Intelligent Evolution, Theistic Evolution

Intelligent Evolution: Better than Darwin, but…

Indeed Cockerell’s confidence is confirmed today more than ever. A new edition of Wallace book, Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, is out now, edited by science historian Michael Flannery. In his Foreword to the new book, William A. Dembski notes how current scholarship is demolishing the neo-Darwinian paradigm and confirming Wallace at almost every turn. Dembski says that staunch Darwinian defender “[Jerry] Coyne’s ‘one going theory’ may be steadily going away.”

When we look at that first generation of modern evolutionists, from Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley to John Tyndall and Herbert Spencer, only Wallace’s postulation of an “Overruling Intelligence” to explain the complexities of humanity and nature has stood the test of time. To understand his enduring presence in biology as well as natural theology, The World of Life is indispensable. Once his thought is placed in context and illuminated by the latest research and historiography, as it is in Intelligent Evolution, you’ll understand why Wallace remains evolution’s last man standing. Order your copy today.

A. R. Wallace Is Evolution’s Last Man Standing

Intelligent Evolution: How Alfred Russel Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism outlines Wallace’s recognition that random chance is incapable of generating (non-material) comprehensive order (i.e. information), and the interrelationships between the web of life require some sort of directing intelligence, be it God, Karma, or other major non-material force.

Wallace’s flavour of “directed evolution” is the most common form of evolutionary belief among Americans, who may well believe in deep time (i.e. “Old Earth”, not “Young Earth”), but don’t have the faith in random chance and its creative power that consistent Darwinians do.

This is also quite similar to the position of Intelligent Design theorists, who insist that the wast array of intelligent, irreducible structures around us require some sort of Intelligence to design or build… but generally assume the existence of Deep Time, which — in the West — was a creation of Darwinians, to give their strictly naturalistic creative random force enough time to create the living world: all supposedly done without reason, thought, or planning.

(Try building a car in such a manner. Something FAR more simple and easy to randomly generate than, say, an ant.

And if a car is obviously a creation of intelligence, then an ant is even more so!)

Theistic Evolution: Compromise with a Propped-Up Corpse

This volume brings together old-earth creationists like Wayne Grudem, Intelligent Design advocates like Stephen Meyer and J.P. Moreland, and young-earth creationists like Matti Leisola and John Currid (one exception to this is James M. Tour1, who is often identified with ID, though he prefers not to be—he is, however, a believing Christian who is skeptical of ‘macroevolution’). This is important because it shows that Christians from a wide range of scientific views hold common objections against the idea that we have evolved.

Certainly, biblical creationists understand that the timescale is just as important as the falsity of evolution, and there are moments when the inconsistency of those who hold to an ID or OEC viewpoint comes through. However, having such a unified assault against a viewpoint that is mutually concerning to all is a definite benefit to the Christian community.

New book offers comprehensive critique of theistic evolution by Lita Cosner

Put simply, claiming that “we evolved naturally” and claiming that “God made us” are incompatible positions. Choose one.

Is theistic evolution biblical, and therefore acceptable? No, it is not. It is one of the most dangerous compromises ever to befall the Bible believer. Compromise on the matter of origins will lead inevitably to compromise on other biblical matters. If the first chapter of the Bible is unreliable, why should we think the other chapters of the book are any different? Theistic evolution is an unscriptural position that should be rejected for the following reasons.

There is no theistic statement that shows theistic evolution to be true. […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because evolution implies atheism. […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because it cannot explain where man acquired his soul. […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because it cannot explain Eve. […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because the Bible states that Adam was the first man. […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because the Bible states that the heavens, the Earth, the seas, and their contents were created in six days. […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because the Bible states that God created a fully grown and fully developed man and woman within one day. […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because it logically denies the fall of man (Genesis 3). […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because the Bible teaches catastrophism; evolution teaches uniformitarianism. […]

Theistic evolution is wrong because it makes a liar out of Jesus Christ. […]

Theistic Evolution—Curse of the Church by Bert Thompson, Ph. D.

Intelligent Evolution — the assumption that some unnamed, perhaps unknowable Creative Force shaped the world (and especially the living world) that we are a part of — is the standard assumption of most pagans, most of the time.

Among the pagans, only race-driven Darwinians, seeking to escape any moral law above that of (the right sort of) Men, deny this.

Creation, Not Evolution

Christians know who this “unknown Creative Force” is the Lord God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. We know His name, and we know His goals, because he told us in His Word.

We even know His Laws, and His Redeemer, and His Holy Spirit, send into the followers of Jesus Christ, to guide them into greater and greater obedience to God’s Law-Word.

Intelligent Evolution is not nearly as blind, ignorant, irrational, or destructive as Unintelligent Evolution.

But, Intelligent Evolution — like Theistic Evolution — is fundamentally a failure.

Creation, not evolution, is the reality of our lives. People, created in the image of God, act in directed, goal-oriented ways.

Just as God does.

About Deep Time…

And finally, a word from Creation.com, who has put quite a lot of thought into this over the decades:

Still, we think Christians who believe in ‘billions of years’ are dangerously wrong: Did God create over billions of years? And why is it important?. We believe the Bible teaches a history of the world that contradicts the standard ‘billions of years’ history of the world, and that trying to marry ‘billions of years’ with the Bible fatally undermines the Gospel. Why? Two of the most important reasons are that Jesus taught a history of the world that conflicts with billions of years (Mark 10:6: ‘From the beginning of creation’—what did Jesus mean?), and that human death before human sin fatally undermines Jesus’ death and resurrection as the solution for sin and death (The good news without the bad news is no news at all!). I believe in a perfectly reliable Jesus who saves me from sin and death. Don’t you? If so, then you might want to reconsider whether ‘billions of years’ is a belief worth holding on to.

Equal airtime to deep time? by Shaun Doyle

And, even better…

You want us to give equal airtime to the other side of the debate at our events? Umm, no. Why? Well, I suggest trying to be fair: why not also ask long-agers to give us equal airtime in their media? Oh, wait; they’ll never do that in this climate! Why not? They think we’re idiots, psychos, and liars. Indeed, Dawkins won’t even debate a creationist precisely because he says that would give us equal airtime with him (World atheist convention rejects Australian creationist debate challenge). The fact is that neither side needs to give equal airtime to the other at their own events. If you don’t like the fact that in certain circles we get the final word (though a clear minority compared to the airtime ‘billions of years’ ideas get), might I suggest taking the beam out of your own eye before attending to the supposed speck in our own.

Equal airtime to deep time? by Shaun Doyle

I rather like the cut of Doyle’s jib.

These people do kneel…
…to God, and not to the Official Ideology of the Western Intellectual Class.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.