Changes

'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:

'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:

*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]].<ref>[http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name)</ref>

*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]].<ref>[http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name)</ref>

*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention.

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:

In most forms, it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref><ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>  

In most forms, it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref><ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>  

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primate ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] referred in an address<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm</ref> to the Pontifical Academy of Science to "theories of evolution" that could be "more than a hypothesis" which led many to conclude that evolution and Catholicism are compatible.  However, the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church as explained by several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Humani Generis''[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html] (promulgated by the Church in 1950) fall short of accepting any form of evolutionism in official Church teaching.  The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that God created all things ''ex nihilo'' (out of nothing) by His Word.  The Catholic Church teaches that evolutionary theories are only acceptable if they admit the providence of God in creation (through evolution or otherwise) and that God is the origin of all creation.  The Catholic Church also specifies that regardless of the origin of man, God endowed them at a definite point with an immortal soul made in God's image.  However, many liberal theologians have advanced a heretical form of theistic evolutionism known as Modernism, which was condemned by the Church in several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Pascendi Dominici Gregis [http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10PASCE.HTM]'' promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1907.  That God is the origin and designer of Creation and a criticism of extreme Darwinism remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church.<ref>When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html]</ref>  

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] referred in an address<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm</ref> to the Pontifical Academy of Science to "theories of evolution" that could be "more than a hypothesis" which led many to conclude that evolution and Catholicism are compatible.  However, the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Church as explained by several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Humani Generis''[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html] (promulgated by the Church in 1950) falls short of accepting any form of evolutionism in official Church teaching.  The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that God created all things ''ex nihilo'' (out of nothing) by His Word.  The Catholic Church teaches that evolutionary theories are only acceptable if they admit the providence of God in creation (through evolution or otherwise) and that God is the origin of all creation.  The Catholic Church also specifies that regardless of the origin of man, God endowed them at a definite point with an immortal soul made in God's image.  However, many liberal theologians have advanced a heretical form of theistic evolutionism known as Modernism, which was condemned by the Church in several Papal Encyclicals, most notably ''Pascendi Dominici Gregis [http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10PASCE.HTM]'' promulgated by Pope St. Pius X in 1907.  That God is the origin and designer of Creation, and criticism of extreme Darwinism, remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church.<ref>When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html]</ref>  

Director of the [[National Institutes of Health]], [[Francis Collins]], a former atheist and now an evangelical Christian, founded [[BioLogos|The Biologos Foundation]] to promote theistic evolution, as well as "the harmony between science and biblical faith".<ref>{{cite book|editor=Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher I. Reese, Michael G. Strauss|title=Dictionary of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of Christian Faith and Contemporary Science|date=25 April 2017|publisher=Zondervan|language=English|isbn=9780310496069|page=119}}</ref>

Director of the [[National Institutes of Health]], [[Francis Collins]], a former atheist and now an evangelical Christian, founded [[BioLogos|The Biologos Foundation]] to promote theistic evolution, as well as "the harmony between science and biblical faith".<ref>{{cite book|editor=Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher I. Reese, Michael G. Strauss|title=Dictionary of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of Christian Faith and Contemporary Science|date=25 April 2017|publisher=Zondervan|language=English|isbn=9780310496069|page=119}}</ref>

{{cquote|All [[Christianity|Christians]], [[creationism|creationists]] included, can find much to like in ''[[The Language of God]]''. Collins’ personal story is fascinating. His intention in writing the book is excellent: to spread the word that faith is reasonable. Like Collins, we want to see an end to the widespread false impression that faith and science are incompatible. However, we must sadly conclude that most of Collins’ arguments—his means to the laudable ends that we all want to further—are going down the wrong path. Instead of creating a harmony between faith and science, theistic evolution subsumes the authority of [[Bible|Scripture]] to the authority of the latest scientific paper, leaving philosophical confusion in its wake.<ref>https://creation.com/harmony-and-discord-a-review-of-francis-collins-book-the-language-of-god</ref>}}

{{cquote|All [[Christianity|Christians]], [[creationism|creationists]] included, can find much to like in ''[[The Language of God]]''. Collins’ personal story is fascinating. His intention in writing the book is excellent: to spread the word that faith is reasonable. Like Collins, we want to see an end to the widespread false impression that faith and science are incompatible. However, we must sadly conclude that most of Collins’ arguments—his means to the laudable ends that we all want to further—are going down the wrong path. Instead of creating a harmony between faith and science, theistic evolution subsumes the authority of [[Bible|Scripture]] to the authority of the latest scientific paper, leaving philosophical confusion in its wake.<ref>https://creation.com/harmony-and-discord-a-review-of-francis-collins-book-the-language-of-god</ref>}}

Jay Richards and his [[intelligent design]] colleagues thoroughly dismantled [[Francis Collins]] scientific evidence for Darwinism (supposed junk DNA), discredited by recent advances in understanding the genome.<ref>God and Evolution: The Problem with Theistic Evolution (accessed 08/31/2017)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WHB_kMasMs]</ref> Collins himself has renounced this also.<ref>Marvin Olasky, "Admission of Function", ''World Magazine'', July 9, 2016.(accessed 08/31/2017)[http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/collins_redaction.pdf]</ref>

Jay Richards and his [[intelligent design]] colleagues thoroughly dismantled [[Francis Collins]] scientific evidence for Darwinism (supposed junk DNA), discredited by recent advances in understanding the genome.<ref>God and Evolution: The Problem with Theistic Evolution (accessed 08/31/2017)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WHB_kMasMs]</ref> and Collins himself has renounced this also.<ref>Marvin Olasky, "Admission of Function", ''World Magazine'', July 9, 2016.(accessed 08/31/2017)[http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/collins_redaction.pdf]</ref>

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means. Watch their recent "The Problem with Theistic Evolution."<ref>[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/ The Problem with Theistic Evolution (crossway.org/TheisticEvolution)]</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means. Watch their recent "The Problem with Theistic Evolution."<ref>[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/ The Problem with Theistic Evolution (crossway.org/TheisticEvolution)]</ref>