There is definitely more than one type of "theistic evolutionist". There are many Christian theistic evolutionists, but there are also Jewish, muslim, pagan, polytheistic, pantheistic, and panentheistic ones, and probably many others. In this FAQ I will be answering questions that have been posed to me, personally. I am a Christian, and I will be answering these questions from a Christian perspective. The following "questions" are statements and questions that I have actually encountered from people.
Click on the question or statement to find my answer to it, or just scroll down through the list.
1. What is theistic evolution?
2. How can you call yourself a Christian and say that God didn't create anything?
3. You're believing in a God of the gaps!
4. You're going to go to hell and burn for all eternity unless you repent now!
5. If Adam and Eve weren't real and there was no Fall then why did Jesus even have to come?
6. Why don't you just believe what the Bible says?
7. God could have made the earth appear old!
8. So you're a fence sitter?
9. Why do you put your faith in evolution and not in God?
10. Is theistic evolution the same as the intelligent design movement?
Question: What is theistic evolution?
Answer: It is exactly the same as atheistic evolution on the scientific side of things. The only difference is that a theistic evolutionist is also a theist. That is, they believe in God, gods, spirits, or something else beyond the physical that would be called "supernatural." In my case, I am an evolutionist and a Christian. The theism and the evolution are not related to each other, that is, theistic evolution does not imply calling upon miracles for the creation of life. Rather, it claims that God uses evolution as a tool of creation, or works through the process.
Question: How can you call yourself a Christian and say that God didn't create anything?
Answer: That's a misunderstanding many people have. I believe in "Creation," just not "Creationism". The difference is in the "ISM". Creation just implies God's creating things. Creationism implies that he did it by magic and created plants and animals "as is", usually implying that God did it in one literal week. I believe that God can create by working through natural processes.
Most Christians will accept it when another Christian claims that God answered their prayers for a raise, or that God helped them find a good friend or spouse. I've also heard many Christians and even preachers declare that God can work through modern medicine to heal people. If God can work through these mechanistic processes, exerting his will in a situation, then why could he not also have the ability to use these same methods to create?
The Bible mentions times when God was said to be controlling the weather, however, we know from meteorology that angels don't create thunder by knocking down pins with bowling balls, and clouds don't form through divine fiat, but through the water cycle. If God can work through mechanisms to create thunderstorms and lightning, then God can work through natural processes to create life.
Question: You're believing in a God of the gaps!
Answer: God is not put into any gaps because I do not assign "God did it" as an explanation for any natural phenomena. I fully accept abiogenesis and evolution as well as all other natural processes science has described. I am not calling upon miracles here. While I believe that divine miracles can occur, such as Jesus' miracles, I do not use them to explain natural phenomena such as the diversity of life. My theism and my acceptance of science are two separate subjects. The label "theistic evolutionist" only denotes that I am not an atheist or agnostic.
Instead of placing God into any gaps, I believe that God was involved the entire time, working through natural processes.
Question: You're going to go to hell and burn for all eternity unless you repent now!
Answer: If God allows me to go to hell for believing what He said Himself in the rocks and in every cell of my body, then it would hardly be fair. According to the Bible salvation is by grace through faith.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God
It's the blood of Jesus that is supposed to set people free from sin, not acceptance or rejection of scientific theories.
John 3:16 states "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
I think "whosoever" includes me. Other versions usually say "whoever." "Whoever" also includes me.
Even Cynthia Carlson, a young earth creationist from ICR, said this:
-Cynthia Carlson (of the Institute for Creation Research)
Question: If Adam and Eve weren't real and there was no Fall then why did Jesus even have to come?
It's possible that there was a literal Adam and Eve. I need to do more research, both scientifically and Biblically, in order to fully answer this question.
Certainly it makes things more consistent Scripturally if there were a literal Adam and Eve.
In a few years I hope to have more of a detailed response to this question.
Even if there weren't though, Jesus would still have to come because I think people would have been sinful anyway sooner or later.
Question: Why don't you just believe what the Bible says?
Answer: I do believe the Bible. I simply don't believe in the same interpretation as a creationist would. I've had it said to me that there can be no "personal interpretations" of the Bible, and that I am making my own version of the Bible: "the Bible according to Wendy", by not taking the same viewpoint. However, everyone has their own understanding when they read the Bible, so that's really a hollow argument.
There are denominations that see Genesis as definitely literal, and other denominations that are more flexible. If the purely literalist interpretation was the correct one, but not literally true, then the Bible would be false, and I don't believe that it is. As a Christian I believe that the Bible is not false. If Genesis indicated a young earth, then science would have found facts that were in line with a young earth.
There is no evidence of a global flood, though a local one was more likely, and instead of life being organized into neat and tidy "kinds", we see nested hierarchies implying common descent.
Furthermore, if I took everything in the Bible literally, I'd have to believe that pi=3. 1 Kings 7:23 my source for that one. Arguments can be made of why this doesn't necessarily constitute a major error, but if you take it completely literally, then it does say pi=3.
1Ki 7:23 And he made a molten seal, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Pi is circumfrence/diameter. The circumfrence is 30 and the diameter is 10 here. This would mean Pi=3. However, Pi = 3.14... Now anyone can look at this and say that this 3 for 3.14 was a good estimate, however, taking an overly literal approach would render the passage impossible.
Question: God could have made the earth appear old!
First of all, the Bible does not say that the earth is young. Archbishop Ussher calculated a Biblical age for the earth of 6000 years based upon the genealogies in Genesis.
In order to believe this as true, he would have had to be taking it all literally, and would have had to ignore any possible gaps that might have been in those genealogies. Furthermore, he would have had to believe that humans could live for hundreds of years instead of this being attributed to a different method of reckoning or some other reason. These are all pretty big leaps, but some people believe in Archbishop Ussher's calculations as if they were straight from the Bible!
It's possible that the ages given were true, but I haven't discovered a way in which people could have lived that long yet, so I'm not sure if this was done through a different way of counting or not.
Another point I'd like to make is that if God made the earth appear old when it was really young, then he'd be a liar. He would be falsifying information. I believe that God gave us two revelations, one in Scripture, and one in Nature. If Nature is just one big lie, then God is a liar too. I believe that God can't lie, because He is so powerful that if he declares something, it becomes true. Therefore, since there is all this evidence for an old universe, an old earth, and evolution, I can't help but take God's word for it.
Geologists have found the earth to be old, and so I accept that they know how to do their jobs. Even young earth creationists often admit that the earth seems to be old, and that's why they resort to "appearance of age" aka "God is a liar" arguments.
Question: So you're a fence sitter?
Not at all! Evolution is part of science, and science studies the natural world. Religion deals with the spiritual, or supernatural world. My opinion on one should hardly affect my opinion on the other. You might as well ask me how I can like both apples and oranges.
Question: Why do you put your faith in evolution and not in God?
It takes no faith to accept scientific theories such as evolution because they have physical evidence to back them up. Atheists often say that faith is "Belief without evidence." This is only partially true. Faith is belief without physical evidence, but according to the Bible, it is "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). God would fall into this category. We have no physical evidence for God, so you must have faith to believe in Him. You need absolutely no faith to accept evolution, because there is a mountain of physical evidence to demonstrate that it is true.
I have faith to believe in God, I accept evolution based on the physical evidence.
Question: Is theistic evolution the same as the intelligent design movement?
Not at all! While design may be able to be inferred in nature, it can not be determined objectively. The ID movement is an attempt to undermine science education by attempting to say that natural processes are not sufficient to produce what we see in nature, i.e. supernatural miracles are required. The ID movement basically says "I don't know how this could have happened naturally, so God did it." This is an argument from incredulity, and puts God into gaps that will inevitably be filled one day. It also creates a false dichotomy between nature and God's hand. It's possible that God can work THROUGH a natural process!
Theistic evolution is different because while nature is believed to be created, natural processes are a sufficient tool for that creation.
There are some ID advocates, such as Behe, who claim to accept common descent, but they do not fully accept science or evolution.
Origins - Theistic Evolution
Karl Thornley's page describing his perspective on theistic evolution.
Theistic-evolution.com
Evolution: One Christian's Perspective
God and Evolution
A talk.origins page about theistic evolution.