Does this really have any meaning?

[TimV]

Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

Is it like saying adultery as a process needs to be distinguished from adultery as a philosophy?

Or theft as a process as a process needs to be distinguished from theft as a philosophy?

Or baptismal regeneration as a process needs to be distinguished from baptismal regeneration as a philosophy?

I'm trying to give the benefit of doubt, but I can't seem to pin down any real meaning.

 

[LawrenceU]

Is the author trying to point out the difference between micro and macro evolution?

 

[TimV]

No, it's what Waltke said was the best apologetic when dealing with creation. His fear is that we will look like cultists of we don't embrace the theory of evolution as a process, i.e. what actually happened. But we can't embrace it as a philosophy of life. Tim Keller said the same thing in chapter 6 of his Knowing God, and when it came up in Bible study a few months ago I didn't understand it.

 

[Caroline]

Well, it's hard to say without any context. But perhaps the author is theistic evolutionist. I have noticed that things are presented very black-and-white by many six-day-creationist churches. Like, "If you believe in evolution, then you also believe that handicapped children should be murdered by the principle of Survival of the Fittest." So perhaps its an attempt to differentiate. Belief in evolution itself is a belief that certain events took place. Philosophical conjectures from that are another matter.

 

[JBaldwin]

I want to know what he means by evolution as a philosophy. If his talking about the idea that things change and grow and develop, that's totally different than the survival of the fittest idea.

 

[TimV]

Here's the link

Knox Seminary and Bruce Waltke: Can a Theistic Evolutionist Believe in Biblical Inerrancy?

 

[LawrenceU]

I want to know what he means by evolution as a philosophy. If his talking about the idea that things change and grow and develop, that's totally different than the survival of the fittest idea.

Thanks, that is what I was trying to get at.

 

[jwithnell]

Regardless of what someone thinks of evolution as a process (and I don't have much patience for theistic evolution), as a philosophy it has proven itself to be quite evil and stands in opposition to Christian thought. It spawned Marx and Freud among others and is the foundation for our modern materialistic -- this world is all there is -- frame of reference. If we do not believe "In the beginning God," we cannot believe "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with and and was God."

As a process, it has its own problems, not the least of which is the physical reality of Adam and hence the grace that there could be a federal head of the human race.

 

[Blue Tick]

Kind of hard to give an accurate assessment without the full context, but I'll try.

Evolution as a process is a "reality". Thus evolution is true just observe the "process".

Philosophy of evolution is the logical implication of "living out" a evolutionary world view.

The distinction of evolution as a process is "observational" contrasted with the philosophy of evolution which is epistemological. E.g., someone who believes in evolution will philosophically "live out" what they know about themselves. Thus they will become more consistent with their belief system.

 

[Caroline]

Kind of hard to give an accurate assessment without the full context, but I'll try.

Evolution as a process is a "reality". Thus evolution is true just observe the "process".

Philosophy of evolution is the logical implication of "living out" a evolutionary world view.

The distinction of evolution as a process is "observational" contrasted with the philosophy of evolution which is epistemological. E.g., someone who believes in evolution will philosophically "live out" what they know about themselves. Thus they will become more consistent with their belief system.

True, but we would have to carefully define 'what they know about themselves'. Let's not forget that C.S. Lewis and B.B. Warfield were both theistic evolutionists. Machen flirted with it also, although I am not certain the extent to which he was convinced of it.

In regard to the physical reality of Adam and his federal headship of the human race, the theistic evolutionist in question says:

Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.
Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

I'm not arguing that the individual is necessarily correct (I actually don't really care one way or the other on the theistic evolution vs six-day creation debate, as they both assume that God made the world, and the only difference is the process that God used). But let's be fair to this guy. It may be argued by some that he is not fully consistent with his views, or whatever. But he is correct at least in this point--believing in evolution as a historical fact does not preclude believing that Adam is a historical figure. He is proof that it is possible to hold both positions, because he holds them.

 

[Curt]

Tim, it depends on what the meaning of meaning is.

 

[TimV]

Curt, that's what I got out of it.

But he is correct at least in this point--believing in evolution as a historical fact does not preclude believing that Adam is a historical figure. He is proof that it is possible to hold both positions, because he holds them.

The idea is that God took an ape like couple and gave them a soul, thus creating the first "humans".

 

[Caroline]

The idea is that God took an ape like couple and gave them a soul, thus creating the first "humans".

Yes, I believe that is what theistic evolutionists generally hold to. Perhaps it takes too high a view of man, however. By the six-day creationist view, God made man directly from dirt. Whereas theistic evolutionists hold to a more round-about view--the dirt went through some changes and improvements before it became man.

 

[TimV]

Gotta love the OPC standards

5. That when God created man, it was God’s inbreathing that constituted man a living creature,
99 and thus God did not impress His image upon some pre-existing living creature.

http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

 

[Caroline]

Gotta love the OPC standards

5. That when God created man, it was God’s inbreathing that constituted man a living creature,
99 and thus God did not impress His image upon some pre-existing living creature.

http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

Well, it depends on how one defines 'living'. Genesis makes it abundantly clear that there were living beings before Adam became a 'living soul'. And, if one contends that all things came from the elements, it may very well be said that animals (being a collection of elements without a soul) are 'dust'. Again, I'm not necessarily even defending the view. Just I do think the argument gets vastly over-simplified and often contains a lot of human pride. "I didn't come from a monkey!" as though coming from dirt was a big step up. Or on the other side, "Why isn't it obvious that Genesis 1 is metaphor?" when, in fact, no one makes that argument about further chapters in Genesis, so at least, one would have to define where metaphor drops off and history picks up and why it would begin with metaphor and not remain so. I think if emotions are kept out of it and we look at what the Bible says, a case can be made on both sides. Obviously, one side is wrong and the other is right, but much of the argument boils down to mud-slinging.