Was the above living cell due to random chance?
Webmaster Homepage

Thoughts on Theistic Evolution and Deism

by Lewis Loflin


In a recent discussion with an atheist I brought up the subject of theistic evolution and how it was compatible with deism. He said theistic evolution sounded like "theistic meteorology" and as a deist, I shouldn't accept it since deism is the belief in a non-intervening God. I basically said theistic evolution doesn't mean God is a cosmic tinkerer but rather may interfere with species evolution.

Incidentally, atheists can never tell me HOW Human chromosome #2 fused, and I don't know of any other fused chromosomes in nature. This may be an instance where God intervened. Also, what is your opinion of things like near death experiences?

Thanks, Jon

For starts, you are dealing with an atheist that already has their mind made up, and trying to reason with any form of mindless fundamentalism, be it religious or secular, is a waste of time.

See My Answer to a Secular Fundamentalist

There's also a lot of confusion between the terms intelligent design (also called creation science) versus theistic evolution. They are not the same thing. The public's poor understanding of science is also another problem.

In philosophy and by definition, science is concerned solely with materialism or material processes. Science can't even address questions of God or other spiritual matters any more than it can "test" why I like cats or one loves their spouse. Evolution, in general, is a valid scientific hypothesis. (Theory in science is not the general dictionary definition.)

See Introduction to the scientific method.

A theory in science is not absolute and can change as new knowledge becomes available. When we went from Newton to Einstein, science had to modify some of its most cherished beliefs, and I don't doubt things will change again. Most important is the scientific claim must be testable.

Evolution is a scientific fact, but the mechanism of how it works, how life began, and why humans are as we are is unknown. All attempts to answer this in the laboratory by "material" processes have failed. Laboratory "proof" of God can't even be tested. Recent claims that fossils found in meteorites have drawn such acclaim from atheism. They have zero scientific proof of this and no naturalistic mechanism to explain life on earth.

Now, "science" has come up with the idea of "dark matter" and "dark energy." This mysterious substance that composes up to 95 percent of the universe can be neither seen nor measured by scientific instrumentation. This has come up because many of their cosmic speculations are failing. Stars and galaxies are not acting as predicted. I'll write more on the implications of dark matter elsewhere.

Claims of cyanobacteria in a meteorite are unproven. Cyanobacteria live only in liquid water and are photosynthetic. They don't inhabit rocks. This is the same problem with idiotic creation scientists who claimed DNA in ancient fossils a few years ago proves a young earth because DNA is destroyed in 10,000 years.

The only problem was the claim was debunked, and nothing came of it. It was protein fragments and not DNA, most likely due to contamination of the sample. All of this is under debate, and differing sides clearly have an agenda. I will be clear, there is no definitive scientific evidence on any of the above claims. Sorry that is the way it is.

That is the clear difference between intelligent design (ID or creation science) and theistic evolution. ID claims there is evidence, while theistic evolution says there is no "test tube" evidence. Theistic evolution makes no claim to materialism as proof.

There is no doubt in my mind of forces beyond mere materialism, and the patterns in evolution show a force beyond randomness and mere material process. This force is called God, not to be confused with the often distorted Christian view. God is beyond Creation and not some Holy Spirit that inhabits matter. That philosophy is derived from the Greeks and didn't exist in Judaism.

If we accept the radical and anti-religious view of Deism as "the belief in a non-intervening God," it's clear that Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc., were not Deists. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this."

That is not the non-intervening and uncaring, absentee God of Voltaire, Aristotle, etc., so preferred by atheistic radical Deism. That is a God that's indeed interested in its Creation. (I don't particularly appreciate attributing gender to God.) But Jefferson himself was even clearer on this than his friend Ben Franklin: "We see, too evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the universe in its course and order."

I'm convinced of an afterlife for reasons I can't reveal and that God is active but not controlling, nor does God resort to magic. As for "near-death experiences," I believe they are more than possible, but like a divine revelation (also possible), they can't be proven and are open to speculation. When it comes to speculation, I leave that to the individual.

But just what is, for example, revelation? Is it a vision of a Burning Bush? Perhaps a dream? Or some annoying little idea one has in the back of their mind. I put reason first and have to go on from there. Closing one's mind is the least rational thing to do.

On Religion and the Fall of Civilization by Will Durant

An Overview of Manichaeism. Its influence on Protestantism through St. Augustine.


Gateway Pages for this website:
  » General Subjects
  » Archive 1   » Archive 2   » Archive 3
  » Archive 4   » Archive 5   » Archive 6
  » Archive 7   » Archive 8   » Archive 9