Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
This is exactly how I regard 'theistic evolution'. It is TERRIBLE theology -- distorting the Word of God to bring it into line with atheist myth.
Once again we have a YEC claiming that if any part of Genesis is taken metaphorically, then it is a distortion of God's Word. But if God has intended it that way, then it is actually the YEC interpretation that is a distortion of God's Word. You have yet to provide a single shred of biblical theology that tells us that every detail of Genesis is literal history...it is simply an assumption that you make bevets. If you are wrong about that, then your assumption has distorted God's word.
In addition, we have seen ample evidence on this forum on how creation science is not just sloppy, but pure fabrication. For example, the cosmological theories alone amount to pure nonsense from a strictly scientific point of view.
If theistic evolution is terrible theology, then why don't you give us some indication (theological or otherwise) that tells us why you have seen fit to make that assertion.
Originally Posted by bevets
but they are perfectly content with sloppy theology -- as long as they can make it match what Darwin said.
Like I said, if you want anyone to buy that assertion then you should support it. Otherwise is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion...and I will regard it accordingly.
Does this mean you agree that 'abiogenesis' is a logical component of the theory of evolution?
No. I mean to say that I do not find abiogenesis + evolution disagrees with scriptures. It was a comment that came to me as I read your post..I did not intend it as an answer per se. I will leave that to the biological science folk.
You don't beleive in fossils, biochemical pathways, genetics, or anatomy? wow. No wonder you don't understand evolutionary theory.
Have you taken the opportunity to read my parable at the beginning of this thread?
For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. ~ Charles Darwin
Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
Have you taken the opportunity to read my parable at the beginning of this thread?
For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. ~ Charles Darwin
Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
The crux of the issue is 'What is your final source of authority?'
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
This is what bothers me about creationists: spreading misinformation. It is not God's work.
Originally Posted by bevets
This is exactly how I regard 'theistic evolution'. It is TERRIBLE theology -- distorting the Word of God to bring it into line with atheist myth. (Not science -- science (i.e. the interpretation of the physical data) is also being distorted to conform to the myth)) 'Theistic evolutionists' pretend to be horrified with the 'sloppy' science espoused by creationists (and some of it may be sloppy), but they are perfectly content with sloppy theology -- as long as they can make it match what Darwin said.
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
You have yet to provide a single shred of biblical theology that tells us that every detail of Genesis is literal history...it is simply an assumption that you make bevets.
If theistic evolution is terrible theology, then why don't you give us some indication (theological or otherwise) that tells us why you have seen fit to make that assertion.
Like I said, if you want anyone to buy that assertion then you should support it. Otherwise is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion...and I will regard it accordingly.
Originally Posted by bevets
#138 Matthew 19.4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Matthew 23.35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Luke 17.26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all."
They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ~ St. Augustine
He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without Allegory, just as we customarily do... we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit. ~ Martin Luther
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; ... Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr (Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University)
Originally Posted by bevets
#544 Professor Barr happens to be an evolutionist, however his area of expertise is Hebrew scholarship. He admits that the original intent was a literal creation and flood (even though he does not believe it)
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
If you are wrong about that, then your assumption has distorted God's word.
Those points have been responded to already. Here is the trouble with them all:
What if God composed the Genesis account so that some of the details of that account are not literal but metaphorical? IOW, it was God who made it (or dictated it) that way. Why? In order to be more instructive of theology...and less confusing in the complicated detail.
If true, then the 6 days would read as six 'normal' days...and could easily be mistaken for 6 literal days. But God may not have intended them to represent 6 literal days...they could have been placed there to represent a particular aspect of theology instead (Law of the Sabbath, for example). In addition, forming man from the dust in Genesis actually agrees with abiogenesis quite well in this context...as I have said. I think you would find that despite a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, YEC and theistic evolutionist can have practically identical Christian theology. The theology does not lie in the literal detail per se. I have found many YECs that completely agree with me on virtually all of the theology (but not on the literal detail).
None of your scripture references or quotes tell us that Genesis was intended by God to be a completly literal account. Reposting those scripture references here do not do the same.
And just for the record: I am not saying that you are 'twisting' God's Word. I only used those terms to show you that it can be applied to you equally as you have applied it to me.
A literal interpretation does not make anyone any less of a Christian bevets...and I would never presume to imply otherwise. I am only saying that neither does a non-literal one. In that sense 'sauce for the goose' is very appropriate.
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; ... Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr (Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University)
I wanted to address this point specifically, since I don't recall doing it before.
Notice that the Hebrew professors are indicating the writers intentions, not God's. I am quite certain that the writers may have interpreted much of the detail in Genesis as literal history. But God may not have intended the Genesis account as literal history, its just that the writers have interpreted it that way (as you have). IOW, this comment only tells us that the writers have written down the Genesis account as they understood it. Where do the Hebrew professors address God's intentions in composing the account?
If the writers thought the account was historical, then why didn't God set the record straight (ie...if the writers misinterpreted God)? I believe that the reasons for this would be the same reasons that God chose not to communicate literal history in the account:
1. the literal details are complex...as the data in creation tells us.
2. Including all of the literal detail in the account would certainly confuse the theology. And this would represent a stumbling block for anyone who read it.
IOW, I believe that, for God, the literal details are not where the point lies in Genesis. In fact, they are completely beside the point (from the viewpoint of salvation).
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 6th December 2003 at 06:22 PM.
The most prominent indirect helper to the ID cause, though he would NOT call himself an ID supporter, is Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate co-discoverer of DNA. He implicitly applied the above filter.
He said:
"the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd."
"The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence...is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."
Because of Crick's antagonism to religion, he rejected Divine intervention as a possibility, thus concluded we were put here by Space Aliens.
You're quoting Fred Hoyle, not Francis Crick. There is a difference, you know. Hoyle had no hands-on experience in biology, unlike Crick, and his pronouncements about biology were the worse as a result. When he got outside his own area of exeprtise, he was known as a bit of a crank.
BTW, Crick co-discovered the structure of DNA, he didn't discover DNA. To people who care about science, there's a difference.
__________________ "Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
Last edited by Cantuar; 6th December 2003 at 09:41 PM.
His transition to one who accepts evolutionary theory was on an elementary level and his transition back to YECism likewise was elementary.
The part I disagree with of his testimony was of labeling himself an "evolutionist". No one who knows anything about evolution (or science for that matter) would label it a "religion".
I agree with you that he probably learned about it at a very basic level, then probably rejected after coming across some creationist web sites.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Linear Mode
