An Important Distinction in the Evolution Debate
On Hank’s recommendation, I listened to Al Mohler’s radio show on Theistic Evolution from 6/1/7. In this broadcast, Mohler maintained that belief in a creator and belief in evolution are mutually exclusive. He said that it is absolutely impossible to have it both ways. Mohler even went so far as to question the authenticity of Christian schools that dared to teach Theistic evolution. :”(In describing these institutions, he called them “so-called Christian schools.”)”:
The Error in reasoning
What is the basis of this exclusion? For Mohler, evolution is a natural and random process. Creation is a directed and guided event. The natural and random basis of evolution must exclude the guided and directed nature of creation. On the surface this is correct; however, this is really a false dilemma. Mohler is correct to say that naturalistic evolution is incompatible with creationism. However, he never really compares theistic evolution with creationism. He falsely equates theistic evolution with naturalistic evolution. He does this false equating by telling his listeners that if you really know what evolution is about, it is a naturalistic process. Well, naturalistic evolution is, but theists have modified the theory to have God using the physical processes to bring about his creation.
No naturalistic scientist thinks that theistic evolution is correct, just as no theistic evolutionist thinks that naturalistic evolution is correct. It is erroneous reasoning to equate the two, there is an important distinction in how each one operates – one is driven by the creative hand of God, the other is random mutations and natural selection.
The divisive demeanor
I can understand intellectual errors, I commit them all the time. However, after explaining to his audience that evolutionary theory cannot account for the existence and diversity of life on earth, Mohler does something I cannot understand – he pulls out the strawman card. To further insulate his listeners from hearing the arguments for theistic (and perhaps naturalistic) evolution, Mohler says that theistic evolution proponents “… lack the intellectual credibility and the intellectual honesty to admit that you can have one or the other, you can’t have both.” Not only is this a sweeping statement that Mohler cannot possibly know to be true, but it also hinders the debate that Christianity needs to have. It is such a divisive statement – one that is not based in love and hinders the unity of believers.
Can you deal with the arguments presented in the program, such as evolution destroys the need for the cross, even theistic evolution; and the man who said he had to have more faith to believe that the fossil record showed evidence of evolution for humanity than to just believe the Genesis creation account literally–unlike Luther and Augustine–all from a theistic evolutionary point-of-view?
You are changing the question – other problems that theistic evolution might have do not allow Mohler to misrepresent it as such. In those problems, he still assumes that Theistic Evolution = Naturalistic Evolution.
However, despite his misrepresentation, there are several important a priori problems with theistic evolution. I am already in the middle of working up a post on those.
I really wasn’t trying to avoid the question of the assumptions made by YEC, OEC, theistic evolution, etc., or anything, sorry. I was just curious about it since it appears that you are the closest to a theistic evolutionist here on the blog. I never trust anyone else’s description of the other side of an argument and how they respond (i.e.: a Calvinist describing Arminianism; pre-mil describing amil). Like you said, Mohler does equate theistic evolution with Darwinian/natural evolution, but I think he knows he is doing this.
Fair enough. I would not call myself a theistic evolutionist yet. I am somewhere between a Old-Earth Creationist and a Old Earth Theistic Evolutionist. I am not sure which one makes the most sense taking into account the natural sciences and the Bible.