A Thoughtful Approach to Theistic Evolution Brian

The “book of nature” is profoundly important but can be misused. “The Book of Nature is a religious and philosophical concept originating in the Latin Middle Ages which views nature as a book to be read for knowledge and understanding.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature (3-25-2019) To what extent do you think this concept is consistent with scripture?
To what extent do the Bible and the book of nature contradict each other?
To what extent do conclusions drawn by scientists hold the same weight as the data they collect? “We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself; such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.”
Article XIX of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics<br>

Does rhetoric influence people to move toward theistic evolution? “A *theistic* scientist should be taken as seriously as an atheistic scientist.
“A *Creationist* scientist should be ignored, as he/she has ignored the available evidence - and cannot therefore be considered a scientist.”
(https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090308201634AAErc5k, 3-25-2019) What’s wrong with the second statement?<br>

Is Evolution a Scientific Slam-Dunk?<br>

Adaptation is erroneously extrapolated to macroevolution. What is the biggest claim of biological evolution?
Example: Over time, light-colored pocket mice living in the southwestern U.S. on dark terrain (from lava flows) are transformed into populations of black mice, proving evolution.
A mutation led to a black mouse, which is camouflaged.
Over time the black mice predominate.
This is called “microevolution.”
What does this prove?
Can adaptation (microevolution) lead to new species?
Does the existence of adaptation (microevolution) necessarily imply that macroevolution occurs?<br>

Common descent is supported by faulty analysis of molecular data. The data are sequences of DNA and proteins.
Example: A protein found in humans, sheep, and cattle is analyzed and, depending on the details of the analysis, results in two different phylogenetic trees.<br>

Common descent is supported by faulty analysis of molecular data. The data are sequences of DNA and proteins.
Different methods give different phylogenetic trees.
Trees can be produced from random gibberish.
Most real-world data yield invalid trees.
The validity of molecular trees is challenged by organismal biologists.
The level of objectivity in these analyses is questionable.<br>

Is Theistic Evolution Biblically Defensible?<br>

The thinking of theistic evolutionists is exemplified by BioLogos. BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
(https://biologos.org/, 5-25-2019) Referring to John 1:1-3, BioLogos means Bios (Greek life) through Logos (Greek word).
Here are some of the positions the organization was founded on:
“The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
“Evolution is responsible for the diversity/complexity of life.
“Evolution continued without God having to intervene.
“Humans share ‘a common ancestor with the great apes.’
“But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature.”
(Francis Collins, The Language of God, p. 200)<br>

The unnatural reading of Genesis 1-3 is due to flawed thinking. The historicity of the Bible is called into question.
“Many sacred texts do indeed carry the clear marks of eyewitness history, and as believers we must hold fast to those truths. Others, such as the stories of Job and Jonah, and of Adam and Eve, frankly do not carry the same historical ring.” (Francis Collins, The Language of God, p. 209)
The Bible is excessively interpreted in light of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) texts. John Walton, professor of OT, Wheaton College:
“Reading Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology”
The seven days describe “cosmic temple inauguration.”
Adam and Eve are archetypes, not necessarily historical.
The inerrancy of the Bible is sidestepped. In a discussion entitled “Biologos and Inerrancy?” the BioLogos moderator added this comment:
“Due to the high traffic on this thread and the controversial nature of the topic, we would like to clearly state that as an organization BioLogos takes no position on inerrancy.”<br>

The metanarrative of theistic evolution raises profoundly important but unnecessary questions. Is the Bible perspicuous?
“clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid”
Does the average person reading Genesis 1 conclude that it refers to cosmic temple inauguration and that Adam and Eve are archetypes?
Were Adam and Eve real people?
When did sin come into existence?
How can evolution and the image of God be reconciled?
What is the spiritual standing of Neanderthals?
Others<br>

What is the Role and Goal of BioLogos in the Context of the Current Evangelical Debate?<br>

People at BioLogos appear to believe that it is their God-given duty to influence the church to accept theistic evolution. Network of speakers
Online forums
Videos
Testimonies
Blogs
Conferences Various resources (free at their website) directed at target audiences:
K-12 homeschoolers, teachers, students, parents, school administrators
Pastors
Youth pastors and their youths
Campus Ministries
Small Groups<br>