Theistic Evolution

[Eran of Arcadia]

I should point out that it is not that I "don't like" a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but that I really feel it contradicts what science has shown. That is why I insist that theistic evolution (the topic of this thread, remember, it originally had nothing to do with the rest of the Bible) is a valid position to hold. And I base my acceptance of theistic evolution on what I feel is overwhelming support and evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, but that is the domain of Perf's thread, not mine.

 

[Elrohir]

I should point out that it is not that I "don't like" a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but that I really feel it contradicts what science has shown. That is why I insist that theistic evolution (the topic of this thread, remember, it originally had nothing to do with the rest of the Bible) is a valid position to hold. And I base my acceptance of theistic evolution on what I feel is overwhelming support and evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, but that is the domain of Perf's thread, not mine.

Alright then, if that's what you really think, then I don't see a major problem with it. I would be cautious, though, in making such revisions in theological or spiritual matters, though, and be sure you're changing your view because of what God wants you to do, not your own personal comfort. (We're not here on Earth to be comfortable)

Well, I managed to make an idiot out of myself, so I'll just bow out of this thread now.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Alright then, if that's what you really think, then I don't see a major problem with it. I would be cautious, though, in making such revisions in theological or spiritual matters, though, and be sure you're changing your view because of what God wants you to do, not your own personal comfort. (We're not here on Earth to be comfortable)

Well, I haven't been making revisions, except in the sense that as I get older and more mature I like to rethink my views, and as I learn more I see what is consistent with the world as I understand it and what isn't.

Well, I managed to make an idiot out of myself, so I'll just bow out of this thread now.

Not necessarily. You did come to see that theistic evolution is a valid viewpoint, didn't you?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, I managed to make an idiot out of myself, so I'll just bow out of this thread now.

Considering you seem to hold a similar viewpoint to my father, I think I gained insight into his position.

With regards to context: would you think that the authors of each chapter had a target audience in mind, and thus the message might be a little warped for all the other readers?

 

[Elrohir]

Well, I haven't been making revisions, except in the sense that as I get older and more mature I like to rethink my views, and as I learn more I see what is consistent with the world as I understand it and what isn't.

And that's fine; my concern is that many young people today (I know that sounds absurd from someone of my age) seem to be willing to compromise their faith just to fit in, or be a bit more comfortable in their surroundings - which isn't a good idea.

Not necessarily. You did come to see that theistic evolution is a valid viewpoint, didn't you?

I already thought that, though. A few months back, I actually came to a realization along those lines, when I met a pastor and his family - the pastor who married my parents, actually - and they were theistic evolutionists. That's mainly why I no longer debate the scientific issues behind it, because I don't care a great deal any longer. My issue is more with a certain philosophy (That I've outlined here a great many times) and less with this specific viewpoint.

 

[nihilistic]

Not necessarily. You did come to see that theistic evolution is a valid viewpoint, didn't you?

I was going to post something like this when this thread was still in its first page but I didn't think the time is right. Well, now it is:

I think that even though you are trying convert people who would otherwise be unreceptive to an idea (evolution) that is accepted in scientific circles as evident and essentially unchallenged truth, the method you chose is still incompatible to the ideal of science. Science isn't to be taken as a religion, the most important thing isn't neccesarily whether the subject is convinced in your conclusion. The reason a hypothesis is accepted is also very important too:

Alright then, if that's what you really think, then I don't see a major problem with it. I would be cautious, though, in making such revisions in theological or spiritual matters, though, and be sure you're changing your view because of what God wants you to do, not your own personal comfort. (We're not here on Earth to be comfortable)

The thing is that from a scientific point of view, if you already chose to believe, then it scarcely matters whether you believe in evolution or not. In the philosophy of science, blind adherence to scientific results, regardless how established and concretely confirmed the results are, is not warranted. One is not supposed to accept scientific results because some authority (whatever authority) states so; one is supposed to accept because real world experiments indicate so. One's confidence in a result should be directly porportional in one's confidence in its physical evidence. In contrast to Elrohir's reasons for accepting or not accepting scientific results, what this following quote demonstrates:

I should point out that it is not that I "don't like" a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but that I really feel it contradicts what science has shown.

is the "scientifically correct" reason to accept scientific results.

 

[Methos]

a day to the jews 5,000 years ago is the same length as a day to us now.

It's interesting that the Jews split their calendar between the days from Adam and the six days prior.

they certaintly had days. they didn't start and end at midnight, but they still lasted 24hrs

A couple of interesting quotes:

Source

The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam.

There are early Jewish sources that tell us that the Bible's calendar is in two-parts (even predating Leviticus Rabba which goes back almost 1500 years and says it explicitly). In the closing speech that Moses makes to the people, he says if you want to see the fingerprint of God in the universe, "consider the days of old, the years of the many generations" (Deut. 32:7) Nachmanides, in the name of Kabbalah, says, "Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts -- 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?' Because, 'Consider the days of old' is the Six Days of Genesis. 'The years of the many generations' is all the time from Adam forward."

Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.
But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? There is a purpose for the sun appearing only on Day Four, so that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

For those of you curious, I suggest reading the whole source. It’s really an interesting read. I just posted a few minor statements from the beginning of the article.

Note: Thanks go to ybbor and another poster who originally linked this article.

 

[ironduck]

It leaves you open to changing your views on literally anything, and simply because you no longer feel comfortable believing it.

That's what people who like to keep their minds open do. They allow for the possibility of changing them.

 

[Elrohir]

That's what people who like to keep their minds open do. They allow for the possibility of changing them.

That's taken out of context. My point wasn't that you should never change your mind - it was that you should change your mind for the right reasons only. (If the evidence supports it - not just because you don't feel like holding that position anymore.) If you really think a position you previously held was incorrect, then that's fine - but changing your mind on an interpetation of Scripture based simply upon comfort is not a good idea.

Anyway, I think we disagree, but I'm not sure how to state my position any clearer.

 

[ironduck]

That's taken out of context. My point wasn't that you should never change your mind - it was that you should change your mind for the right reasons only. (If the evidence supports it - not just because you don't feel like holding that position anymore.) If you really think a position you previously held was incorrect, then that's fine - but changing your mind on an interpetation of Scripture based simply upon comfort is not a good idea.

Anyway, I think we disagree, but I'm not sure how to state my position any clearer.

Fair enough. However, having seen how you dismiss all scientific evidence that opposes a 6000 year old earth I have a hard time seeing you support the position you state above.

 

[nihilistic]

That's taken out of context. My point wasn't that you should never change your mind - it was that you should change your mind for the right reasons only. (If the evidence supports it - not just because you don't feel like holding that position anymore.) If you really think a position you previously held was incorrect, then that's fine - but changing your mind on an interpetation of Scripture based simply upon comfort is not a good idea.

Anyway, I think we disagree, but I'm not sure how to state my position any clearer.

You can clarify what you mean by the word "evidence" there. Do you consider scripture to be evidence? If so, when scriptural evidence conflicts with physical evidence, which side wins?

 

[sanabas]

That's taken out of context. My point wasn't that you should never change your mind - it was that you should change your mind for the right reasons only. (If the evidence supports it - not just because you don't feel like holding that position anymore.) If you really think a position you previously held was incorrect, then that's fine - but changing your mind on an interpetation of Scripture based simply upon comfort is not a good idea.

Anyway, I think we disagree, but I'm not sure how to state my position any clearer.

My bold. I think it depends what the reasons were that you made up your mind in the first place. If your original view on interpratation of scripture was made simply upon comfort, i.e. this is how my school/church/family interprets scripture, and I don't want to argue with them, then why is changing it based on the same reasons any more of a problem?

 

[Shadylookin]

So it appears that Shady and Elrohir, arguing from opposite ends, think that theistic evolution is not a consistent view, and that the theory of evolution or the Bible must be completely false, with no room for overlap. This is still not a perspective I can accept.

it isn't a consistent viewpoint. unless of course you can show me where exactly god interviend in the evolutionary process?

and if you don't believe in creationism how can you believe in other impossible bunk that shows up in the bible?

I'm merely saying that if you don't take the begining of the bible at face value then none of the bible should be taken at face value. then since none of it can be taken at face value you should stop being a christian. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[GenMarshall]

they certaintly had days. they didn't start and end at midnight, but they still lasted 24hrs

Actualy you are wrong on that issue. Let me repost what I have posted that you have apperently not read as well as bold certan points

I am an Old Earth Creationist with the Day-Age Creationism variant. Old Earth, Day-Age Creationists hold that the six days that are reffered in Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but insted the hebrew word for "day" (yom) can be interperate in this context to mean a long period of time (thousands or millions of years) rather than a 24-hour day. The Genesis account is interpreted as an account of a progressive creation, summary of life's evolutionary history.

To get into the grits and gravy on the core of my argument is that "day" is not literaly 24 hours but rather a long length of time. It has been noted that God is not bound by time (As referenced in Psalms 90:4, and other books) so the term "day" can be very arbitrary. Also the word day has multiple meanings in Hebrew. The most correct definition is "Time, period (general)". If we also look more into the Bible,
examples of yom as a long period of time include Genesis 2:4, Genesis 30:14, Joshua 24:7, Proverbs 25:13, Isaiah 4:2, Zechariah 14:8 and references to "the day of the Lord.". Also the term "day" in Genesis is used before the sun and moon were created or appeared (Gen. 1:5, 14-15.) and thus "day" does not refer to an Earthly day because such a day does not yet exist. Also the abstract use of "day" as an indefinite period of time is found in other mythological and religious writings of the Middle East to deote the passage of cosmic benchmarks in addition to referring to earthly time marked by the sun or the moon. Moveing on, Early Hebrews were very scant in words referring to periods of time. Since there was no word in early Hebrew with the meaning "period" and "season". Therefore if the author ment long creation days, he would have used the word "yom". There are other passages such as Daniel 8:14-26 that use "evening and morning" and yet applies to long periods of time. Also, Genesis 2:4 uses the word "yom" to refer to the entire creation account, which is obviously not 24 hours long in total. Thus, the word "yom" could have more abstract meaning.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It isn't a consistent viewpoint. Unless of course you can show me where exactly God intervened in the evolutionary process?

I don't have to show exactly how God intervened in the process. All I need to know is that evolution happened, and that I believe in God.

And if you don't believe in creationism how can you believe in other impossible bunk that shows up in the Bible?

"Creationism" itself is not in the Bible. As I have said, I hold Genesis 1 to be true on a metaphorical or allegorical level. Also, I keep saying it, but "the Bible" is not a single book. As I said, I use a variety of methods to try and interpret each part of the Bible.

I'm merely saying that if you don't take the begining of the Bible at face value then none of the Bible should be taken at face value. then since none of it can be taken at face value you should stop being a Christian. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Except that, again, the Bible is not a single book. Just because one part is not true literally doesn't mean the whole thing is false. And I am not a Christian just because of the Bible.

On a side note, in the English language, it is proper to capitalize proper nouns, even if they refer to concepts in which you do not believe. Thus it is properly "God", "Jesus", "Christian", "Bible", etc.

 

[Shadylookin]

Actualy you are wrong on that issue. Let me repost what I have posted that you have apperently not read as well as bold certan points

no i am not wrong. hebrews and christians believed in a literal 6 day creation. If they didn't then evolutionary theory wouldn't have been a controversy and we would not be having this discussion right now. On the 7th day god rested, did god rest for 900,000 years? do christians/jews celebrate the 7th day(sabath) for 900,000 years? no they do not. Even if a day =a billion years, it would still not come out to the 13 billion years old the universe is. and the events the bible lists are not in order with how science explains them.

I don't have to show exactly how God intervened in the process. All I need to know is that evolution happened, and that I believe in God.

if god had a hand in the evolution where was it?

"Creationism" itself is not in the Bible. As I have said, I hold Genesis 1 to be true on a metaphorical or allegorical level. Also, I keep saying it, but "the Bible" is not a single book. As I said, I use a variety of methods to try and interpret each part of the Bible.

allegories and metaphores are not something to base core beliefs upon. and you still haven't answered the question how you can just accept the divinity of jesus and not 6 day creationism?

Except that, again, the Bible is not a single book. Just because one part is not true literally doesn't mean the whole thing is false. And I am not a Christian just because of the Bible.

it doesn't matter if its one book or 100 if it contains lies then it shouldn't be trusted until proven by an outside source. The bible is the only place that describes jesus's divinity.

On a side note, in the English language, it is proper to capitalize proper nouns, even if they refer to concepts in which you do not believe. Thus it is properly "God", "Jesus", "Christian", "Bible", etc.

on a side note spelling nazism is frowned upon.

 

[Dionysius]

no i am not wrong. hebrews and christians believed in a literal 6 day creation. If they didn't then evolutionary theory wouldn't have been a controversy and we would not be having this discussion right now.

well, some people werent willing to accept they were descended from
apes, moreso than thought the world was made in a week*.


*a rush job, no wonder its dreadful.

 

[JoeM]

I'm no fancy theologian, but if a story isn't true then it isn't true. If a story is fabricated fancy storytelling then why should we take other parts of it at face value?

I'm merely saying that if you don't take the begining of the bible at face value then none of the bible should be taken at face value.

This is a fallactic arguement. Prove this to be true and you'll win the debate.

You do need to define 'true' specifically, as truth isn't quite as simple as you might think, it would seem you mean literal truth.

We don't even need to use the Bible here, the principle is the important factor, I believe this is your proposition:

If the beginning of a given text is not true, it is consequent that none of it is true.



I don't think you can, but please try.

 

[nihilistic]

This is a fallactic arguement. Prove this to be true and you'll win the debate.

You do need to define 'true' specifically, as truth isn't quite as simple as you might think, it would seem you mean literal truth.

We don't even need to use the Bible here, the principle is the important factor, I believe this is your proposition:

If the beginning of a given text is not true, it is consequent that none of it is true.



I don't think you can, but please try.

His preposition indeed has merit. When you claim that his argument is akin to "If the beginning of a given text is not true, it is consequent that none of it is true", you forgot to note the nature of the text itself. If it were a scientific text and parts of it were found to be founded on unsound evidence, then other parts (presumably founded on evidence unaffected by the damaged parts) can still be valid. However, in the case of the Bible or any other religious text, where the only claim to truth of the text is a claim of inerrancy of the text by the text itself, then yes, one part of it being 'wrong' does challenge the inerrancy of the whole text and brings to question if other portions of the text are itself false or metaphoric.

 

[El_Machinae]

As well, like a math book, the later books seem to have been written upon the foundation of the earlier books. The later authors are using false premises when making their writings.

Frankly, I'm still bothered that the 'theme' of Genesis is false - that humans were superior 'back then'. People who falsely talk up the past tend to do so for motivational or team-building purposes, and should be frowned upon.