, this is not the random, undirected evolution of atheistic naturalists. Can God or does God control anything?

If God does exert total control or can but does not , why do bad things happen — due to nature as in a hurricane or the actions of humans — in a universe operated by a God who is all-powerful and loving? How does human freedom and responsibility fit into the picture? Why isn't God more obvious? God sometimes does spectacular miracles in salvation history, so in formative history why is there any evidence — like a general increase of biocomplexity and biodiversity, with features that give an appearance of common descent, and long delays e. Perhaps the universe was designed so all creation would occur by natural process.

Or maybe "miracles in formative history" would be recognized if scientific theories were not being constructed in a community biased by its methodological assumption that everything has occurred by natural process. Or maybe a "veiling of miracles" during the creation process is one aspect of a state of uncertainty intended by God, who seems to prefer a balance of evidence, with enough logical reasons to either believe or disbelieve, so a person's heart and will can make the decision.

Main navigation

Each person can use evidence historical, personal, and scientific to estimate the plausibility of various worldviews, but there is no logically rigorous proof for any worldview. Therefore, we have freedom to choose what we really want, and an opportunity to develop the "living by faith" character that is highly valued by God, with a trust in God serving as the foundation for all thoughts and actions in daily living.

If a person's aesthetic preference that an "elegant God" would not interfere with nature becomes theological belief that God never interferes with nature , it will be easier for this person to let their worldview drift from theism into deism, with a passive God who is not theistically active who never performs miracles and doesn't even guide the flow of natural events in formative history, in biblical salvation history, or in our everyday lives.

This isn't a necessary result of theistic evolution, especially when its proponents emphasize the actions of God both natural and miraculous in salvation history, but sometimes these actions are not emphasized. Having faith in natural-appearing theistic action is especially important for everyday living. When our prayers include a "request for action" we are usually asking for action that is natural-appearing. God also works through miracles, but does this much less often. The letters of Paul in Romans Theistic evolution can be associated with theology that, in other ways, is either strong or weak.

In this page, I'm defending only "theistic evolution theology" that in other ways — such as believing that God does miracles during salvation history — is theologically strong. A person with weak theistic beliefs will probably adopt theistic evolution, but this is not logically equivalent to a claim that a person who adopts theistic evolution has weak theistic beliefs.

Similarly, an atheist must believe in naturalistic evolution, so "if atheism then evolution" is true, but a reversed claim "if evolution then atheism" is not true because some evolutionists are not atheists. Is evolutionary creation a theologically acceptable position? Does the Bible provide evidence against an all-natural formative history, or should we say "the Bible says God created, but does not explicitly specify a method of creation"? Is a long process of old-earth evolution or old-earth creation too inefficient and cruel to be the creation method used by God?

In what ways does it affect the ideas and actions of individuals and societies?

Why should Christians consider evolutionary creation?

Even if Christians disagree about some aspects of theistic evolution, we are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we can join together in joyously proclaiming, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.

Jesus said, "As I have loved you, so you must love one another. If you have love for one another, then everyone will know that you are my disciples. What is the scientific support for evolutions? I think the scientific evidence for an old earth and old universe is overwhelmingly strong.

Why should Christians consider evolutionary creation?

Proponents of theistic evolution claim that evidence for evolution E is also very strong. Is their claim justified? What is the scientific support for evolution? This is a sloppy question that cannot be properly answered, because it is imprecise. Instead, we should ask about four or more natural evolutions: Regarding these questions, here are my current general conclusions: I think the scientific support is very strong for astronomical E and geological E, but very weak for chemical E.

For biological evolution, the support varies for each of four sub-questions, about micro-E very strong , fossil-E very strong , descent-E strong , and Total Macro-E questionable. Some reasons for my conclusions are in pages about astronomical evolution evidence for a design of nature, and simple reactions producing complexity , geological evolution carefully examining the details of flood geology and asking "How old is the earth? What does " God of the gaps " mean?

Sometimes, a theory proposing a nature gap is ridiculed by calling it a "God of the gaps" theory. This is confusing because " God of the gaps " can imply a criticism of four different views, and the intended meaning is rarely clarified. Second, considering evolutionary creation aids the church in its gospel mission, including discipling young Christians in their faith. An anti-evolution attitude can harm Christian young people by presenting them with a false choice between pursuing science or holding to faith.

Similarly, a hostile attitude towards evolution can hinder evangelism if seekers hear that they must reject evolutionary science before they can follow Christ. On the other hand, studying evolution as a God-ordained process helps Christians refute the argument that science leads to an atheistic worldview. Since evolutionary science is integral to modern biology, the church must grapple with the evidence and implications of evolution in order to be an effective witness in the public square.

Navigation menu

Informed Christian voices are critical for leading bioethical discussions on issues such as stem cells and the use of DNA information in caring for the unborn, the aged, and the disabled. Science is a way of loving God with our minds.

When we seek to understand the created order through science we bear witness to the Creator and glorify him through our work. We as Christians cannot claim that the world belongs to God and at the same time distrust the systematic study of it. We are living in a time when the big questions about faith and science can be both fascinating and challenging.

Biologos provides us with a "safe space" to explore the complexities in the confidence that all truth--including that which comes from the serious study of "the book of nature"-- is God's truth. Join our email list to see the latest blogs, events and more. BioLogos Voices A speakers bureau featuring top scholars and communicators in the BioLogos community. Recent Articles Entering the Sixth Extinction: Evolution, Diversity and the Stewardship of Life.

Theistic evolution

December 17, Richard Lindroth. Human Embryo Gene Editing: December 12, Jim Stump. Teaching Evolution in the 21st Century. December 10, Anna Van Dordrecht. Forum Homeschool Forum Open Forum. Classical Christian orthodoxy as expressed in the Creeds begins at the beginning: One implication is that the best way of finding out about nature is to look at nature. Science and the Bible:

• Il Broker! Ecco come cambia il modo di fare brokeraggio assicurativo (Italian Edition)
• Letter to the living from Dead City - A Happy Endings Story
• Human Health and Forests: A Global Overview of Issues, Practice and Policy (People and Plants International Conservation)
• Dog-Ma, The Zen Of Slobber
• Nachtgeflüster 1. Der gefährliche Verehrer (Die Nachtgeflüster-Serie) (German Edition)