Opinion of believing in Theistic Evolution

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Option 3.

(I am closest to progressive creationism. I accept the scientific age of the earth, but do not believe macroevolution is possible without direct intervention by God.)

[RI]

Option 2.

[Blue3]

I believe it. God does his work through science.

[DC Al Fine]

I believe it, but I think creationists/secularists have a point, when they argue that it throws a wrench in the works of Christianity. Too many people (myself included) use theistic evolution as a cop out, without properly reconciling the problems it brings up.

[Beet]

Yes, this is what I believe.

[RFayette]

I believe it, but I think creationists/secularists have a point, when they argue that it throws a wrench in the works of Christianity. Too many people (myself included) use theistic evolution as a cop out, without properly reconciling the problems it brings up.

I agree, but every worldview is going to have weak points.  Young-Earth creationism is very satisfying from a hermeneutical point of view, but it presents us a lot of problems when we actually start making observations of the natural world (which ironically begins to create theological problems of its own rite, concerning deception).  Secularism has problems regarding the a complete inability to explain the incredible circumstances surrounding the life and ministry of Jesus, not to mention the sheer magnitude of the miracle of creation and the development to life.  Compared to those, it seems like theistic evolutionists are in a pretty good spot.

[Bismarck]

Option 3. Better than not believing in evolution.

[Young Conservative]

Option 3. I agree with it somewhat...I'm somewhere between Creationist and Theistic Evolution.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Option 3. Better than not believing in evolution.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Option 3. I agree with it somewhat...I'm somewhere between Creationist and Theistic Evolution.

This is actually Mrs. JCL's view as a scientist (she's a geologist) while I'm Young Earth.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Option 3. Better than not believing in evolution.

[RINO Tom]

I've seen a few different definitions, but it really depends on how "strict" of one we're using.  If theistic evolution merely means believing that the tools and conditions for evolution were an eventual product of God's creation of the physical Universe, then I'd consider myself a part of this belief system ... but I certainly disavow "Intelligent Design."

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Option 3. I am an atheist, but I fully respect any Christian who embraces the overwhelming body of evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution and simply happens to believe that the process was guided by God.

[°Leprechaun]

When it comes to evolution, Science and Religion are mutually exclusive.
This is nothing new, folks.

It all goes back to Epicurus and the problem of evil.
If a creator existed, the world wouldn't be so screwed up.
If a creator existed, such a person/being/whatever would be responsible
for this screwed up evil world. Read your Bible: Genesis 6:6 for example.

[°Leprechaun]

I believe it, but I think creationists/secularists have a point, when they argue that it throws a wrench in the works of Christianity. Too many people (myself included) use theistic evolution as a cop out, without properly reconciling the problems it brings up.

Yes, good point.

By the way, before you dismiss us skeptics, don't forget one of the Apostles was a skeptic.
Remember Doubting Thomas? He had to have proof. How are atheist-scientists any different?
Whatever one believes or not, belief isn't as important as character. If someone isn't any evil person, that's what's really important. However, if someone believes in being a good person, why wouldn't that person believe that rational thinking and skeptical thinking are important as well?

[°Leprechaun]

Oh, I hope that I'm not coming on too strong. As much as I may sound like an intolerant anti-theist, I don't like to sound that way. I don't have to agree with someone to respect them. If someone calls themselves a Christian and at the same time "walks the walk", they are worthy of respect. Especially if that person is a pacifist.

[TJ in Oregon]

There is sometimes a tendency among Christians to think that because God can do the impossible, God can only do things that are impossible. It's sort of like Descartes's view of the mind: that there is a sort-of ghost in the machine, a physical reality with a spiritual reality in addition beside it, an exception to it. This sort of view of world leads us to an almost deist understanding of God wherein He only intervenes on rare occasion as a miracle and otherwise lets things go. In contrast, in the classical view God sustains all things in existence and continually causes the natural laws and processes. From the former view, theistic evolution appears as a compromise but from the latter, not terribly shocking.

[RINO Tom]

I believe it, but I think creationists/secularists have a point, when they argue that it throws a wrench in the works of Christianity. Too many people (myself included) use theistic evolution as a cop out, without properly reconciling the problems it brings up.

Yes, good point.

By the way, before you dismiss us skeptics, don't forget one of the Apostles was a skeptic.
Remember Doubting Thomas? He had to have proof. How are atheist-scientists any different?
Whatever one believes or not, belief isn't as important as character. If someone isn't any evil person, that's what's really important. However, if someone believes in being a good person, why wouldn't that person believe that rational thinking and skeptical thinking are important as well?

I think your more open-minded Christians are going to say this is a good point and that they aren't overly different.  However, according to the Bible, Thomas' doubt was misplaced, no?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The trouble is (as this is my actual subject) there is no real need for God in evolution. If we can find reasonable hypotheses for all biological phenomena arising by natural processes, then God is an unneccesary aspect of the process.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The latter word in this term is empirically true while the former is empirically unknowable (far as I can tell,  unless some Silicon Valley whiz kid invents an actual time machine app which we can use to go back to 1st century Palestine, for example), so I think there comes a point when we have to admit that we can't really prove many (most?) of the things which we may or may not believe, and be OK with that.

[Figueira]

OK I guess. I prefer this to people who actually believe that Genesis really happened or whatever.

[libertpaulian]

OK I guess. I prefer this to people who actually believe that Genesis really happened or whatever.

Well, the Judaic aspects of Genesis really happened, from a Christian perspective anyway.

[muon2]

As a scientist and a Christian I've come to see natural laws as a direct reflection of God, but not in the sense of intelligent design. Discovering new features and relationships in natural laws is part of the discernment into the nature of God. My inspiration has long come from Genesis 2:19-20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially Adam is directed to be a scientist, specifically a taxonomist. By extension man needn't limit himself to zoological taxonomy, but should give names to all of creation in order to better name the animals. And in identifying what is similar and different among things in creation it is natural that one would seek the laws of nature that define those similarities and differences. In the context of the OP, the current system of evolutionary clades is consistent with this view.

[TDAS04]

Option 2.

[pbrower2a]

Theristic creation to the extent of God establishing the laws by which the Universe operates? Fine.

Evolution is largely the result of random events. The great object striking in Yucatan made us possible, as mammals larger than cats could have never coexisted with the dinosaurs that then died out. A little environmental adaptation might have allowed octopuses to go onto land and become the most intelligent creatures on Earth.