Are Theistic Evolutionists Liberal? Are They Just Creationists in Disguise?

I found a blog today that says theistic evolutionists are "loonier than the evolution deniers."

Warning: I went ahead and linked to the blog. It does not have family-friendly language, especially at the end. If your faith is fragile, you might not want to go there either.

Anyway, I wrote a response there that I think will make a great blog post here:

Hmm. Most theistic evolutionists I know like being called creationists, and we don’t like young earthers having sole access to the term. Of course, the ones I know are very committed, radical Christians.

There’s an underlying assumption here I don’t agree with. I believe in God and Jesus because of a miraculous encounter with him that I was not seeking, and 28 years of experience has only propped up that belief. I didn’t choose to believe this way because of how I was raised. I had been a New Ager and atheist before I became a Christian.

I believe in evolution because there’s excellent scientific evidence for it.

To me, I think, "What’s that got to do with the Bible? Why even bring the Bible into it?"

The problem is that a lot of Christianity in the world is powerless and intellectual, based on tradition and nothing else. Those that are part of it don’t care that much about what the Bible says about how they live. (Where’s the giving up their possessions, denying worldly pleasures, and being as one with one another as the Father is with Jesus?). Thus, if they ignore God’s commands for their tradition, why should they expect God to answer their prayers?

Those that do live the way Christ taught have a very hard time not believing in Christ because so much happens for them. I was listening to a friend–a friend, someone I know, not rumor passed around–telling me about some of the healings they’ve seen when they were baptizing people in Mexico. He lives with the Indians, in a hand-built house without electricity, taking in single mothers and orphans, and sharing his life as well as his Gospel with the Indians.

I believe the stories because I’ve seen some of them myself. My nephew was healed of a year-long infection that had blinded one eye after prayer. The military had moved my sister to the Washington DC area so my nephew could be treated at the military hospital there. They didn’t know what to do, and my sister finally called us for prayer. We prayed, and his sight returned and the infection went away in less than a week.

Those are the dramatic stories. The fellowship with God, the restoration of relationships, the instant transformation of people’s lives that can be seen in their faces, etc., etc., etc. leaves those of us who are willing to take Christ seriously pretty much unable to disbelieve.

So when we find out there’s good scientific evidence for evolution, many of us think, "Hmm. I guess that’s how God created the world," and then we go on obeying Christ and living this powerful, glorious life from heaven we live.

We have a real God that does real things today. I don’t need a magic book as well. The Bible was written by people of our spiritual race. God doesn’t miraculously make them scientific phenoms or inerrant story tellers today, so why should I think he did that with Moses or Paul?

On the other hand, following the spiritual teachings of those who have the best relationship with God leads to having a similar relationship with God. God gave the Gospel to the apostles, not the science book, nor a miraculous ability to tell stories without any mental errors.

Scientific Hoaxes

Scientific hoaxes happen. Some scientists do indeed fake their discoveries.

A couple examples are given in this report by Discovery. Wherever you have people, you will have dishonesty, from unavoidable bias to outright chicanery.

Nebraska Man

Today, I saw a video discussion between Wendy Wright, a representative of Concerned Women for America, and Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist. In the discussion, Wendy Wright refers to the discovery of a tooth (actually two teeth) said by one scientist to belong to a primitive hominid, named hesperopithecus and known as "Nebraska Man."

The tooth turned out to belong to an extinct pig.

Ms. Wright refers to that discovery as "fraud." She says that science should not "censor out the evidence that goes against evolution."

There's only one problem with the accusation that science or scientists are fraudulent: It was science and scientists that determined that the teeth—two of them—belonged to a species of pig.

Piltdown Man

Unlike Nebrask Man, Piltdown Man was in fact a deliberate hoax. Again, however, it was scientists who believe in evolution, not those who oppose evolution, who exposed the hoax, which was in doubt from the very beginning.

Scientific Hoaxes in General

As I said, anywhere you have humans involved, especially if there are many of them, you will have dishonesty. One horrid Japanese scientist, for example (Shinichi Fujimura) set Japanese paleontology back 20 years by producing numerous artifacts that he planted himself.

I know of not one single case where a scientific hoax, an attempt to foist evolution on the public, has been exposed by those who oppose evolution. Oh, yes, there are invalid accusations made by anti-evolutionists, but not one valid exposed hoax.

Hoaxes are always exposed by legitimate scientists.

An example is archaeapteryx. Anti-evolutionists have taken numerous potshots at this important transitional fossil, but it stands as valid evidence of dinosaur to bird evolution. Recently, scientists moved it one step further from birds and closer to dinosaurs by doing intense analysis of growth patterns in archaeopteryx' bones. Again, though, this was not the revealing of a hoax, but the increase of knowledge through scientific study by scientists who are aware of the incontrovertible evidence for evolution.

Getting Off the Subject: Richard Dawkins

It's good when writing for the web, if you want to be found by search engines, to stay focused on a subject. But I don't want to mention Richard Dawkins in this post as though I agree with him.

I read Richard Dawkins very interesting book, The Blind Watchmaker. It has a terrific description of bat sonar in the first couple chapters.

If you want to be astounded by God's creation, read those chapters written by an atheist.

Dawkins makes a persuasive, powerful argument that bat sonar evolved. I don't care. The description of the incredible complexity and brilliance of bat sonar makes me believe in God all the more. I don't care how he did it. Bat sonar is the work of God.

Later in the book, however, Dawkins reasoning crumbles. He argues that the many strange occurrences that humans, and especially theist humans (believers in God), call miracles are simply coincidences. With 6 billion people on earth—now closer to 7 billion—there are going to be extremely unusual incidents, he says. Those are just chance.

My friends and I like to joke about that. I listened once to a tape by the brother of a friend of mine. This person was—and is—a backslidden believer. He taped himself making music one day, but when he went to play the tape back a horrid voice said his name and then said some things to him.

I listened to that tape. It was chilling.

Just one of those 1 in 6 billion chances, I guess. If a couple billion people tape music onto a cassette, surely at least one of them will get a spine-tingling voice saying their name and giving them a message.

That's a joke. I'm not serious.

There may be 6 billion people on earth, but I don't know them. I've only met a few thousand. But I've heard the tape, and just about every person I've ever met can tell an amazing story like that ... or a few amazing stories. I have plenty, some good and spiritual like answers to prayer, and several that are frightening.

I've been told by atheists—and one supposed believer—that I'm ignoring all the times those things didn't happen.

Um, okay. When I see a clear example of something being moved by meditation and attempted telekinesis, I need to take into account all the other attempted telekinetics? Why?

When I pray for a blind 2-year-old to be healed of an infection in his eyes, and I and the others with me have a powerful spiritual experience during the prayer, and the child is healed though he's had the infection for over a year, do I really need to take into account that there was a prayer study done on a church full of half-hearted Christians putting God to the test against Scriptural mandate?

I don't think so.

Sorry, Richard. I can't buy the "oh, well, it happened because there's 6 billion people on earth" argument.