Theistic Evolution

[classical_hero]

Actually, Genesis is in perfect harmony with evolution and the scientifically accepted age of the earth even if read literally.

Science makes no attempt to answer what force is behind evolution, whether it is a natural occurance or whether there is an ultimate force guiding it, even if guiding it in only the most basic ways (nudge here and there to acheive ultimate design parameters). Therefore, there is no harm is assigning the force behind evolution to God.

Mind you, I am not advocating teaching that in school, but neither am I advocating teaching totally randomness either. Teach that it happens and let the kids make up their minds. As this isn't the point of Eran's thread, though, let's start discussing the merits of teaching this or that in schools. I just wanted my position clear on that.

There is no room in the Bible for millions of year. The Bible clearly states that each day of creation is a 24 hour period. Perhaps the biggest indicator to creation is the flood. You have to ignore the structure of the passage and the fact that the flood covered "all the high hills" and "the mountains were covered"
Also you will have to deny what Jesus said about this because he made mention of the suddenness of his coming just like the suddennes of the destruction of the flood. Luke 17:26-27 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Notice how Jesus said that the flood destroyed them all. You have to then deny that Jesus did not really mean what he said, then where do you believe that Jesus really means what he says. The problem with this view is that you only want to believe what you already believe.

The god of an old earth
Here are two quotes from non christians about what they believe god is like according to the science of this day.

‘If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business if there was any competition.’

‘I personally cannot discern a shred of evidence for a benign cosmic presence … I see indifference and capriciousness. What kind of God works with a 99.9 percent extinction rate?’

If we are to believe that both God and evolution then you really are not believing in the God of the Bible.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Certainly the possibility that Jesus was referring to a well-known story, and not commenting on its veracity, in order to prove a more important point about himself, is just too ridiculous to consider - nevermind that it fits the evidence better . . .

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

‘If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business if there was any competition.’

‘I personally cannot discern a shred of evidence for a benign cosmic presence … I see indifference and capriciousness. What kind of God works with a 99.9 percent extinction rate?’

Well bully for them that they don't believe in God. But I don't believe in a God who could be described as "benign" either. It is quite clear already that nature is messy and chaotic, the theory of evolution fits that better than any eloquent ideas about perfect design - do you have any idea how jerry-rigged the human body is?

 

[Masquerouge]

There is no room in the Bible for millions of year. The Bible clearly states that each day of creation is a 24 hour period.

I don't recall hours, and 24 of them, being mentioned in Genesis 1. It's just "days". Where did you find a biblical reference to days being made of 24 hours?

Also you will have to deny what Jesus said about this because he made mention of the suddenness of his coming just like the suddennes of the destruction of the flood. Luke 17:26-27 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

I'm not very familiar with how this work. but as long as John, Luke, Matthew or Mark put in in their Gospels, then Jesus really said it?

If we are to believe that both God and evolution then you really are not believing in the God of the Bible.

Again, which Bible are you referring to? There are a lof of different Bibles. The Jews believe in the Bible, yet they do not believe in Jesus.

 

[Elrohir]

Two questions for the theistic evolutionists:

First, how much of Genesis do you guys disregard as allegory? Just the Seven Days of Creation? Or Adam and Noah and the Tower of Babel as well? What about Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and the like? There are a few implications with simply ruling out the Seven Days of Creation as simple allegory; but ignoring Adam, Noah, Abraham or Moses all have very serious theological consequences.

Second, the Bible says that death entered the world through Adam - but in order for evolution to take place, there must be death and a struggle for survival. How would this statement be compatible with the idea of theistic evolution?

 

[El_Machinae]

but in order for evolution to take place, there must be death and a struggle for survival.

This is not entirely true, you don't need death for evolution, merely reproduction (though it's tougher to fit all the creatures on a planet if none of them die). The viruses that will evolve from being a bird flu to human compatible will have gotten there through reproduction and mutation.

Or Adam and Noah and the Tower of Babel as well? What about Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and the like?

I'd have to say Noah is right out, and cannot be considered true either (at least not completely true). In fact, disproving the Flood is remarkably easy.

Abraham, Moses, etc. might not contain complete truth, but might reflect parts of history.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

First, how much of Genesis do you guys disregard as allegory? Just the Seven Days of Creation? Or Adam and Noah and the Tower of Babel as well? What about Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and the like? There are a few implications with simply ruling out the Seven Days of Creation as simple allegory; but ignoring Adam, Noah, Abraham or Moses all have very serious theological consequences.

I don't "disregard" anything just because I don't think it literally happened. I am not ignoring the lessons of Adam or Noah, any more than I "ignore" the lessons of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan, but I don't think they existed either. As I have said before, it is far more important that we learn the lessons here than that they were exactly as described. So if a literal interpretation of a certain event in the Bible contradicts what science has demonstrated, then it must be figurative. Otherwise, I cannot say.

Second, the Bible says that death entered the world through Adam - but in order for evolution to take place, there must be death and a struggle for survival. How would this statement be compatible with the idea of theistic evolution?

Um, maybe the Bible is speaking poetically? They do that, you know. It makes more sense to think that science is literally correct and that the Bible is figuratively correct, than that the Bible is literally correct and that one particular field of science is all involved in some massive conspiracy.

 

[Perfection]

Um, maybe the Bible is speaking poetically? They do that, you know. It makes more sense to think that science is literally correct and that the Bible is figuratively correct, than that the Bible is literally correct and that one particular field of science is all involved in some massive conspiracy.

It's not one particular field, Eran.

 

[Elrohir]

This is not entirely true, you don't need death for evolution, merely reproduction (though it's tougher to fit all the creatures on a planet if none of them die). The viruses that will evolve from being a bird flu to human compatible will have gotten there through reproduction and mutation.

You're right; evolution doesn't care what happens to the creature after it reproduces. It's just sorta've a given that death had to exist, or the Earth would have quickly run out of room for the animals.

I don't "disregard" anything just because I don't think it literally happened. I am not ignoring the lessons of Adam or Noah, any more than I "ignore" the lessons of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan, but I don't think they existed either. As I have said before, it is far more important that we learn the lessons here than that they were exactly as described. So if a literal interpretation of a certain event in the Bible contradicts what science has demonstrated, then it must be figurative. Otherwise, I cannot say.

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe Adam, or Noah, or Moses or Abraham existed? Where do you draw the line on what is allegorical, and what is factual?

Um, maybe the Bible is speaking poetically? They do that, you know. It makes more sense to think that science is literally correct and that the Bible is figuratively correct, than that the Bible is literally correct and that one particular field of science is all involved in some massive conspiracy.

That part didn't sound like poetry to me. Psalms is poetry; "death entered the world through one man" (Adam) sounds like a statement of fact.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It's not one particular field, Eran.

Oh yeah, that's right, I remembered evolutionary biologists but I forgot the geologists, geneticists, and paleontologists. Oops, now you will have to kill me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe Adam, or Noah, or Moses or Abraham existed? Where do you draw the line on what is allegorical, and what is factual?

Actually, I do believe they all existed, if not exactly described in the Old Testament. But science has clearly shown that a lot of the events said to have happened to them could not have really happened. I cannot say exactly what is allegory, or parable, or literally true; but I can tell when something isn't literally true, if it contradicts what science has shown.

That part didn't sound like poetry to me. Psalms is poetry; "death entered the world through one man" (Adam) sounds like a statement of fact.

Okay, but again, science has shown that death has been around much more than 6000 years. So I don't know what that passage is supposed to mean, but I will not let my desire for a certain conclusion determine how I view the evidence. I cannot believe that it was entirely literal.

(Unless Adam really lived 3 billion years ago, and Ussher miscounted, of course.)

 

[El_Machinae]

"death entered the world through one man" (Adam) sounds like a statement of fact.

Soul death?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Soul death?

In fact, defining "spiritual death" as the separation of man from God, one can say that death really did enter the world as a result of what Adam did.

 

[Elrohir]

Actually, I do believe they all existed, if not exactly described in the Old Testament. But science has clearly shown that a lot of the events said to have happened to them could not have really happened. I cannot say exactly what is allegory, or parable, or literally true; but I can tell when something isn't literally true, if it contradicts what science has shown.

I see. So what was Adam? Just the smartest ape of his time? The "lucky" guy who first got an immoral soul?

Okay, but again, science has shown that death has been around much more than 6000 years. So I don't know what that passage is supposed to mean, but I will not let my desire for a certain conclusion determine how I view the evidence. I cannot believe that it was entirely literal.

(Unless Adam really lived 3 billion years ago, and Ussher miscounted, of course.)

That's a disputed statement.

It just seems to me that you're avoiding some problems by accepting theistic evolution, only to run head-long into equally puzzling theological questions because of it. That doesn't strike me as the best way of going about it.

 

[GenMarshall]

The Bible clearly states that each day of creation is a 24 hour period. Perhaps the biggest indicator to creation is the flood.

What you described was a Young Earth Creationism. However I do not believe that the universe as well as Earth was created litteraly in six days as well as dont believe that each day of creation is litteraly a 24 hour period. The days are not suppost to mean litteraly time in the human perspective (Chronos), but insted each day is ment to be a long length of time.

The sola scriptura verson goes something like this:
The word "day" used throughout the Bible and always had one of these four meanings:
1. A calendar day (i.e. 24 hours)
2. While the sun is shining (i.e. from sunrise to sunset)
3. An unpleasantly long time. (e.g. suffering all day)
4. Eternity or close to it. (e.g. The day of the Lord....)

Options two and three dont make sense and thus leaves us with eather the calender day or Eternity-lite

Some Sola Scriptura types declare that "day" can only mean a 24 hour day because "the world's best bible scholars" are unanimously agreed.

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.

The order of light then the firmamet, then stars, would be taken as a simplified description of modern theories of cosmology, mainly the Big Bang, followed by cosmic inflation, followed by stellar evolution. Similarly, modern zoology believes that marine animals preceded land animals (...on the fifth created marine life and birds; on the sixth land animals...)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I see. So what was Adam? Just the smartest ape of his time? The "lucky" guy who first got an immoral soul?

Adam was the first being with enough consciousness to be able to sin. Of course, that assumes he existed at all; he, too, could be a parable without damaging the integrity of Christ's message.

That's a disputed statement.

It's not disputed by anyone with a solid understanding of the scientific principles involved. I have seen both the evidence made by scientists and the rebuttals made by Creationists, and I can say with confidence that the science behind evolution is solid.

It just seems to me that you're avoiding some problems by accepting theistic evolution, only to run head-long into equally puzzling theological questions because of it. That doesn't strike me as the best way of going about it.

I really don't see what the conflict is. I could never accept the Bible as entirely inerrant and literal anyways - it has too many internal contradictions for that. So why should I shut my eyes to the problems raised by science? It is not a compromise because I never seriously considered Young Earth Creationism. (I was an omphalist for a while, but that is another story.)

 

[Elrohir]

Adam was the first being with enough consciousness to be able to sin. Of course, that assumes he existed at all; he, too, could be a parable without damaging the integrity of Christ's message.

Come on Eran; someone had to be the first human being. Or do you think a bunch of apes just sorta got smart all of a sudden, and realized they were self-aware and could act rightly or wrongly?

It's not disputed by anyone with a solid understanding of the scientific principles involved. I have seen both the evidence made by scientists and the rebuttals made by Creationists, and I can say with confidence that the science behind evolution is solid.

I don't think that's fair; there are a good many scientists with doctorates and PhD's who dispute the idea that all life on Earth evolved.

I really don't see what the conflict is. I could never accept the Bible as entirely inerrant and literal anyways - it has too many internal contradictions for that. So why should I shut my eyes to the problems raised by science? It is not a compromise because I never seriously considered Young Earth Creationism. (I was an omphalist for a while, but that is another story.)

The conflict is that you are basically just ignoring what you don't find convenient to believe. And that is a very dangerous proposition. What if it no longer becomes convenient to believe something truly essential to the Christian faith? Will you then just shunt aside your faith for personal convenience?

I don't think disbelieving the literal story of creation in the Bible is a matter essential to salvation - in other words, people who are otherwise orthodox Christians won't go to hell because of it. (I believe some would disagree with me on that; I'm not entirely sure why.) But the underlying philosophy of accepting theistic evolutionism seems to be "Screw the Bible if the latest scientific ideas contradict it". Which to me sounds like a very dangerous idea, theologically speaking.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Come on Eran; someone had to be the first human being. Or do you think a bunch of apes just sorta got smart all of a sudden, and realized they were self-aware and could act rightly or wrongly?

That doesn't mean that any of them were named Adam and lived in a place called Eden, though.

I don't think that's fair; there are a good many scientists with doctorates and PhD's who dispute the idea that all life on Earth evolved.

The number of such scientists, whose degree comes from a reliable source in the field they claim to criticize, who actually doubt the evolition of life, is vastly overrated by Creationist sources.

The conflict is that you are basically just ignoring what you don't find convenient to believe. And that is a very dangerous proposition. What if it no longer becomes convenient to believe something truly essential to the Christian faith? Will you then just shunt aside your faith for personal convenience? But the underlying philosophy of accepting theistic evolutionism seems to be "Screw the Bible if the latest scientific ideas contradict it". Which to me sounds like a very dangerous idea, theologically speaking.

150 years of extensive observations and research in geology, physics, cosmology, and biology are not best described as "the latest scientific ideas". And anyways, the Bible itself contradicts the Bible. If we are to throw out everything that contradicts the Bible, guess what ancient collection of documents written for a different audience, and subject to several translations, is first on the list?

I should also mention that my belief in God does not come from the Bible. If tomorrow it were to be shown that every word in the Bible is false (an impossible task, of course) I would still believe in God, and I would still believe in Christ.

 

[Elrohir]

That doesn't mean that any of them were named Adam and lived in a place called Eden, though.

Fair enough. What about Noah and Abraham? Do you believe they were fiction? (I'm especially interested with your idea about Abraham, as, if I recall correctly, you believe God lives on a planet near a star, which was revealed to mankind through a conversation He had with Abraham.)

The number of such scientists, whose degree comes from a reliable source in the field they claim to criticize, who actually doubt the evolition of life, is vastly overrated by Creationist sources.

Vastly overrated? Possibly. But nonexistant? Of couse not. But that's what you said - that "It's not disputed by anyone with a solid understanding of the scientific principles involved...." (How you could even know that is beyond me.)

150 years of extensive observations and research in geology, physics, cosmology, and biology are not best described as "the latest scientific ideas". And anyways, the Bible itself contradicts the Bible. If we are to throw out everything that contradicts the Bible, guess what ancient collection of documents written for a different audience, and subject to several translations, is first on the list?

Once again, that's fair enough. I will admit that my main issue is not so much with thinking that God created life through evolution - I'm willing to admit that He could have, if He'd felt like it - but issue is that you seem so casual in simply tossing out God's Word. It's less this actual issue in particular, and more the general idea that you can ignore what God says for personal convenience, that bothers me, as it seems to prevalent these days.

I should also mention that my belief in God does not come from the Bible. If tomorrow it were to be shown that every word in the Bible is false (an impossible task, of course) I would still believe in God, and I would still believe in Christ.

So you would believe in Christ if it were proven that Christ didn't exist? Huh?

I know that Mormons primarily believe in other scriptures (The Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head) but that statement still didn't make much sense.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The Bible could be entirely false, and at the same time Christ could still be the savior. After all, the Gospels are no more than records written decades after the fact. They could have all the details wrong. There were other Gospels which said very different things; can we say which are right?

Also, Mormons believe in the Bible and we do consider it important; we just don't consider it all God has to say. But I think that although many of the figures of the Old Testament, including Abraham (Kolob, for the record, is irrelevant to Mormon doctrine; it is always non-Mormons who discuss it) and Joseph and Moses et al., may have existed, that doesn't mean that the Bible preserves a perfect record of them.

But the important thing is, the evidence clearly shows that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the most valid way to explain speciation, and the earth is billions of years old. I am not willing to just ignore or discard the facts that demonstrate this, no matter how much I might wish to. I mean it when I say that no serious scientist whose work is routinely peer-reviewed and who is making contributions to his or her field doubts the basis of it. I am not going to ignore or change facts to try and fit them to the Bible. I will adjust my interpretation of the Bible to fit what has been made clear.

Although the really important thing for the purposes of this thread isn't the validity of evolution. Perf has a thread for that. What matters here is that I am completely and sincerely convinced that it is true, and am unwilling to sacrifice my intellectual integrity to say that it isn't, just so that I don't worry that reality is conflicting with the Bible. Because if it is, I have to go with reality.