[FourtySeven]

After almost 2 days, this post still goes ignored. I guess it's just too destructive to the "it's either my way, or you in hell" type of argument strict, literalist 6-day creationists seem to believe. I'm tired of being thought of as some kind of "second rate Christian" for rejecting such rigidity, however it's that same rigidity that keeps me from posting on these "crevo" threads for the most part. Your post struck me by its simple elegance however, so I feel led to comment further.

I think your post is worth repeating, so I will do so below, but first to clarify for others: this is the central argument of "theistic evolution" that so many seem to be uncomfortable with. Quite frankly, I don't know why the "Intelligent Design" crowd doesn't jump on "theistic evolution", because the two are almost the same thing. Both respect the beauty and complexity of nature. Both draw the reasonable inference from said beauty and complexity that there must be a hand behind creation. But the latter doesn't have a problem with taking the term "day" in Scripture to mean an undefined period of time, rather than a literal 24 hour day, whereas the former seems to need to hold onto such literalism. It's surprising to me; but I guess that's what we get with rigid dogmatics.

Someone mentioned somewhere that they "accept the Bible as literal, except where there is a clear distinction that Christ spoke in parables", but I guess such people are probably one eyed, one legged, one handed people (c.f. Matt 5:29, Matt 18:9, Mark 9:47) since the word "parable" is never mentioned in any of those verses, nor in the context of such verses.

"Yes, but it's *obvious* he's talking in parables there since it would be *unreasonable* to take those verses literally", is an anticipated common response.

So it's unreasonable to take those verses literally, but yet it's not unreasonable to take Genesis literally? I see.

To repeat your most excellent post as promised, with some emphasis added to point out the most important points IMO:

Well you would have to define “creationism” and “evolution.” The only reason some think those are incompatible is because they think evolution means evolution unaided by God.
It happens purely by chance. I am a physicist. To me the only thing chance by itself creates is chaos. That is the second law of thermodynamics. Some also define “CREATIONSM” as something that happens suddenly out of nothing. I reject both definitions. I believe God could have created the universe and man in a slow step by step process, or in other words, by evolution. To me it shows the patient, economical way of God working through nature. In other words, I don't believe in the ZAP theory.

I would simply add the clarification point for my own belief: I believe in creation ex nihilo, that is "something from nothing", in the beginning, however after God created the entire universe, with all its natural laws set in place, on the "first day", He then used these same laws to create the stars, and planets. And then the same laws which dictate natural processes to create plants, animals and then finally the physical form of man.

I also believe God is the "Creator", not just a one time creator, but a "Creator" Who is still Creating today. 6-day literalists (at least those on FR) seem to believe in a God that at ONE time "created" and then just said "Ok, I'm done, no more creating for Me, let's see if Man can figure this all out now", like some kind of vague god a theist would use. This is not the God of Christianity IMO, this is the god of a theist, a god that creatED, and then like some kind of game player sat back and now watches us like some kind of experiment in a bubble.

Once one realizes that this can't be the God of Christianity, that the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is not a god conducting some kind of experiment for his own amusement but a God that is *actively* creatING and thus *active* in our lives TODAY, then the concept of "theistic evolution" not only becomes tenable, but I'd dare say becomes quite appealing indeed.

One should also note in closing, such a concept takes care of the "problem" with "evolution" that 6-day literalists like to go back to from time to time, specifically, the near statistical impossibility of the general complexity of nature arising from pure chance. It's so statistically improbable, they say, that it becomes "impossible" to believe.

This is precisely the point. Even beyond all the scientific explanation for all these complex structures, if one wishes to ignore or brush them aside, one should at least consider this: all of the statistical tests done on the "complexity of the eye" or the "complexity of the flagellum" or any complex system in nature show that it is statistically improbable, not impossible but improbable that they arose from pure chance. From this, many conclude that it is "so improbable that it is essentially impossible".

While it's true that it's "so statistically improbable as to be impossible" if one believes pure chance guides/guided the process, this is precisely not what theistic evolution proposes. In fact, theistic evolution fills in the missing gap (no pun intended) in all of this: God, in His infinite capacity to do whatever He pleases, used the very laws of nature He created, to create the seemingly impossible, by doing the improbable.

So if anything may come from this post, let us move past that particular strawman. And no, I'm not saying God can't do the impossible, in case someone is thinking I'm saying that. If anyone is thinking I said that after reading everything I've written here, re-read it again, carefully. Any response that strives to be critical of what I've said but yet doesn't address the points I've made here in a rational way will be ignored.

[broncobilly]

Thanks for the post. I would make two comments, however. In a couple of places you used the word theist when I think you meant deist. It is the deist who believes God created the world and then left it alone. The second point was that I was being negative about creating something out of nothing in referring to the direct creation of man on “day” six, not something that happened at the beginning or the big bang, which is a mystery to me, as to all other physicists. I, like you, believe that the laws of nature are God's laws. He uses them as he sees fit. Still, built into quantum theory and the Heisenberg principle is the idea that there is an indeterminacy in nature. And there is plenty of room in that indeterminacy for God to be controlling and directing nature in new and creative ways.
I also believe that evolution shows the kindness and efficiency of God in that he has built into the system an automatic way for the species to maintain themselves in a world of changing environment.