# Darwinian Syncretism



## Scott (Mar 28, 2006)

Would it be accurate to say that Christian theistic evolution is a form of syncretism between Christianity and materialism? The idea is that Christianity is borrowing the atheist / materialst creation story.


----------



## caddy (Mar 28, 2006)

Yes, that's a good way to put it. People like Kenneth Miller, who propose to believe in God and hold to evolution at the same time have done as much. Read Miller ( http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/) and its hard to see God as we know Him in the Bible.

I know Warfield entertained ideas of the evolutionary model as well however. Its hard to say you can't be "orthodox" without it, but I find it hard. Maybe I'm narrow-minded.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by caddy]

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by caddy]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 28, 2006)

*I know Warfield entertained ideas of the evolutionary model as well however. Its hard to say you can't be "orthodox" without it, but I find it hard. Maybe I'm narrow-minded.
*

simply to post some accessible information on the topic, not to debate the issue.

on warfield see:
Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought 
by David N. Livingstone 
Amazon.com: Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought: Books: David N. Livingstone
a must read in the discussion.

for an excellent introduction to the breath of theistic evolution see:
Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence
Ted Peters and Marinez Hewlett
they discuss BB Warfield as well, essentially using him as the rightmost anchor.
Amazon.com: Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence: Books: Ted Peters,Martinez Hewlett

for the OPC trial on the issue see:
http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/index.html
note, that Dr Gray's orthodoxy was not questioned, it was the conflict with the standards that was the issue. he was never accused of using TofE to modify any essential doctrine, in particular the Federal Headship.

for perhaps the best online defense under the name evolutionary creationism see:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

perhaps the best aphorism on the topic is:
evolution is not atheism.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Scott (Mar 28, 2006)

"perhaps the best aphorism on the topic is: evolution is not atheism."

That is true, but it is atheism's creation story.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "perhaps the best aphorism on the topic is: evolution is not atheism."
> 
> That is true, but it is atheism's creation story.



abusus non tollit usum
Wrong use does not preclude proper use.

if atheists extend science past it's lawful sphere into the domain of metaphysics, that is not an argument against the science but against the scientism-the extension. the fight with Dawkins, SJG, Dennett, Wilson and company is not in the domain of science but in the domain of metaphysics and how people create worldviews from their favorite theories. 

as the Red Queen commanded:
lope off their heads, 
attack the metaphysics that misuses science.
do not attack their feet, for science is not made of clay, but of steel and it
will dull and break weapons designed to give metaphysical battle...
That is P.Johnson's error, to cut vertically trying to separate off a materialism/naturalism at each successive level(data, theories, values,metaphysics, worldview), when the issue is a horizontally blow between science and the values unreasonably extended from it.

remembering M.Twain's dictium:
figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Scott (Mar 28, 2006)

A bus does what?


----------



## tellville (Mar 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> for perhaps the best online defense under the name evolutionary creationism see:
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm



I've met Denis Lamoureux in person as I am from Edmonton, Alberta as well. He is probably the number one defender of Evolutionary Creationism in the world (He hates the term Theistic Evolution because he says as a Christian, the "Creationism" should be the primary focus, not the Evolution"). 

Also on that site he has an online audio lecture with slides that give his testimony and a brief introduction of Evolutionary Creationism. 

I saw him give a lecture at my Baptist university. He began the lecture by pointing to the big cross we have in the front of this particular lecture hall. He said that the cross is what is most important and that we should never forget the cross. The whole reason we are here is because of the cross. He was very passionate in his statement. 

He is hated at the University of Alberta by the Biology department because he is unequivocally a Christian and slams atheistic evolutionary models. He is quite a smart man, having three doctorates, one in Theology (with emphasis on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 I believe), Evolutionary Biology, and Dentistry. 

He has no desire to compromise with Science over his Christian faith. He is alienated from both camps for his strong stance on Christianity and his strong stance on Evolutionary Creationism. He just honestly does not think Genesis and other relevant passages teach a 6 day creation. His classic statement is: The purpose of the Bible is to teach us that God is the Creator, and not how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created.

Anyway, lest people think I am an Evolutionary Creationist, I'm not. But I find it hard to knock him out of the realm of Orthodoxy given his personal conviction to the Christian faith. I'm not sure if he is Reformed or not.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by tellville]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 28, 2006)

*I've met Denis Lamoureux in person as I am from Edmonton, Alberta as well.*

thank you very much. i have posted a link to his webpage perhaps more than a 1000 times online, it's on the header of my website and i often recommend it as i did here..... no kidding. it is a unique and valuable contribution to the online community. his passion is evident through his writing. your description of him confirms what his words teach....

thank you very much.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tellville_
> He has no desire to compromise with Science over his Christian faith. He is alienated from both camps for his strong stance on Christianity and his strong stance on Evolutionary Creationism. He just honestly does not think Genesis and other relevant passages teach a 6 day creation. His classic statement is: The purpose of the Bible is to teach us that God is the Creator, and not how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created.
> 
> [Edited on 3-28-2006 by tellville]



I think that the quoted paragraph is very very interesting. I am a six day creationist and believe that no other prevailing view can stand up exegetically without someone viewing the text while importing modern concepts.

The thing that I find most interesting is his statement on not compromising. One basically has three options in analyzing the situation.

1)He is correct, and he is not compromising; which then means that the church previous to Darwin and co were compromising with the science and philosophy of their day, when doing their exegesis.

2)He is correct, and he is not compromising; the earlier church was wrong but did not compromise either. Exegesis has just changed so much that previously, our unstanding of the Bible could easily just be faulty.

3)He is wrong, and is compromising (consciously or subconsciously).

Also I believe that unless one is willing to entertain geocentrism, it really does not make too much sense to rattle the cage of theistic evolution/framework hypothesis. Because if one doesn't it is hard to defend that the church had it wrong for a long time, was correct but it just cant be wrong now.

CT


----------



## Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I am not suggesting that theistic evolutionists are full-blown heretics, just syncretists who mix the materialist's creation story with the Christian creation story.


----------

