Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

The Bible doesn't clearly define people in any biological sense.

I don't think you quoted any Bible verses in your entire argument.

You don’t think I quoted the Bible? I don’t know how to respond to that. If after reading my argument you don’t recognize any Biblical quotes, then I am sorry, but I can’t debate with you.

 

[olgamc]

Some possibilities id like to see you work around.

A. Humans could be a subcategory of homo sapiens.
B. Humans could encompass more species than just homo sapiens.

Using Bible verses. Not just some imaginary ideas about morality.

Ok, feel free to work around those. I am happy to hear you out.

 

[olgamc]

Also, I'll just point out that your argument had an incorrect statement in it. So it would be nice to see the original post adjusted to reflect that.

Sure. Which statement and in what way was it incorrect?

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. Which statement and in what way was it incorrect?

"So if Adam had parents, we are observing an event of speciation over one generation. Which, according to our theory of evolution is impossible. "

This is incorrect.

Animals cannot exist outside of a species. There is no animal where we would say "it isn't a member of any species, it's in between".

So it is the case that a mother will give birth to a baby that is of another species. (Despite evolution occuring in populations, genetic changes still begin with individuals).

And this confusion stems from the blurred lines of what species are. But ultimately the terms are just artificial constructs that we assign to living things to help us categorize them. Kind of like we categorize white and black even when there are shades of gray in between.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, feel free to work around those. I am happy to hear you out.

It's your argument, not mine. What I'm saying is that, your argument doesn't appear to address these possibilities.

 

[Job 33:6]

You don’t think I quoted the Bible? I don’t know how to respond to that. If after reading my argument you don’t recognize any Biblical quotes, then I am sorry, but I can’t debate with you.

You quoted Genesis 26 and Romans 3, neither of which give any clarity as to a biological definition of homo sapiens or humanity.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure, you can call him George. I called him Adam because in my mind I can feel a proof that George and Adam are the same person. But I can't quite verbalize it yet, nor do I really want to. It's not important for this conversation.

So your point above is exactly why evolutionists and creationists argue. Science defines a species in shades of grey. It is so grey that they are still arguing whether homo sapiens and neanderthal are the same species. While the Bible clearly defines people with a very clear black and white - made in God's image, rulers over creation, sinners, able to be saved. No person is an animal and no animal is a person.

This is exactly why I think that God could have created some other animals through macro evolution. But because for God a "human species" is a very well defined category with no grey fuzzy area between an animal and a person, I believe that He created a whole new species just for people at a snap of fingers. And I don't know how He did it.

So I guess the question is - who is the authority for you? Do you believe science, where the area between an animal and a person is fuzzy and grey? Or do you believe God, where there is a clear cut black and white line?

Also, I have asked you multiple times to propose a definition of human. It is easy to disagree and criticize. It is really hard to come up with your own definition. I did my work. Please respect me next time you disagree with my definition by either proposing your definition or by logically proving that my definition is incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, I have not added or subtracted anything from the scientific definition of homo sapiens. I did not define homo sapiens. I defined a person as being a homo sapiens with a soul. And since all homo sapiens are people and all people have a soul, it follows that all homo sapiens have a soul.

A human, in the Bible, is someone who is made in the Image of God. That is us. That's what it is. But as I've said in the past, this has nothing to do with biology. I can dig up my old posts if you would like. Indeed, I did address this already.

Homosapiens - the primate species to which modern humans belong; humans regarded as a species.

Humans or modern humans are the most common and widespread species of primate, and the last surviving species of the genus Homo. They are great apes characterized by their hairlessness, bipedalism, and high intelligence.

Thanks, now the question is, are you attempting to equate this definition with humanity in the Bible? I don't think that can reasonably be done.

 

[olgamc]

It's your argument, not mine. What I'm saying is that, your argument doesn't appear to address these possibilities.

Sure it does. It might not be clear. The entire part between the first Venn and the definition of "people" addresses both of those questions.

 

[olgamc]

You quoted Genesis 26 and Romans 3, neither of which give any clarity as to a biological definition of homo sapiens or humanity.

I explained how they do. Read my argument carefully.

 

[Job 33:6]

So let's look at the question of if your post addressed humans being a subcategory of homosapiens or homo sapiens being a subcategory of human.

So first we start with a theory of sets. There is a set that contains biologic animals. Dogs, amoebas, fish, primates, humans are all members of this set. So basically if you are a member of the animal kingdom, you are a member of this set. Then there is also a set of spiritual beings. God, angels (good and bad), etc are members of this set. So are people. So if you picture a Venn diagram, people and God (Jesus) belong in the intersection between the animals and the spiritual beings. Agree so far?

This is questionable considering that Genesis 1 calls living creatures nephesh, or souls. But out of interest in the topic, I'll look past this.

View attachment 344784

Ok, now comes the question. Do all people belong in that intersection, or are there some people that are just animals and not spiritual beings?

So to rephrase, are there people that are homosapiens but not humans? Or are humans a subcategory of homosapiens?

I think Job 33:6 (the person, not the verse) answered that for us before on a moral level, when he said that all people are people, all people have a soul. He specifically said that all people, regardless of how they were born, whether by natural birth or in a test tube or cloned, are still people with a soul.

Animals in Genesis have souls too. But that's fine. So he's saying that people of humanity, in accordance with Genesis 1:26, have souls. Got it. So the question is, could there be homo sapiens, not created in the image of God, that do not have souls?

Now of course if we start arguing, on a moral level, that not all people are the same, that some are more human than others, we can quickly get into issues of supremacy. Which I am sure we all here disagree with? I sure hope so. So, we can assume that all people are the same, and therefore there is no such thing as a person without a soul.

The Bible never says that there never were homosapiens without souls, say, 200,000 years ago for example.

Ok, now what else do we know about people? We know that all people and only people are made in God's image and have been made that way from the beginning. Genesis 1:26.

Yes that's the definition in the Bible. That's what makes humanity unique.

We know that all people and only people have been told to have dominion over creation.

Humanity in Genesis 1:26 yes, but the Bible doesn't say anything about homosapiens 200,000 years ago.

We know that all have sinned and all can be saved by faith. Romans 3:23-24. (I will quickly address Job 33:6 theology that the Romans passage does not apply to prehistoric people. The Romans passage does not say anything about time. It talks about all jews and gentiles, which is another way of saying all jews and not jews. That means all people, including Abraham, Noah, Adam, and Adam's parents if Adam had parents.)

Sure. But again, nothing here that you've quoted suggests that humanity in Genesis 1:26 can be equated to a scientific definition of homo sapiens.

View attachment 344786

What does this mean? Well, in order to be saved by faith, we need to have higher order thinking ability, as in we need to be able to understand concepts like God, sin, death, a need for saviour, eternal life, eternal suffering, etc. In order to be rulers we need to be able to make judgement calls, which at minimum requires a capacity to know what is fair and what is not fair. In order to sin, we need to have the ability to know right and wrong. What I refer to as moral capacity.

That's fine. God wouldn't call on a fish to subdue and rule because it may not understand what that means. And so I would agree that humanity would be some kind of hominid.

But again, are humans a subcategory of homosapiens? Or could homosapiens be a subcategory of human? These questions have yet to be addressed.

Which species in the history of the world had the capacity for this higher order brain functions? The only species that I am aware of is homo sapiens. Please correct me if I am wrong.

This is undetermined. We talked about neanderthals having music and burial sites and artwork. Neanderthals are a separate species from homo sapiens though they did also interbreed. So in this sense, again, posing this question does not clarify, are humans a subcategory of homosapiens or homosapiens a subcategory of human?

If neanderthals were human, then humanity wouldn't be limited to one species. But even if we viewed them as being of the same species as ourselves, we have many other hominid species as well, some that used fire, had tools, artwork etc. we don't know what capacity they had to judge right from wrong.

It's simply undetermined.

And nothing above addresses the possibility of humanity being a subcategory of homo sapiens either.

 

[olgamc]

A human, in the Bible, is someone who is made in the Image of God. That is us. That's what it is. But as I've said in the past, this has nothing to do with biology. I can dig up my old posts if you would like. Indeed, I did address this already.

I disagree, as I have shown in my argument. Think about the whole sin/salvation topic. Also, when Bible says that we are "made God's image", it means a lot of things, and imo it does have to do with biology. If you disagree, please define "made in God's image" and prove that it has nothing to do with biology. But also note that I did not include it in my argument. My argument hinges on sin and salvation.

Thanks, now the question is, are you attempting to equate this definition with humanity in the Bible? I don't think that can reasonably be done.

What is your definition of humanity?

 

[Job 33:6]

I disagree, as I have shown in my argument. Think about the whole sin/salvation topic. Also, when Bible says that we are "made God's image", it means a lot of things, and imo it does have to do with biology. If you disagree, please define "made in God's image" and prove that it has nothing to do with biology. But also note that I did not include it in my argument. My argument hinges on sin and salvation.

In the ancient near east, contextually in neighboring cultures, only kings were made in the image of God. It wasn't about biology in the culture of people of that time. Pharoah for example, or pharoahs, were made in the image of God (Path for example), while laypeople were not. That's how it was originally spoken of in the ancient near east.

What is your definition of humanity?

 

[Job 33:6]

The image of God:

‭Genesis 1:26 NIV‬
[26] Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

‭Genesis 1:27-28 NIV‬
[27] So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. [28] God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”


The immediate passage tells us some things about the image of God, it has to do with rulership.

Assyrian kings would make images, statues and they would use it to indicate their presence in a kingdom.

Ancient Near Eastern texts use these concepts of image and likeness interchangeably to refer to statues of kings. Set up for exalting and continuing the throne.

Statues functioned as representations of the king. Set up to represent him and his interests.
And I'm paraphrasing this from Dick Averbeck. John Walton and Tremper Longman say the same things.

 

[Job 33:6]

The image of God:

‭Genesis 1:26 NIV‬
[26] Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

‭Genesis 1:27-28 NIV‬
[27] So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. [28] God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”


The immediate passage tells us some things about the image of God, it has to do with rulership.

Assyrian kings would make images, statues and they would use it to indicate their presence in a kingdom.

Ancient Near Eastern texts use these concepts of image and likeness interchangeably to refer to statues of kings. Set up for exalting and continuing the throne.

Statues functioned as representations of the king. Set up to represent him and his interests.
And I'm paraphrasing this from Dick Averbeck. John Walton and Tremper Longman say the same things.

This is page 26 of reading Genesis 1 and 2, and evengelical conversation. Dick Averbeck.

It is not that we look like God physically but that we are physical beings who stand within the material creation as God's stewards. We stand before God to serve as His authoritative representatives on this earth. "In his image as his likeness". We have been put in charge and made responsible for how things go here. This is stated clearly in passage verse 26. "That they may rule" over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky.

Our understanding of our image and likeness needs to be seen in direct connection with our purpose, which is to rule over the earth on God's behalf IE as God's image. In a way similar to how God rolls over all of everything.

I didn't quote it perfectly, but the context is pulled from the ancient Near East, and its identified right in the passage itself, what the image of God is.

And none of this has anything to do with biology.

 

[olgamc]

So let's look at the question of if your post addressed humans being a subcategory of homosapiens or homo sapiens being a subcategory of human.

This is questionable considering that Genesis 1 calls living creatures nephesh, or souls. But out of interest in the topic, I'll look past this.




So to rephrase, are there people that are homosapiens but not humans? Or are humans a subcategory of homosapiens?

Animals in Genesis have souls too. But that's fine. So he's saying that people of humanity, in accordance with Genesis 1:26, have souls. Got it. So the question is, could there be homo sapiens, not created in the image of God, that do not have souls?


The Bible never says that there never were homosapiens without souls, say, 200,000 years ago for example.

Yes that's the definition in the Bible. That's what makes humanity unique.



Humanity in Genesis 1:26 yes, but the Bible doesn't say anything about homosapiens 200,000 years ago.


Sure. But again, nothing here that you've quoted suggests that humanity in Genesis 1:26 can be equated to a scientific definition of homo sapiens.




That's fine. God wouldn't call on a fish to subdue and rule because it may not understand what that means. And so I would agree that humanity would be some kind of hominid.

But again, are humans a subcategory of homosapiens? Or could homosapiens be a subcategory of human? These questions have yet to be addressed.

This is undetermined. We talked about neanderthals having music and burial sites and artwork. Neanderthals are a separate species from homo sapiens though they did also interbreed. So in this sense, again, posing this question does not clarify, are humans a subcategory of homosapiens or homosapiens a subcategory of human?

So two comments:
1. Biblical concepts span at the very least from creation to Jesus's return. True?

2. Sure, personally I am not comfortable with the greyness of homo sapiens vs neanderthal either. To me, if scientific definition of species is that they cannot interbreed or produce a viable offspring, and they interbreed and produce a viable offspring, then they are the same species. It seems like this is a current debate that the scientists are having, and that's ok, let them figure it out.

The name homo sapiens means "wise man". The question is - what do they mean by wise? Google to the rescue. Search up 'what makes homosapiens unique', you will find a lot of descriptions and ideas and no real definition. For example this:

"High intelligence, cognition, and the capacity for reasoning that the human brain enables are so central to the human condition as to be inseparable from what makes us uniquely human. They are also highly adaptive features without which human culture could only be rudimentary at best."
reference

So when I say that humans and only humans "have a moral capacity and are able to conceptualize eternity", I do not contradict the official definition. There is no official definition. Let them figure out what they mean by "high intelligence, cognition, and capacity for reasoning", then we can revisit.

 

[olgamc]

In the ancient near east, contextually in neighboring cultures, only kings were made in the image of God. It wasn't about biology in the culture of people of that time. Pharoah for example, or pharoahs, were made in the image of God (Path for example), while laypeople were not. That's how it was originally spoken of in the ancient near east.

Sure, and Moses corrects that by saying, well, God said that all mankind is made in His image.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure, and Moses corrects that by saying, well, God said that all mankind is made in His image.

Yes so, in its original context, of the ancient near east, this idea of being made in the image of God, was more about a role. Ruling. Carrying our functional. Subduing and ruling, like the passage says.

It's not about how big someone's brain is, or if they know right from wrong.

And so the question is, could homosapiens in the Bible be a subcategory of human, or humans a subcategory of homosapiens?

If we assumed that any "wise man" were homo sapien, including neanderthals and other hominids with intelligence, and let's say this encompassed all hominids over the past half million years,

We still couldn't rule out that humans would be a subcategory of this grander body of intelligent apes.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes so, in its original context, of the ancient near east, this idea of being made in the image of God, was more about a role. Ruling. Carrying our functional. Subduing and ruling, like the passage says.

It's not about how big someone's brain is, or if they know right from wrong.

And so the question is, could homosapiens in the Bible be a subcategory of human, or humans a subcategory of homosapiens?

If we assumed that any "wise man" were homo sapien, including neanderthals and other hominids with intelligence, and let's say this encompassed all hominids over the past half million years,

We still couldn't rule out that humans would be a subcategory of this grander body of intelligent apes.

And there are lots of other issues with this idea of pushing Adams timeline back to encompass all these other potentially intelligent hominids as well. Adam is instructed to work and keep the garden, as if he used agriculture. There are musical instruments and domesticated camels and tubal Cain used cast iron tools and things of this nature. Even in the earliest chapters of Genesis.

They didn't have cast iron tools or domesticated animals 200k or 400k+ years ago. Iron tools are from something more like the 5th century BC. Which is hundreds of thousands of years too young.

So it's really not as simple as just saying "well Adam had a brain, therefore Adam must have been the first homo sapiens".

There's a lot more to this topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

And there are lots of other issues with this idea of pushing Adams timeline back to encompass all these other potentially intelligent hominids as well. Adam is instructed to work and keep the garden, as if he used agriculture. There are musical instruments and domesticated camels and tubal Cain used cast iron tools and things of this nature. Even in the earliest chapters of Genesis.

They didn't have cast iron tools or domesticated animals 200k or 400k+ years ago. Iron tools are from something more like the 5th century BC. Which is hundreds of thousands of years too young.

So it's really not as simple as just saying "well Adam had a brain, therefore Adam must have been the first homo sapiens".

There's a lot more to this topic.

And this is why a lot of Christians struggle as YEC too. The narrative just doesn't make sense in a scientific concordant light. It doesn't make sense for YECs, so some become OECs. Then they realize that there aren't millions of years between the days of Genesis, so they just scratch their heads in confusion.

But if we step back and observe that the text was written in a pre-scientific time, then we can avoid all these issues.

‭Genesis 4:22 NIV‬
[22] Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

The bronze age or the use of cast iron of the iron age in 200,000BC? That doesn't make any sense. People didn't have horses and cattle and domesticated animals that far back in time.

 

[olgamc]

And there are lots of other issues with this idea of pushing Adams timeline back to encompass all these other potentially intelligent hominids as well. Adam is instructed to work and keep the garden, as if he used agriculture. There are musical instruments and domesticated camels and tubal Cain used cast iron tools and things of this nature. Even in the earliest chapters of Genesis.

They didn't have cast iron tools or domesticated animals 200k or 400k+ years ago. Iron tools are from something more like the 5th century BC. Which is hundreds of thousands of years too young.

So it's really not as simple as just saying "well Adam had a brain, therefore Adam must have been the first homo sapiens".

There's a lot more to this topic.

Notice in my argument I did not say that my Adam is the biblical Adam. I chose the same name because it means "the first human". You can call him George.

Ok, I will explain to you one last time why I disagree that Genesis 1 was a book of cosmology. Cosmology had to come from somewhere. Where did it come from? Use the evolutionary method. If God is the Creator, and Adam and Eve knew what they knew about creation (which is a lot) and told the story to their children and they to their children and then the children moved away (say to Egypt) and continued telling stories. Over time near east cosmology developed, which Egyptians were particularly fond of. Then God tells Moses what He told Adam and Eve. Moses's account of creation has the same roots as near east cosmology. It might even use the same words to communicate certain concepts. But Moses's story has not changed over time, whereas cosmology has changed. So what you have is Moses explaining a concept, and a near east cosmologist like yourself applying a changed meaning to it.

I repeat again. Moses's account is inspired. Moses did not steal the creation story from near east cosmology. Near east cosmology borrowed the concepts from creation. Moses wrote what God wanted him to write. Until you understand this, or at least understand that this is my perspective, we will argue endlessly.

On that note, I learned what I wanted to learn from this debate and I communicated what I wanted to communicate. Thank you for all the feedback and especially for Adam the first priest perspective, I really appreciated that. I am going to quit for now. I might check in every now and then, but it's not going to be nearly as intensive as it's been. Thank you again, it was fun and educational.