Atheistic Evolution v Theistic Evolution

[Varicose Brains]

I was very tempted to call this thread "Evolution v Creationism" but realised the mistake quickly. What I want to talk about here is evolution without God v theistic evolution. If you don't believe in evolution (i.e., you are a Young Earth Creationist) please may I ask you to ignore this thread. I don't want this thread to become a debate on evolution v creationism (hence why I did not call this thread such) and I don't want to have to end up resorting to defending evolution when there are plenty of books out there that a YECer can pick up and read. Now on to what I want to ask.

Before I started reading about evolution I was a Young Earth Creationist myself. In light of the overwhelming evidence for evolution I abandoned YEC, and eventually my faith. I just don't see how evolution can leave room for an "intelligent designer". However, I've become aware, since reading about evolution, that many Christians (and even some Muslims now) have acknowledged it as a fact. It is to the theistic evolutionists that I really want to chat to in this thread.

The problem I have with theistic evolution is that there is no Biblical basis for it. The Bible describes the earth as being created in 6 days (although debate rages to this day as to what "day" actually meant in Genesis chapter 1). Genesis also states that God designed all the animals, birds, sea creatures and finally man and woman during this time. How, therefore, do the theistic evolutionists explain their beliefs? Do you just discount Genesis 1-3 entirely and put it down as mythology? In essence, how do you explain, seemingly without a Biblical basis, theistic evolution? This leads me to a secondary question which is equally important to me; doesn't this leave you open to interpret any scripture in whatever way you like? Basically, how do you determine what is myth and what is literal fact in the Bible?

Thanks.

 

[Dark_Lite]

You have left your faith, but you have not left the false dilemma of true Genesis = true Christianity behind. This, by far, is the biggest flaw in the YEC mindset. Just take a step back, and examine your argument from the outside. You should realize that it is exactly the same argument YECs use against TE.

The creation account is not literal. It can't be literal. The amount of symbolism is another question, but it most definitely cannot be literal. That being said, the validity of Christianity is not tied to the validity of a literal interpretation of the creation account. It's a slippery slope fallacy. As for how to determine what is "myth" vs what is "fact," it's quite simple. If we have evidence against something being possible (e.g. global flood), that means it couldn't have happened. If we don't have evidence that something couldn't have happened (e.g. fire miraculously not burning people), then it's probably an actual miracle. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And finally, if it's just a historical statement, then there's no real reason to take it non-literally.

 

[razeontherock]

DL, he should be exposed to early Church interpretations of these things.

 

[Dark_Lite]

DL, he should be exposed to early Church interpretations of these things.

Several ECFs supported non-literal interpretations of Genesis. Augustine is one of them. YECism does not have a monopoly on history.

 

[drich0150]

I was very tempted to call this thread "Evolution v Creationism" but realised the mistake quickly. What I want to talk about here is evolution without God v theistic evolution. If you don't believe in evolution (i.e., you are a Young Earth Creationist) please may I ask you to ignore this thread. I don't want this thread to become a debate on evolution v creationism (hence why I did not call this thread such) and I don't want to have to end up resorting to defending evolution when there are plenty of books out there that a YECer can pick up and read. Now on to what I want to ask.

Before I started reading about evolution I was a Young Earth Creationist myself. In light of the overwhelming evidence for evolution I abandoned YEC, and eventually my faith. I just don't see how evolution can leave room for an "intelligent designer". However, I've become aware, since reading about evolution, that many Christians (and even some Muslims now) have acknowledged it as a fact. It is to the theistic evolutionists that I really want to chat to in this thread.

The problem I have with theistic evolution is that there is no Biblical basis for it. The Bible describes the earth as being created in 6 days (although debate rages to this day as to what "day" actually meant in Genesis chapter 1). Genesis also states that God designed all the animals, birds, sea creatures and finally man and woman during this time. How, therefore, do the theistic evolutionists explain their beliefs? Do you just discount Genesis 1-3 entirely and put it down as mythology? In essence, how do you explain, seemingly without a Biblical basis, theistic evolution? This leads me to a secondary question which is equally important to me; doesn't this leave you open to interpret any scripture in whatever way you like? Basically, how do you determine what is myth and what is literal fact in the Bible?

Thanks.

Why do you persume that the earth could not be created in six days, and it still be millions of years old? The bible dos not give an age to the earth.

 

[AlexBP]

The problem I have with theistic evolution is that there is no Biblical basis for it. The Bible describes the earth as being created in 6 days (although debate rages to this day as to what "day" actually meant in Genesis chapter 1). Genesis also states that God designed all the animals, birds, sea creatures and finally man and woman during this time. How, therefore, do the theistic evolutionists explain their beliefs? Do you just discount Genesis 1-3 entirely and put it down as mythology? In essence, how do you explain, seemingly without a Biblical basis, theistic evolution?

I am a firm believer in biblical evolution, the theory that life on earth began with simpler forms and then gradually changed to more complex forms, as the Bible says it does. The creation story in Genesis is clear about how God created things. He would speak, and then the material things of the universe would respond to his speaking.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. [Gen 1:11-12; NIV]
​

So nowhere does it say that God tinkered with atoms and molecules to build individual life forms. Rather, he spoke to the material of the earth and told it to bring forth plants, and the material of the earth responded to God's word. The notion of living things arising from inorganic matter is precisely in line with scientific thinking about the origins of life. Indeed, as far as I know, Genesis is the only account from ancient times which matches so well with modern knowledge of life origins. The following verses say that God created animals in the same manner. Some people may think that lines such as "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems" work against this interpretation. However, it's important to remember that "creating" can be interpreted in several different ways. If we say that Sam Walton created the Walmart chain it doesn't mean that he individually built every store, but only that he provided the impetus that got the whole business started.

This leads me to a secondary question which is equally important to me; doesn't this leave you open to interpret any scripture in whatever way you like? Basically, how do you determine what is myth and what is literal fact in the Bible?

There's no reason why something can't be both myth and fact. Davy Crockett is a mythical figure and was also a real person.

 

[solarwave]

The problem I have with theistic evolution is that there is no Biblical basis for it. The Bible describes the earth as being created in 6 days (although debate rages to this day as to what "day" actually meant in Genesis chapter 1). Genesis also states that God designed all the animals, birds, sea creatures and finally man and woman during this time. How, therefore, do the theistic evolutionists explain their beliefs? Do you just discount Genesis 1-3 entirely and put it down as mythology? In essence, how do you explain, seemingly without a Biblical basis, theistic evolution?

The words written say that the world was created in 6 days, but is that what was meant? Just because a story says something that doesn't mean that is the point of it as I'm sure you know. I believe that the creation story is a spiritual myth which (like most of the Bible) is meant to bring people closer to God. It is true that the Bible doesn't say it is a myth but the Bible isn't my only source of information. Science, history and critical studies of the Bible an help us try to find the best way to understand the Bible. I believe the Bible is important, but it isn't the eternal infallible Word of God. In light of the evidence of science and life experiences I believe in God and accept evolution.

This leads me to a secondary question which is equally important to me; doesn't this leave you open to interpret any scripture in whatever way you like? Basically, how do you determine what is myth and what is literal fact in the Bible?

Well thats a hard question. The best thing to do would be to read what experts on the subject say on both sides and then try to come to a conclusion along with personal experience. Not all people can or will do this so we have to accept we are wrong about some or even alot of what we think. Perhaps it comes down to working out salvation in fear and trembling. Not to be scared, but to accept our lack of understanding and to draw closer to God as best we can. I am comming to more of the opinion that what is in the heart and what you do it more important than what you believe, though correct beliefs are good.

I could be wrong of course and I don't have all this fully figure out.

 

[Cuddles333]

Many fundamentalists refer to places in the Bible like Matthew chapter 19 where Jesus seems to affirm the Genesis creation account. I really don't know if he is actually doing that, or if He is just using that because it would start something that could not be finished by trying to explain to people the actual mechanism by how everything has happened.

 

[Varicose Brains]

Why do you persume that the earth could not be created in six days, and it still be millions of years old? The bible dos not give an age to the earth.

:o

 

[Varicose Brains]

The words written say that the world was created in 6 days, but is that what was meant? Just because a story says something that doesn't mean that is the point of it as I'm sure you know. I believe that the creation story is a spiritual myth which (like most of the Bible) is meant to bring people closer to God. It is true that the Bible doesn't say it is a myth but the Bible isn't my only source of information. Science, history and critical studies of the Bible an help us try to find the best way to understand the Bible. I believe the Bible is important, but it isn't the eternal infallible Word of God. In light of the evidence of science and life experiences I believe in God and accept evolution.

Well thats a hard question. The best thing to do would be to read what experts on the subject say on both sides and then try to come to a conclusion along with personal experience. Not all people can or will do this so we have to accept we are wrong about some or even alot of what we think. Perhaps it comes down to working out salvation in fear and trembling. Not to be scared, but to accept our lack of understanding and to draw closer to God as best we can. I am comming to more of the opinion that what is in the heart and what you do it more important than what you believe, though correct beliefs are good.

I could be wrong of course and I don't have all this fully figure out.

Good post. The Christians that worry me the most are the ones who believe they have all the answers they'll ever need. You seem more open minded than most Christians I've met. I disagree with you on your statements about "personal experience" though. I learned, quite quickly, as a Christian that my own person experience of God could not be defined as "the truth". As a result, I learned to observe other Christians' "walk with God" and found that everyone had differing interpretations of things. Again, the most annoying Christians were those who believed they had all the answers. The nicest Christians that I met where the more open minded ones who made no claim to have the answers.

 

[Varicose Brains]

There's no reason why something can't be both myth and fact. Davy Crockett is a mythical figure and was also a real person.

That's a good point, but it again raises the question of how do we determine from the Bible what is myth and what is fact (specifically in reference to the creation of the earth)?

 

[sabercroft]

As for how to determine what is "myth" vs what is "fact," it's quite simple. If we have evidence against something being possible (e.g. global flood), that means it couldn't have happened. If we don't have evidence that something couldn't have happened (e.g. fire miraculously not burning people), then it's probably an actual miracle. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And finally, if it's just a historical statement, then there's no real reason to take it non-literally.

So whether the inerrant, infallible, and divinely-inspired Word of God is factual or otherwise is to be determined by scientific evidence, and must give way where it conflicts with science? I suppose that's an interesting way to interpret it...

 

[solarwave]

Good post. The Christians that worry me the most are the ones who believe they have all the answers they'll ever need. You seem more open minded than most Christians I've met. I disagree with you on your statements about "personal experience" though. I learned, quite quickly, as a Christian that my own person experience of God could not be defined as "the truth". As a result, I learned to observe other Christians' "walk with God" and found that everyone had differing interpretations of things. Again, the most annoying Christians were those who believed they had all the answers. The nicest Christians that I met where the more open minded ones who made no claim to have the answers.

Thanks! It is very easy to think you know all you need to know when 'faith' is understood by many to mean holding tight to certain doctrines your denomination teaches. I'm not totally sure about the personal experience bit, but I do believe that personal experience is a good part of worship, prayer and faith in general. What do you mean by personal experience and how people understand it differently, therefore all could be wrong? To be honest I don't know exactly what I mean by it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So whether the inerrant, infallible, and divinely-inspired Word of God is factual or otherwise is to be determined by scientific evidence, and must give way where it conflicts with science? I suppose that's an interesting way to interpret it...

Do not conflate validity of a literal interpretation with validity of factualness. To do so is to open oneself to the easy extension that literal interpretation is tied to validity of the Bible/Christianity. Non-literal does not mean non-true. As for your point (minus what I explained above), it's not so much that there are things in the Bible that contradict what we know through science, but that certain events, if we were to take them literally, could not have physically happened.

There was no global flood. It's not because it's impossible for such a thing to happen, but because the evidence we have directly tells us it did not happen. Contrast this to the miracle where men come from a fire unscathed. According to our scientific understanding, that would not happen. But there isn't any evidence to tell us there isn't some way to make that happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But evidence that tells you something is not possible is evidence that something is not possible.

 

[razeontherock]

That's a good point, but it again raises the question of how do we determine from the Bible what is myth and what is fact (specifically in reference to the creation of the earth)?

Answer: hermeneutics! AKA, how did the original audience perceive it? (In this instance, not as literal statement of fact, but as Spiritual Truth)

 

[Mr Dave]

That's a good point, but it again raises the question of how do we determine from the Bible what is myth and what is fact (specifically in reference to the creation of the earth)?

Start by not looking at the Bible as one book. It is a library not a book. The Bible just like my local library contains stories containing meaning, poetry, history, biographies etc...

I don't go into the library and presume to read every book I pick up in the same way, so nor do I do that with each text in the Bible. Look at the genre, who (may have) wrote/written it, to whom they wrote it, in what context, what the purpose in writing it was...

As for The Torah, or just Genesis, I quote Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks from The Times (18th june 2011)

“There is nothing in the Mosaic books that yields its meaning on the surface,” he states. “No rabbi ever read Genesis literally until modern times! I mean, that is just such a non-Jewish thing to do.”

 

[sabercroft]

Non-literal does not mean non-true.

As far as I understand it, either something is true, or it isn't. So either there was a global flood, or there wasn't. Either God created the world in 7 days, or He didn't. Either Jesus rose from the dead, or He didn't.

I admit I didn't completely understand you. Taking your example of a global flood, how do you interpret that as both non-literal and true?

 

[solarwave]

As far as I understand it, either something is true, or it isn't. So either there was a global flood, or there wasn't. Either God created the world in 7 days, or He didn't. Either Jesus rose from the dead, or He didn't.

I admit I didn't completely understand you. Taking your example of a global flood, how do you interpret that as both non-literal and true?

Jesus' parables arn't literally true but the point of them is true.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Jesus' parables arn't literally true but the point of them is true.

Possibly. But that still leaves a central point of the issue unresolved. Namely that there ARE areas of the bible that if not literal, handidly undermine many aspects of Christian theology. And by that, the moral arguments that are attempted under that auspice.

 

[sabercroft]

Jesus' parables arn't literally true but the point of them is true.

Jesus made it clear when he was telling parables. I think there's little confusion with those parts. The concern is about the rest of the Bible; it seems as though we're simply choosing to hold on to the belief that the Bible is factually accurate for as long as we possibly can, until scientific discoveries step in to dispel our ignorance.