"God-olution." What's Wrong with This Word?"

What's wrong with the word "God-olution," besides the fact that I obviously just made it up? Well, quite a bit, I think. 

An old friend just replied with interest in my previous blog post on evolution, creationism, and the Nye-Ham debate. He adheres to a view of origins called theistic evolution, and asked for my opinion on it.

First I'll admit that there are many intelligent, God-honoring Christians who are excellent scientists yet also theistic evolutionists. Among the most notable is Francis Collins, who directed the monumentally important and tedious Human Genome Project. 

Theistic evolution basically asserts that God somehow and for some reason used the processes of evolution generally promoted by mainstream science to bring about complex life, including humans. But theistic evolution gets snagged by at least a couple of logical conundrums that cannot be cleared away, at least in my thinking. 

On the one hand, there's the logic from mainstream evolutionary biologists themselves, the majority of whom dislike it.  Most of them insist that evolutionary theory stay strongly entrenched in the thinking of scientific materialism (also called "naturalism") that, by definition, can in no way allow "a divine foot in the door." Otherwise, we open things up to the chaotic intellectual mess (according to them) of "God of the Gaps" thinking. 

So, according to theistic evolution, biological changes that appear to be random mutations to the scientist are slight, intentional modifications by the deity to bring the organism along toward the ideal form He has in mind. When evolutionary leaps have occurred that science can't seem to explain, we just say God stuck His nose in the process, here and there from time to time, just to make sure His marvelous machine of nature stays on track toward His ultimate goals. 

If this were true, according to most materialists, it would logically be a science stopper. Instead, all science must operate solely within the understanding of purely natural processes and laws that preclude any consideration of divine intentions or actions. It's best, most of them say, to keep religious (or even potentially theological) considerations outside of one's scientific method. Therefore, whenever you say "God did it!" to a materialist, he'll ask you if you want him to just throw off his smock, go home, and play Candy Crush the rest of his life. Most of them operate from a scientific philosophy, and arguably a broader worldview, that makes it impossible to mix any theism in with science.

On the other hand, theistic evolution is equally problematic from the direction of biblical logic. Even as a Christian, I think I can almost comprehend theistic evolution as technically plausible, yet it's still specious beyond rescue. Despite a history of many opposing interpretations of this and that in Scripture, biblical theists have always agreed on at least this biblical teaching: that God is in sovereign control of His own creative acts. Whether one is a "young earth" or "old earth" creationist, almost all agree that He is a God of order, intentionality, deliberation, purposive design. Despite our frail understanding of God and his sovereign acts, we affirm the Bible's teaching, beginning from Genesis 1:1 and onward, that there is absolutely nothing capricious in His own nature. Yet basic tenets of evolutionary science are random mutation advanced and preserved by blind, purposeless selection by nature alone. Randomness is a primary fabric explicitly woven into evolutionary science ever since Darwin. Any such "mindless" process contradicts the message that the Bible (and general revelation; a separate discussion) portrays about the Mindful, Deliberate Creator of Life. 

An example that might help one consider the workings of theistic evolution hypothetically could be to somehow picture God spinning a metaphysical roulette wheel for every potential event that would actualize in nature. (Because, remember, chance is a necessary ingredient of evolutionary theory.) It seems He would have to perpetually spin it and spin it till just the right interactionary events come up in successive order for Him to then hold in place. Well, this seems like a really confusing and unfathomably inefficient means for God to fulfill His creative goals. Of course one could say, "He's God! He's sovereignly free to be as inefficient as He likes. Furthermore, His ways are not our ways!"

Yes, but let's prefer the simplest answer when it begs us to and not let theistic evolution make us try to swallow a camel unnecessarily. Okham's Razor should make Christian theists cut right to the understanding that God simply speaks His plans into existence by the power of His command. More importantly, a necessarily simple interpretation of Scripture cuts right to it. Such as, "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He established the heavens" (Proverbs 3:19). It's intuitive to  reflect on creative power as a product of Wisdom and Understanding. But Randomness and Chance? Not a chance. 

There's my take on this deep subject. I admit I've read very little in recent years on theistic evolutionary arguments. So, as always, if I've missed something important, misrepresented, or got something flat wrong, please respond and we'll keep this conversation going.