What About Intelligent Design? – Part 7 – Is Theistic Evolution a Valid Compromise? « Minds 2 Mentes
Here at SN we are divided about the existence of God, so it falls on the atheist for portions of this argument: we concur with Minds 2 Mentes (M2M) that “the Theistic Evolution stance is a cop-out that has been created to try to conform to the world” but not because “no compromise is possible” rather it is an attempt to hold onto faith in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution and against portions of creation myths.
I do enjoy the series from M2M because they (apologies if the author was not both M2M contributors) offer up unusual and challenging arguments. This is refreshing for someone that has been slogging through the same tired arguments for the past 20 years. Here I will just focus on part 7 and explain why their disputation of Theistic Evolution fails to persuade.
M2M’s first argument is that the two (evolution and creationism) cannot co-exist because they need not co-exist. Strict evolutionists do not need a creator and creationists do not need a natural selection mechanism. M2M then confuses a polar system to be a binary one: one where permutations do not exist. The Theistic Evolutionists’ argument is already more advanced, as they begin with a criticism of such a stark either/or ordering of the debate.
M2M’s next argument is the more interesting one, especially since it focuses on the conception of death. M2M’s flaw, however, is that they focus on death when their textual evidence focuses on human death. For M2M death did not exist until The Fall, whereas natural selection requires death to occur. If there was no death before The Fall then their argument makes complete sense, but that is not the case. It is entirely consistent with scripture to say death existed among non-humans, after all none of the other creatures were fashioned in God’s image. This claim also seems to have biblical support as the Garden of Eden had non-humans, which were under human stewardship. I have always interpreted and heard interpretations (to support carnivorous activities) that these creatures were edible. Death therefore existed before The Fall, allowing evolution to occur in some senses and still allowing some forms of the creation myth.
Rereading their post again but with a recognition of M2M’s erroneous elision of ‘human’ from ‘human death’ rehabilitates the very theory they try to dispute. They attempt to correct a contradiction that would unravel the theory of salvation. My method (placing ‘human’ in front of ‘death’ in their post) would also make the same repair but without calling evolutionists stupid (they do it nicely though.)
From Ian Frazier, whenever he writes anything I make an effort to read it: