Darwinian evolution entails more than just the concept of one species changing into another over a long period of time. It involves a fully naturalistic process: natural selection working on random genetic mutations, genetic drift, etc. If Darwin’s theory of evolution is scientifically sound—meaning the naturalistic processes it invokes are fully capable of producing life and all of its many variegates—then adding God to the equation is superfluous. It would be like providing a scientific account of water boiling by saying water will boil at time t1 when X amount of heat is applied to Y amount of water at Z altitude, but then adding that fairies are also involved in the process. If naturalistic processes are adequate to explain why water boils, then not only is there no need for the fairy hypothesis, but there is no room for it. The same is true of Darwin’s theory of evolution. If the theory is scientifically sound, and naturalistic processes can fully account for all of life, then there is no need for, and no room to fit God into the picture. In other words, if Darwin’s theory is scientifically sound, positing a theistic form of evolution is superfluous.
One might say, however, that naturalistic processes are not fully adequate to account for all of life, and this is why one must add God to the equation to make it work. To make such a claim, however, is to admit that the scientific theory itself is not sound on its own. It requires some outside supernatural force to patch it up. Here’s the rub: If Darwin’s theory of evolution is not adequate in itself to explain the data, why should we feel compelled to fit theism into the picture? Let’s face it, the only reason a theist would postulate a theistic form of evolution is if he was convinced that the evidence for evolution was so compelling that intellectual honesty demands that he reconcile the scientific evidence with his theistic belief. But if Darwin’s theory of evolution lacks the evidence necessary to make it a sound scientific fact, what compelling reason is there to reconcile the theory with theism? If Darwin’s theory is not sound in itself, it doesn’t need God to shore it up.
For further reading see my article titled “Theistic Evolution: The Illegitimate Marriage of Theism and Evolution”
October 29, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Hi Jason, how are you defining theistic evolution? I would consider someone a believer in theistic evolution if he believes in God and believes in evolution.
A person can believe in evolution based on the scientific evidence and believe that the theory sufficiently explains the origin of species. The same person can believe in God for reasons that having nothing to do with the origin of species. He is not necessarily implying there is some weakness in the theory of evolution.
LikeLike
October 30, 2009 at 9:28 am
jayman777,
I define theistic evolution to mean God creates via an evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists disagree as to the degree of God’s involvement in the process (some would say He only started the process, others would say He started the process and intervenes occassionally, others would say He started the process and is highly involved moment-to-moment), but I don’t know of a single theistic evolutionist who thinks God has nothing to do with the evolutionary process. At the very least He would have to get the ball rolling, otherwise He is not the creator in any meaningful sense.
Jason
LikeLike
October 30, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Jason,
Theistic evolutionists think that they sound intelligent. What they don’t realize is that theistic evolution is considered no more tenable than creationism.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bart_klink/evolution.html
Far from a smart compromise, theistic evolution is completely incompatible with Christianity and completely incompatible with science, too.
Arthur
LikeLike
October 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Arthur,
I agree with you in part. Darwinists look at theistic evolution as being at best a superfluous addition of God to the evolutionary process (like adding fairies to explain why water boils), or at worst a total corruption of science. Darwin himself noted that adding God to the process of evolution is to miss the whole point of his theory. With that said, some Darwinists may be able to stomach some versions of theistic evolution, particularly those who think God’s only involvement was setting up the initial conditions at the Big Bang, for on that view, God has no direct involvement in evolution at all.
While I think theistic evolution is an oxymoron if “evolution” is understood in a Darwinian sense (for it would mean God creates through randomness), I think a Christian could consistently believe in both God and evolution in the sense that God’s creative process is achieved by making small changes in the natural/biological world over long periods of time. That’s not my take on the matter, however, because I’m not convinced from the scientific data that there’s good evidence for macroevolution or common descent, so I have no reason to believe God created that way. But that’s another matter.
Jason
LikeLike
November 2, 2009 at 7:26 am
Jason, forgive me, for i know this is off topic. But are you familiar with Dr. Michael Brown? I have just recently come across some of his literature and he appears to be very astute in his teachings, especially his understanding of the OT in light of the NT….What do you think?
LikeLike
November 2, 2009 at 12:02 pm
No, I can’t say I have heard of him.
Jason
LikeLike