Critique of Theistic Evolution

Regarding the creation debate, I suggest seven safety rails that Christians ought to stay within in order to avoid hurting themselves and others. I argue we all should: (1) recognize the need for charity; (2) value the Bible as special revelation; (3) value science as general revelation; (4) acknowledge the limitations of science; (5) acknowledge a difference between the “Word of God” and interpretation; (6) affirm teleology; and (7) acknowledge a difference between primary and secondary causes.

Here is an evaluation of how theistic evolution (also known as evolutionary creation) sits within these safety rails.

CRITIQUE OF THEISTIC EVOLUTION (C)

The Old Earth, Theistic Evolutionist view is very strong on points one, three five and seven but weak in points two, four and six. They are strong on recognizing the need for charity (point one). They do place much value in science as a valid means of knowing truth (point three). And they recognize the difference between primary and secondary causes—this really being foundational to their view.

However, of the three views, this view seems the riskiest to me. There is a sense that too much weight is given to science and that evolutionary theory is uncritically accepted without challenge. Some are quick to dehistoricize people like Adam and Eve and this comes at the expense of the Bible (point two). Macro-evolutionary theory seems to conflict with statements about God creating “in kinds” and that things have real essence and identity (point six). At times it’s unclear how transcendent God is in his guidance of evolution (point seven). And this view could quickly collapse into deism if God’s guidance is too far removed.