Deistic evolution

Deistic evolution is a position in the origins debate which involves accepting the scientific evidence for evolution and age of the universe whilst advocating the view that a Deistic God created the universe but has not interfered since. The position is a counterpoint to theistic evolution and is endorsed by those who believe in Deism, and accept the scientific consensus on evolution. Various views on Deistic evolution:

In Christian Theology, by Millard J. Erickson, 2013, it is written: “deistic evolution is perhaps the best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic evolution.”^[1] He describes it as the belief that God “began the process of evolution, producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws of its development has followed.” Following the establishment of this process, this Creator then “withdrew from active involvement with the world, becoming, so to speak, Creator Emeritus.”^[1]

God is the Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter, deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution, for it denies that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing creative process. Deistic evolution has little difficulty with the scientific data. There is a definite conflict, however, between deism's view of an absentee God and the biblical picture of a God who has been involved in a whole series of creative acts. In particular, both Genesis accounts of the origin of human beings indicate that God definitely and distinctly willed and acted to bring them into existence. In addition, deistic evolution conflicts with the scriptural doctrine of providence, according to which God is personally and intimately concerned with and involved in what is going on in the specific events within his entire creation.^[1]

The psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams,^[2] in his book Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life (2010), states:

Deistic evolutionists hold that God created the universe and the laws of nature... but that once the ball was rolling, he ceased to intervene in the day-today running of the world or in the course of natural law. God was like the ether after Einstein: he no longer had any role to play in the universe.^[3]

Stewart-Williams further writes that deistic evolution strips God of what most religious believers consider central. Any deistic God is not around for prayers, miracles, or to intervene in people's lives, and that because of this, it is unpopular with monotheistic religions.^[4]

Deistic Evolution adheres to the concept of some form of God, but denies any personal God. A recent defender of deistic evolution was Michael Anthony Corey, author of the book Back to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution (1994).

Some scholars have written that Charles Darwin was an advocate of deistic evolution.^[5]

Deistic evolution is similarly the operative idea in Pandeism, which has been counted amongst the handful of spiritual beliefs which "are compatible with modern science."^{[citation needed]} and specifically wherein it is noted that "pandeistic belief systems .... [present] the inclusion of God as the ever unfolding expression of a complex universe with an identifiable beginning but no teleological direction necessarily present."^[6]

^ ^a ^b ^c Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2013, page 398.
^ "Homepage for Dr Steve Stewart-Williams". Archived from the original on 2015-02-04. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
^ Steve Stewart-Williams Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life 2010 p. 70
^ Steve Stewart-Williams, p. 71
^ Christian C. Young, Mark A. Largent Evolution and Creationism: A Documentary and Reference Guide 2007, p. xiii
^ Bruner, Michael S.; Davenport, John; Norwine, Jim (2013). "An Evolving Worldview: Culture-Shift in University Students". In Norwine, Jim (ed.). A World After Climate Change and Culture-Shift. Springer. p. 46. ISBN 978-9400773523. Some of us think that postmodernity represents a similar change of dominant worldviews, one which could turn out to be just as singular as modernity by being a stunning amalgam of James and Weber. If we are correct, then the changed attitudes, assumptions, and values might work together to change ways of life which in turn transform our geographies of mind and being, that is, both the actual physical landscapes and the mental valuescapes we inhabit. One increasingly common outcome of this ongoing transformation, itself a symptom perhaps of post-industrial secular societies, is the movement away from self-denial toward a denial of the supernatural. This development promises to fundamentally alter future geographies of mind and being by shifting the locus of causality from an exalted Godhead to the domain of Nature. How this Nature is ultimately defined has broad repercussions for the, at times, artificial distinction between religious and secular worldviews. For Levine (2011), "secularism is a positive, not a negative, condition, not a denial of the world of spirit and of religion, but an affirmation of the world we're living in now ... such a world is capable of bringing us to the condition of 'fullness' that religion has always promised" (Levine quoted in Wood 2011). For others, this "fullness" is present in more religious-oriented pantheistic or pandeistic belief systems with, in the latter case, the inclusion of God as the ever unfolding expression of a complex universe with an identifiable beginning but no teleological direction necessarily present.

[Christian_Theology-1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2013, page 398.

[2] "Homepage for Dr Steve Stewart-Williams". Archived from the original on 2015-02-04. Retrieved 2015-07-17.

[3] Steve Stewart-Williams Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life 2010 p. 70

[4] Steve Stewart-Williams, p. 71

[5] Christian C. Young, Mark A. Largent Evolution and Creationism: A Documentary and Reference Guide 2007, p. xiii

[Bruner-6] Bruner, Michael S.; Davenport, John; Norwine, Jim (2013). "An Evolving Worldview: Culture-Shift in University Students". In Norwine, Jim (ed.). A World After Climate Change and Culture-Shift. Springer. p. 46. ISBN 978-9400773523. Some of us think that postmodernity represents a similar change of dominant worldviews, one which could turn out to be just as singular as modernity by being a stunning amalgam of James and Weber. If we are correct, then the changed attitudes, assumptions, and values might work together to change ways of life which in turn transform our geographies of mind and being, that is, both the actual physical landscapes and the mental valuescapes we inhabit. One increasingly common outcome of this ongoing transformation, itself a symptom perhaps of post-industrial secular societies, is the movement away from self-denial toward a denial of the supernatural. This development promises to fundamentally alter future geographies of mind and being by shifting the locus of causality from an exalted Godhead to the domain of Nature. How this Nature is ultimately defined has broad repercussions for the, at times, artificial distinction between religious and secular worldviews. For Levine (2011), "secularism is a positive, not a negative, condition, not a denial of the world of spirit and of religion, but an affirmation of the world we're living in now ... such a world is capable of bringing us to the condition of 'fullness' that religion has always promised" (Levine quoted in Wood 2011). For others, this "fullness" is present in more religious-oriented pantheistic or pandeistic belief systems with, in the latter case, the inclusion of God as the ever unfolding expression of a complex universe with an identifiable beginning but no teleological direction necessarily present.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]