Debunking Evolution, using Jesus, the forbidden fruit and the conviction of sin

[Gottservant]

Ok.

So we have three basic tenets of Evolution that mess with our idea of a moral life: monkeys, mutation and speciation. These three things combine to create a worldview that is devoid of God, but in the process also devoid of reason and moral accountability. But there are objections.

First: monkeys. Forget monkeys. It's not even relevant. Sure you can line skulls up, but in reality there's no reason to suggest we didn't start as humans and devolve to monkeys. It's all relative and totally laughable. The real crunch comes once you destroy the mechanism, the conviction and the benefit of evolution, everything else is a red herring. Monkeys are a red herring.

Second: mutation. They say it always happens, right? Wrong, Jesus was born of a virgin that means He had to change an XX chromosome into an XY. The simple fact is: He did this without sinning. No sin, no mutation. Just alteration. So the more complex fact is: we can change our DNA and not just by what we pass on to our kids. Evolution's mechanism: demolished.

Third: speciation. Woah! Wait a minute! You're jumping to the effects of Evolution before you've addressed the conviction? That's what they want you to do... there's a step here where you should be aware of the dangers of believing Evolution is the only way: the forbidden fruit. The forbidden fruit is forbidden because it's deadly right? But how do you know? Only by eating it. But what about Jesus, He wouldn't eat the fruit would He? No, so there are some people that survive without knowing, so survival isn't just about what you consume... but that's if you hear from God. How do Evolutionists know this? They don't! So the forbidden fruit proves that not everything can be adapted. Evolution's conviction: squashed.

Third: speciation. Ok. So what about the carrot at the end of the stick. What if mankind does change into something radically different, its about as probable as me appearing inside your computer according to quantum mechanics, right? Well, what if they do? Just ask the question: will they still sin? Of course they will! So they will still need God to save them or they will die as a result of their sin, the sin which they can't avoid because they don't believe in Him. Evolution's benefit: denied.

So there you have it, Evolution demolished with Jesus, the forbidden fruit and the conviction of sin. An all natural solution to those pesky Evolutionist fliesTM. But what about "survival of the fittest", I hear you say? Why "growth of the most cooperative" of course! There's no reason you can't outgrow your competitors, in fact, that's how Creation works! If only we could get back to a growth oriented way of living, right? It's what God intended...

Comments welcome, brothers.

 

[gluadys]

Ok.

So we have three basic tenets of Evolution that mess with our idea of a moral life: monkeys, mutation and speciation.

Maybe they mess with your idea of a moral life. I see all three of them as irrelevant to any idea of a moral life. What do they have to do with a moral life any more than the ebb and flow of tides?

These three things combine to create a worldview that is devoid of God,

Do they? Then how is it that so many people who can take monkeys, mutations, speciation and evolution in stride are still believers in God, Christ, redemption, resurrection and eternal life? There is nothing in evolution that requires or even encourages atheism--other than those Christians who falsely claim that you can't accept evolution and still believe in God and the bible. Would you be one of those Christians?

First: monkeys. Forget monkeys. It's not even relevant. Sure you can line skulls up, but in reality there's no reason to suggest we didn't start as humans and devolve to monkeys.

Sure there is. If humans existed before monkeys and evolved into monkeys, there would be huge reversals in both the fossil and genomic records. Both currently agree that monkeys are much older than humans, so the evolutionary relationship has to be one in which humans emerge more recently in the primate phylogeny.

The real crunch comes once you destroy the mechanism,

Then lets focus on the mechanism, or rather mechanisms. Do you know what they are, how they interact, what the evidence of them is?

Second: mutation. They say it always happens, right?

Always happens when and in what circumstances?

No sin, no mutation.

There is no correlation between sin and mutation. Most living beings do not sin, but they certainly carry mutations.

Just alteration.

Alteration, like adaptation, is just another word for mutation. Mutation is the cause of alteration and the source of adaptation.

So the more complex fact is: we can change our DNA and not just by what we pass on to our kids.

If we don't pass it on to our kids, any change in our DNA dies with us and makes no contribution to evolution. It may be helpful to remember that DNA is scattered throughout the body: two copies of each chromosome in each and every cell. So there is no way to make a wholesale change in our DNA. Each and every mutation is confined to one cell and its immediate descendants. Only mutations in germ line cells can affect a whole organism. Because only those cells are potential precursors to all the cells in a new organism.

Third: speciation. Woah! Wait a minute! You're jumping to the effects of Evolution before you've addressed the conviction? That's what they want you to do... there's a step here where you should be aware of the dangers of believing Evolution is the only way: the forbidden fruit. The forbidden fruit is forbidden because it's deadly right? But how do you know? Only by eating it. But what about Jesus, He wouldn't eat the fruit would He? No, so there are some people that survive without knowing, so survival isn't just about what you consume... but that's if you hear from God. How do Evolutionists know this? They don't! So the forbidden fruit proves that not everything can be adapted. Evolution's conviction: squashed.

This thinking is so convoluted I can't even follow it. "believing Evolution is the only way..." to what? Survival in evolutionary terms is not about what you consume at all, but about whether you successfully reproduce offspring who themselves mature to produce more offspring.

Third: speciation. Ok. So what about the carrot at the end of the stick. What if mankind does change into something radically different, its about as probable as me appearing inside your computer according to quantum mechanics, right? Well, what if they do? Just ask the question: will they still sin? Of course they will! So they will still need God to save them or they will die as a result of their sin, the sin which they can't avoid because they don't believe in Him.

Well, sure, but who ever said anything different? Evolution is not a competitor for Christ as Redeemer. What sort of nonsense about evolution have you been listening to?

 

[Gottservant]

You claim that monkeys came first but who says they didn't think they were humans?

Then you address mutation which is synonymous to sin to the unbelieving if not actually sin to the believing, but you ignore what I said about Jesus. Jesus shows it is possible to change your DNA, simple fact. If not, He would be female.

Then you address being tempted with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, but you can't follow it, instead of simply being honest that you would be tempted, moreso for faith in Evolution.

Then you dismiss sin like its nothing, whereas I started this thread in the Evolution forum and they started saying they never sin or they sin continually, both of which are untenable. So far from helping you have excused yourself from a conversation in which many souls could be saved.

This excusing yourself of course goes back to the stance you have taken on morality, that it doesn't apply to laws which apply to humans which apply to moral tenets, for some arbitrary reason. I hazard a guess that because you believe in Evolution you think you are on a mission from God to be as moral as possible and that should you fail you have Jesus to fall back on, as if He is on standby or something. This frankly is a botched worldview which you will not be able to live out consistently, without giving up faith in Evolution, at which point you will be at square one.

Don't think I'm ditching you there though, I've already come and been through Evolution and am more than happy to help you move from square one to something more fruitful. Start with sin. Work out why you don't sin for a reason that you derive from God, not from man. Then wait for inspiration. Remember Lot's wife.

 

[Roms916]

There is nothing in evolution that requires or even encourages atheism--other than those Christians who falsely claim that you can't accept evolution and still believe in God and the bible. Would you be one of those Christians?

Just a question on how you view Gen 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

It says here that God formed man from the dust, not an ape, then breathed the breath of life into him through his nostrils. If man evolved from an ape, why would God put this verse in Holy Scripture?

How can there be death before sin?

"Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and a supporter of various atheist, secular, and humanistic organisations. Although he was confirmed into the Church of England at the age of thirteen, he started to lose his religious faith when he discovered Darwin. He revealed that his understanding of evolution led him to atheism and is puzzled by belief in God among individuals who are sophisticated in science."

From wikipedia Richard Dawkins (can't post links yet). Granted it is wikipedia...

 

[gluadys]

You claim that monkeys came first but who says they didn't think they were humans?

What would that matter? They are what they are whatever they think.

Then you address mutation which is synonymous to sin

That is a ridiculous statement. Mutation has nothing to do with sin. In fact it is part of a creation which God called "very good". So it is in no way synonymous with sin. It is a natural function, that's all. It is no more sinful than perspiration.

Jesus shows it is possible to change your DNA, simple fact. If not, He would be female.

Of course it is possible for DNA to change. That is what "mutation" means: a change in DNA. Without that you get no individual differences from one person to the next. Jesus may have been able to change his DNA by will because he is, after all, God, even when incarnate as man. The rest of us don't have that capacity. We can neither make our DNA change on our own, nor stop it from changing. That is another reason mutation has nothing to do with sin. We can have no moral responsibility for actions we have no knowledge of and no control over.

How many of the cells in your body replicated in the last half hour? I would expect at least a few hundred. And with each one, some mutations occurred in the DNA of those cells as it was copied onto a new DNA molecule. Each time your body produces a new sperm cell, some mutations are introduced into the DNA of that cell. But not by your will, not even with your awareness. But these cells can carry those mutations to your offspring, who will then have them in all their cells.

Then you address being tempted with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, but you can't follow it, instead of simply being honest that you would be tempted, moreso for faith in Evolution.

Evolution takes no faith. It is solidly grounded in evidence.
Trusting in God takes faith and we are all tempted to doubt and disobedience.

There is just no logical or spiritual connection between these two facts.

Then you dismiss sin like its nothing,

Just where did you get that idea from? I would never say such a thing. Sin is a most serious matter.

But evolution is not sin. Mutation is not sin. Natural processes are not sin.
Natural processes are works of God. Mutation and evolution are natural processes, just like rain, erosion, growth, seasons, etc.

whereas I started this thread in the Evolution forum and they started saying they never sin or they sin continually, both of which are untenable.

There are a lot of people over there who are not Christian. So they may well say some things you and I would disagree with. Nevertheless, they would be right to disassociate evolution from sin.

So far from helping you have excused yourself from a conversation in which many souls could be saved.

One of the biggest obstacles to spreading the gospel today is that too many Christians deny the facts of nature and claim that if one believes the gospel one must deny such facts. I won't quote Augustine on how dangerous that is to the Christian faith, as it has been published many times. But the huge numbers of young people leaving the churches which encourage such denial should be raising red flags.

I want to show people that you can be science-minded and also be a genuine born-again Christian. That attracts people, both people who have been drifting away and people raised outside the church who have spiritual questions. It allows people to grow spiritually and morally without having to pretend that 2+2 does not make 4.

This excusing yourself of course goes back to the stance you have taken on morality,

I haven't actually discussed morality. All I am pointing out is that evolution does not discuss, or take a stance on, morality either. Morality is a different issue than evolution. Leave evolution out of it and I will be happy to discuss morality. But dragging in evolution is a red herring both morally and scientifically.

I hazard a guess that because you believe in Evolution you think you are on a mission from God to be as moral as possible and that should you fail you have Jesus to fall back on, as if He is on standby or something.

Armchair psychology is almost always wrong, and so is this. Jesus is most definitely not a "fall-back" in my view. Jesus is first and foremost and all else is secondary to him.

Start with sin. Work out why you don't sin for a reason that you derive from God, not from man. Then wait for inspiration. Remember Lot's wife.

Who says I don't sin? I do sin. Just like everyone else. I need God's help to free me from sin. I need a Saviour whom I find in Christ.

All I am saying is that this has nothing to do with evolution and evolution has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[gluadys]

Just a question on how you view Gen 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

It says here that God formed man from the dust, not an ape, then breathed the breath of life into him through his nostrils. If man evolved from an ape, why would God put this verse in Holy Scripture?

I don't think we have any quarrel with what the text says. So perhaps your real question is "should we understand this as a literal description of an instantaneous physical event or should we understand it as a spiritual lesson or both?"

Let me ask you a question: what is more real--the physical or the spiritual?
And follow it up with another question: what is more important--the physical or the spiritual?

How can there be death before sin?

What sort of death did sin bring into the world? And to whom?

"Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and a supporter of various atheist, secular, and humanistic organisations. Although he was confirmed into the Church of England at the age of thirteen, he started to lose his religious faith when he discovered Darwin. He revealed that his understanding of evolution led him to atheism and is puzzled by belief in God among individuals who are sophisticated in science."

From wikipedia Richard Dawkins (can't post links yet). Granted it is wikipedia...

Yes, Dawkins is puzzled by belief in God among those who are sophisticated in science because he has a very inadequate understanding of belief. Perhaps because he turned to atheism while very young and so never developed a mature understanding of faith or the scriptures--so he wonders why mature individuals who are sophisticated in science can take seriously a belief appropriate to a ten-year-old. The answer, of course, is that these individuals do not have a belief appropriate to a ten-year-old, but to an adult and Dawkins, who never matured spiritually, cannot comprehend that.

 

[Roms916]

I don't think we have any quarrel with what the text says. So perhaps your real question is "should we understand this as a literal description of an instantaneous physical event or should we understand it as a spiritual lesson or both?"

Let me ask you a question: what is more real--the physical or the spiritual?
And follow it up with another question: what is more important--the physical or the spiritual?

I appreciate your honest response. I would say that both the physical and spiritual are both real, I cannot say that one is more real than the other, but I do concur (I think) that the spiritual is more important.

However, you cannot ignore the plain meaning of the text: God formed man from the dust of the ground. If I were to cleave to an evolutionary understanding of the text, then I would have to concede that God did not form Adam from the dust or Eve from his side (Gen 2:22), but they both rather evolved over countless years.

What sort of death did sin bring into the world? And to whom?

Spiritual certainly in separation from God (Gen 3:24) and also a physical death Gen 3:22, Roms 5:12.

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." Roms 5:12

In the new creation all believers will no longer be subject to death, just like the original creation (Rev 21:4). There will also be the tree of life there just like in the garden of eden (Rev 22:2, Gen 3:22).

Yes, Dawkins is puzzled by belief in God among those who are sophisticated in science because he has a very inadequate understanding of belief. Perhaps because he turned to atheism while very young and so never developed a mature understanding of faith or the scriptures--so he wonders why mature individuals who are sophisticated in science can take seriously a belief appropriate to a ten-year-old. The answer, of course, is that these individuals do not have a belief appropriate to a ten-year-old, but to an adult and Dawkins, who never matured spiritually, cannot comprehend that.

I am struggling to respond to you on this (please excuse the honest and open response) because I myself was seduced by naturalistic evolution for many years. I saw no need for the Living God in the origin of creation. However, after becoming a Christian and studying the assumptions and mechanisms of evolution, I came to the realization of how wrong evolution is and how opposed to the Word of God. Now Paul said in Roms 14:21 that:
"It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall."
I will not compromise the Word of God to allow evolution or retreat into a merely spiritual interpretation of Genesis. Nor will I take any action to propagate evolution as truth. I know first hand that this may cause your brother or sister to fall or not come to faith. "Science" (read: naturalism) can be construed into an idol today.

The Bible is the authority. Any good scientist will test their theory against the revealed Word of God because Holy Scripture is always true. The Bible may confirm the theory, contradict the theory--indicating the theory is false--or be silent on a given theory.

Dawkins has a very rudimentary understanding of this religion, no small thanks to the millions of Christians such as the OP who make it a black and white issue between "Evolution or God." For Dawkins, evidence is king and he doesn't see the evidence for religion, but he sees it for science. For those raised in evangelical circles, they are given the opposite approach and told to deliberately doubt scientific approaches, and let's face it: very few born again Christians know anything about science beyond a grade 6 education, if even that. Dawkins sees the loud, pushy, obnoxious evangelical movement and their anti-science crusades and immediately thinks all believers are like that. And frankly, most are. But that's primarily why he rejects all religion as child-like, due to people like the OP, who make that distinction for him.

I was certainly not raised in an evangelical or even religious circles, yet it has been my experience that it is the evolutionists who have a poor understanding of science, causality, and mechanisms.

 

[Gottservant]

Stop mincing words with me! The arguments are very sound.

Jesus changed his DNA: they say we cannot.

The forbidden fruit is a temptation: they say it is not.

Even perfect creatures are tempted with sin: they say they are not.

I mean how clear do you want it? You talk about evidence as if it will poof make things clear one way or the other, but faith in God should tell you that nothing in reality will ever tell you clearly one way or the other anything, unless you have a moral structure by which to interpret it.

The idea that this is childish is childish and will be tested by the Devil for its morality. You have been warned.

 

[gluadys]

I appreciate your honest response. I would say that both the physical and spiritual are both real, I cannot say that one is more real than the other, but I do concur (I think) that the spiritual is more important.


Spiritual certainly in separation from God (Gen 3:24) and also a physical death Gen 3:22, Roms 5:12.

I will not compromise the Word of God to allow evolution or retreat into a merely spiritual interpretation of Genesis.

If the spiritual is more important, and at least as real as the physical, which death is more important, the spiritual or the physical? One might consider Jesus words in Matthew 10:8 here.

When you say "a merely spiritual interpretation" are you not implying that this would be less important and less real than an interpretation grounded in physicality? Might it not actually be more important, even more real?

What compromises the scripture? Obviously it compromises the scripture if, when it speaks of physical people, actions, places, events, one claims it does not. But does it not compromise scripture just as much when it presents imagery, metaphor, parable, etc. and one interprets these as merely physical, historical events of long ago?

Please don't claim that the way you personally understand scripture and find meaning in it is necessarily the right way or the only way. Please don't claim that disagreement with your personal take on the text is disagreement with the Word of God, because it is not.

Please do not identify scripture and only scripture as the Word of God, because you are not even reading scripture properly when you do so. Scripture is not God, not the object of Christian worship. The words of scripture are inspired by God, but not dictated by God so they are not the words of God. (That would be to claim for our scriptures what Muslims claim for the Qur'an.)

Scripture itself tells us that the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us. Scripture also tells us that the Word which once became flesh, existed in the beginning with God and was God and is the creator of all things that were made. In short, the Word of God is a much, much greater and glorious Being than the words of scripture, however dear the latter are to us. One might say, in truth, that the words of scripture are to the Word of God as moonlight is to sunlight: they reflect to us the light of the Word and we have confidence in the scriptures because the light they reflect is a light of truth, but like John the Baptist, they are not the light itself, but a testimony to the Light which came into the world.

Scripture tells us as well that as the Word created the world, creation is also revelation and worthy of study because it reveals the work of the Word. Creation's own being is grounded in the Word as its origin and sustainor. Paul appeals to creation as the witness of God to the whole world whether or not they have knowledge of law or gospel.

True respect for the Word of God means one can never pit scripture against creation for both come from the Word which gave them being. Nor can one be set above the other, for both have been brought into being by the same Word of truth.

However, you cannot ignore the plain meaning of the text: God formed man from the dust of the ground. If I were to cleave to an evolutionary understanding of the text, then I would have to concede that God did not form Adam from the dust or Eve from his side (Gen 2:22), but they both rather evolved over countless years.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionary understanding" of the text. It is inappropriate to introduce ideas derived from evolution (or other aspects of modern science) into a text as ancient as the Bible. That is to introduce anachronism into the text and is disrespectful of the intentions of the original author. We should rather seek out, as best we can, the intentions of the original author in the context of his/her time and place and society.

Modern "literalism" is often such a deformation of the text that overrides original meanings and emphases.

As for "plain meaning" what makes that important?
Did you know that from the early days of the church right up into the 16th century, those who studied scripture seriously considered that their task was to find the spiritual meaning hidden under the plain meaning? They often considered the plain meaning to be factual, but of less interest and importance than the spiritual meaning. And some were not averse at all to the possibility that in some instances, the plain meaning could not be factual. Ever read Origen or Augustine on the first three days of creation week?

Spiritual certainly in separation from God (Gen 3:24) and also a physical death Gen 3:22, Roms 5:12.

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." Roms 5:12

In the new creation all believers will no longer be subject to death, just like the original creation (Rev 21:4). There will also be the tree of life there just like in the garden of eden (Rev 22:2, Gen 3:22).

Spiritual death will certainly, and inevitably, lead also to physical death, but as Jesus said, it is also certainly more to be feared, for it is an eternal death, whereas physical death need not be so--is not so for those assured of resurrection.

"so death spread to all men because all men sinned"

What does that have to do with non-human or pre-human or proto-human death? Surely those beings did not sin, so their death is not a death that is a consequence of sin. And it does not entail spiritual death.

I am struggling to respond to you on this (please excuse the honest and open response) because I myself was seduced by naturalistic evolution for many years.

What does "naturalistic" mean to you? Does it mean "without divine action" or "without human action"?

Why do we call "natural" that which is not built by humans? From whom does that which is natural come if not from God?

I suggest you were not seduced by evolution, naturalistic or not, but by a misguided atheist convention to attribute anything which can be shown not to be a miraculous bending/breaking of the laws of nature as "not done by God." They just substitute "nature" for "God" as if nature itself is a god/dess.

It is a great shame that Christians have so lost sight of the original meaning of "natural" which attributed anything not made by human hands to God. The original contrary to "natural" was "artificial". In fact, that is the reason Darwin called his insight into the way species change "natural selection" as a contrast to "artificial (i.e. human-controlled) selection" It was his intent to say that there is a form of selection in nature which is not controlled by humans. It was not his intention to say that nature is not controlled by God.

And despite the fact that we have carelessly let atheists and secularists hijack "natural" to mean "without God" we still see remnants of the earlier understanding when we esteem what is natural above what is artificial.

Let us, as Christians, take it as a given that anything and everything which is part of the natural order is of divine origin and is sustained by divine power and love. Then we will understand that "naturalistic evolution" cannot be understood apart from the God who brought it into being for his own purposes.

I saw no need for the Living God in the origin of creation.

Because you were considering "naturalistic" in an atheist way. Trouble is, you still are.

However, after becoming a Christian and studying the assumptions and mechanisms of evolution,

I am really sorry to have to say this, but if you learned about these "assumptions and mechanisms" from anything other than a science text, you probably learned a lot of bs.

Indeed, one of the things that makes atheists out of former Christians is the feeling of betrayal that comes with learning that much of what they were taught about science, especially evolution, is simply not true. Many have lost their faith when they could no longer deny fact--not because the facts really contradict scripture--but because the facts were denied by people they trusted as teachers and leaders, and if you can't trust them about what you can see and test for yourself, how can you trust them on matters of faith where no such test is possible?

Others, thankfully, have weathered a crisis of faith and come out stronger believers than before when they realized that the facts of science and the truths of scripture are not in a competition for one's loyalty despite the claims of misinformed and misguided Christians.

I came to the realization of how wrong evolution is and how opposed to the Word of God.

Did you indeed? Or did you just learn a warped understanding of evolution?

Have you heard about the preacher who asks atheists "Tell me about the God you don't believe in." And when the atheist gets through his diatribe against God, he says "You know, I don't believe in that God either. Let me tell you about the God I do believe in."

I think we can often do the same with evolution. Describe what is wrong with evolution. I will not be surprised if what you describe is not really evolution at all.

"Science" (read: naturalism) can be construed into an idol today.

Sure, it can be. There is a view called "scientism" which contends that only what is scientifically validated can be considered true. But you would be hard-pressed to find many people, even among the non-religious, who are that extreme.


Science is etymologically "knowledge" and specifically knowledge about how the natural world works, apart from miracles. The basis of science as we know it today was founded by Christians beginning in the late Middle Ages. Occam's razor is named after a monk who set out one of the basic principles of science: it does not study miracles. It cannot study miracles except at the point where miracle leaves an imprint in nature that thereafter adheres to nature's laws. To take an example, science can tell us nothing of the miraculous conception of Christ in Mary's womb. But it can tell us in excruciating detail about the development of his body as an embryo and fetus.

Occam, of course, had no intention of denying miracles, but rather of keeping scholars conscious of the limits of human knowing. You cannot comprehend God's miraculous works, he told them. But you may diligently study and come to comprehend God's ordinary works of providence (which we today call 'naturalistic').

The Bible is the authority.

Never. God is the authority and while God speaks to us through scripture, God also speaks to us in other ways. We must hear God in all the ways God speaks and accept the authority of every chosen witness of God--among which are, of course, his incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit, and the world they created. Scripture has a pride of place among these and its own function in the life of the believer, but it is not to be set against them or held above them. We must no more make an idol of scripture than some do of science. Especially, we must not make an idol of one particular way of reading scripture, since all readings of scripture are human and subject to human fallibility, just as are all human readings of creation.

Any good scientist will test their theory against the revealed Word of God

Indeed, and the best place for a scientist to do that is in the Word revealed in the world created and sustained by God's love and power. That is a Word we can always trust--though it is difficult at times to find and understand it.

The word written in scripture does not have the function of teaching us about the natural world in a scientific way. It has a different, and complementary purpose: to lead us to Christ. So there is no reason to give it authority about what a scientist is permitted or not permitted to discover in nature. But whatever the scientist finds that is true of creation is a matter for which we can glorify God, as scripture teaches us.

The Bible may confirm the theory, contradict the theory--indicating the theory is false--or be silent on a given theory.

The Bible does not give us scientific theories. Any affirmation or contradiction of scientific theory attributed to the Bible is a work of human interpretation and likely a distortion of the Biblical message intended. Personally, I think it is as much a distortion of Biblical teaching to find confirmation of a scientific theory in its pages as to find contradiction of science in it. Science is just not what the bible is about and it never speaks authoritatively about it. Only human interpreters do, but I question their authority to do so.

I was certainly not raised in an evangelical or even religious circles, yet it has been my experience that it is the evolutionists who have a poor understanding of science, causality, and mechanisms.

I expect your experience is rooted in a distorted understanding of evolution.

btw, what do you understand by "evolutionist"? In your view is an evolutionist always an atheist? What term would you use for Christians who have no intellectual or spiritual problem with evolution?

Since this is a forum in the Christian-only section of this site, it would be best not to use terms that imply your interlocutor is an unbeliever.

 

[Assyrian]

Stop mincing words with me! The arguments are very sound.

Jesus changed his DNA: they say we cannot.

Firstly, we have no idea how the miracle of the Incarnation happened. You are assuming it involved a changing DNA, which may bee what happened, but ultimately is just sheer speculation. Secondly this miracle was performed by Almighty God, Luke 1:35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God. As Jesus said on another occasion, Matt 19:26 "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 

[Roms916]

If the spiritual is more important, and at least as real as the physical, which death is more important, the spiritual or the physical? One might consider Jesus words in Matthew 10:8 here.

The spiritual death is more important. Do you mean Matt 10:28?
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

When you say "a merely spiritual interpretation" are you not implying that this would be less important and less real than an interpretation grounded in physicality? Might it not actually be more important, even more real?

What compromises the scripture? Obviously it compromises the scripture if, when it speaks of physical people, actions, places, events, one claims it does not. But does it not compromise scripture just as much when it presents imagery, metaphor, parable, etc. and one interprets these as merely physical, historical events of long ago?

Please don't claim that the way you personally understand scripture and find meaning in it is necessarily the right way or the only way. Please don't claim that disagreement with your personal take on the text is disagreement with the Word of God, because it is not.

Please do not identify scripture and only scripture as the Word of God, because you are not even reading scripture properly when you do so. Scripture is not God, not the object of Christian worship. The words of scripture are inspired by God, but not dictated by God so they are not the words of God. (That would be to claim for our scriptures what Muslims claim for the Qur'an.)

Scripture itself tells us that the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us. Scripture also tells us that the Word which once became flesh, existed in the beginning with God and was God and is the creator of all things that were made. In short, the Word of God is a much, much greater and glorious Being than the words of scripture, however dear the latter are to us. One might say, in truth, that the words of scripture are to the Word of God as moonlight is to sunlight: they reflect to us the light of the Word and we have confidence in the scriptures because the light they reflect is a light of truth, but like John the Baptist, they are not the light itself, but a testimony to the Light which came into the world.

True, it will take eternity to understand God if it is even possible, we have only heard the faintest whisper of how great God is:

Job 26:14 (NIV)
"'And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?'."

Please do not think that I am so prideful. I am learning Holy Scripture as the Holy Spirit enables me, reveals to me, and guides me into truth.

However, you cannot go against revealed scripture.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16-17
We also know that God does not lie or change His mind (Num 23:19), which I know you agree with. So why would God not describe the origin of creation accurately or veil it in some spiritual interpretation before the literal interpretation is established?

Jesus quoted Genesis 1 and 2 when responding to the pharisees to justify marriage.
Matt 19:4:
“'Haven’t you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’" (Gen 1:27)
Matt 19:5
"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’" (Gen 2:24).
Matt 19:6
"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
This would have been a great opportunity to correct the interpretation of Genesis...

You speak the truth when you say that Holy Scripture is not the object of worship. God is the sole object of worship (Col 3:17) and is only revealed in Holy Scripture. Creation cannot and does not reveal the gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ. Sure it can reveal attributes about God, but it does not reveal the gospel. Creation points to a Creator. Why did God send the prophets or be incarnated into flesh if creation is sufficient? All cultures had some belief in gods (none were atheist).

Acts 17:26-27
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Creation points to a creator. (Interesting how Paul says that "From one man he made all nations" because Eve was made out of Adam's side. The text does not say from one man and woman.)

Scripture tells us as well that as the Word created the world, creation is also revelation and worthy of study because it reveals the work of the Word. Creation's own being is grounded in the Word as its origin and sustainor. Paul appeals to creation as the witness of God to the whole world whether or not they have knowledge of law or gospel.

True respect for the Word of God means one can never pit scripture against creation for both come from the Word which gave them being. Nor can one be set above the other, for both have been brought into being by the same Word of truth.

And now we have gotten to the heart of the matter, the stump of Dagon, the pole of Asherah: Creation is fallen, you cannot use a fallen creation to reinterpret Holy Scripture, which is "God-breathed." Sin and the fall distort the conclusions you make based on the observations you make about creation.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionary understanding" of the text. It is inappropriate to introduce ideas derived from evolution (or other aspects of modern science) into a text as ancient as the Bible. That is to introduce anachronism into the text and is disrespectful of the intentions of the original author. We should rather seek out, as best we can, the intentions of the original author in the context of his/her time and place and society.

Modern "literalism" is often such a deformation of the text that overrides original meanings and emphases.

As for "plain meaning" what makes that important?
Did you know that from the early days of the church right up into the 16th century, those who studied scripture seriously considered that their task was to find the spiritual meaning hidden under the plain meaning? They often considered the plain meaning to be factual, but of less interest and importance than the spiritual meaning. And some were not averse at all to the possibility that in some instances, the plain meaning could not be factual. Ever read Origen or Augustine on the first three days of creation week?

The plain meaning is important because I would never want to stand before Jesus Christ and have to explain why I did not take Him at His word. I would rather God explain to me why I was wrong, than have to explain why I did not believe what He said. Jesus frequently asks in the gospels "have you not read?" or says "whoever has ears, let them hear."

Origen wrote over 6000 books, many have been lost so I am always cautious when someone refers to Origen because we do not have his complete work.

Although Augustine did fluctuate between an allegorical interpretation and literal interpretation at times, the below two quotes are pretty definitive. He by no means believed in billions of years, whether he held to a 6 literal day creation or an instantaneous creation I cannot say for certain.

"These works are recorded to have been completed in six days (the same day being six times repeated), because six is a perfect number,--not because God required a protracted time, as if He could not at once create all things, which then should mark the course of time by the movements proper to them, but because the perfection of the works was signified by the number six." AUGUSTINE CITY OF GOD BOOK XI p. 222

"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." AUGUSTINE CITY OF GOD BOOK XI p. 232

Many early church fathers believed in a literal 6 day creation from what I have read among them being:
Ambrose of Milan
Clement of Alexandria
Theophilus
Irenaeous
Justin Martyr
Tertullian

So how this bolsters a merely spiritual interpretation of the text, billions of years, or evolution is beyond me.

Spiritual death will certainly, and inevitably, lead also to physical death, but as Jesus said, it is also certainly more to be feared, for it is an eternal death, whereas physical death need not be so--is not so for those assured of resurrection.

"so death spread to all men because all men sinned"

What does that have to do with non-human or pre-human or proto-human death? Surely those beings did not sin, so their death is not a death that is a consequence of sin. And it does not entail spiritual death.

I was merely referring to Adam and Eve, since that was what my original question was based on, but certainly all of creation groans because it is subject to the bondage of corruption Roms 8:21-22 (most of Romans 8 speaks of this), the earth waxes old like a garment Is 51:6. And the new creation, (created ex-nihilo) Rev 21 will no longer have death, just like the original creation should have been.

So in your estimation, when did the proto-human or pre-human obtain a soul by God? If God did not create Adam out of the dust, at what point did small changes necessitate the hand of God to give "Adam" a soul?

What does "naturalistic" mean to you? Does it mean "without divine action" or "without human action"?

Why do we call "natural" that which is not built by humans? From whom does that which is natural come if not from God?

I suggest you were not seduced by evolution, naturalistic or not, but by a misguided atheist convention to attribute anything which can be shown not to be a miraculous bending/breaking of the laws of nature as "not done by God." They just substitute "nature" for "God" as if nature itself is a god/dess.

It is a great shame that Christians have so lost sight of the original meaning of "natural" which attributed anything not made by human hands to God. The original contrary to "natural" was "artificial". In fact, that is the reason Darwin called his insight into the way species change "natural selection" as a contrast to "artificial (i.e. human-controlled) selection" It was his intent to say that there is a form of selection in nature which is not controlled by humans. It was not his intention to say that nature is not controlled by God.

I would say my definition of "naturalistic" could fit either definition, but perhaps I am more accustomed to the vulgar use of it by the atheist rather than its original meaning. It is true, at least to my memory, that not even Darwin was an atheist.

 

[Roms916]

And despite the fact that we have carelessly let atheists and secularists hijack "natural" to mean "without God" we still see remnants of the earlier understanding when we esteem what is natural above what is artificial.

Let us, as Christians, take it as a given that anything and everything which is part of the natural order is of divine origin and is sustained by divine power and love. Then we will understand that "naturalistic evolution" cannot be understood apart from the God who brought it into being for his own purposes.

Because you were considering "naturalistic" in an atheist way. Trouble is, you still are.

Except the atheist does...any worldview on origin that has a consensus among non-believers should be automatically suspect. The "magic genie" of atheists is time. Given enough time anything can happen, at least that's what Dawkins and many atheist claim today. If you are willing to accept evolution, then the atheist will always co-opt it to destroy God's role in creation by adding more and more time. If you have some time, take a look at a graph of the inflation of the age of the earth. They will just keep adding time until they can remove God (this is what they have done since the beginning). This is obviously not correct (I think you would agree with this), but this is the strategy of the enemy (and I don't mean atheists).

I am really sorry to have to say this, but if you learned about these "assumptions and mechanisms" from anything other than a science text, you probably learned a lot of bs.

Really? I learned these from evolutionists...are you saying that evolutionists do not understand the assumptions with evolution or the supposed mechanisms of evolution?

It is interesting however that you hold a science text higher than the Holy word of God. In other words, you assume the science text correctly presents evolution, its mechanisms and assumptions, even though it is written by fallible men, which can be taken at face value despite its many errors, but Holy Scripture inspired by God Himself cannot be taken at face value...

Indeed, one of the things that makes atheists out of former Christians is the feeling of betrayal that comes with learning that much of what they were taught about science, especially evolution, is simply not true. Many have lost their faith when they could no longer deny fact--not because the facts really contradict scripture--but because the facts were denied by people they trusted as teachers and leaders, and if you can't trust them about what you can see and test for yourself, how can you trust them on matters of faith where no such test is possible?

Others, thankfully, have weathered a crisis of faith and come out stronger believers than before when they realized that the facts of science and the truths of scripture are not in a competition for one's loyalty despite the claims of misinformed and misguided Christians.

Evolution--as taught in public schools--is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for people to come to faith in the west. If evolution has the answers, then Holy Scripture does not.

Paul went as far as to state that he would never eat meat, if he knew that would cause his brother to fall (1 Cor 8:13).

Did you indeed? Or did you just learn a warped understanding of evolution?

Have you heard about the preacher who asks atheists "Tell me about the God you don't believe in." And when the atheist gets through his diatribe against God, he says "You know, I don't believe in that God either. Let me tell you about the God I do believe in."

I think we can often do the same with evolution. Describe what is wrong with evolution. I will not be surprised if what you describe is not really evolution at all.

A simple definition of evolution (as was taught to me) stresses small changes in alleles in a population of organisms that are inherited through subsequent generations. Now there are two aspects to this one is micro-evolution (or variation as it was called prior to evolution); the second is macro-evolution. Variation allows changes within kinds, macro-evolution does not. Gen 1 says that plants and animals propagate after their respective "kinds." There is a limit to the amount of change allowed in a population according to Holy Scripture.

Evolutionists also push a "common ancestor" if you open a biology textbook you will see great diagrams of the phylogenetic tree showing that all life comes from a common ancestor. The history of man that would need to be adapted for evolution is the primary point of contention which you are fully aware. Either God created mankind as human beings in the image of God Gen 1:27 or he created a lesser form of life and had it evolve over countless generations as I previously intimated through unknown mechanisms. These mechanisms are unknown because God rested on the seventh day Gen 2:2. Whatever mechanisms evolution claims to be in use today cannot be used to interpret the past creation of God because God has rested from His work of creation. Unless everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation...

Science is etymologically "knowledge" and specifically knowledge about how the natural world works, apart from miracles. The basis of science as we know it today was founded by Christians beginning in the late Middle Ages. Occam's razor is named after a monk who set out one of the basic principles of science: it does not study miracles. It cannot study miracles except at the point where miracle leaves an imprint in nature that thereafter adheres to nature's laws. To take an example, science can tell us nothing of the miraculous conception of Christ in Mary's womb. But it can tell us in excruciating detail about the development of his body as an embryo and fetus.

Occam, of course, had no intention of denying miracles, but rather of keeping scholars conscious of the limits of human knowing. You cannot comprehend God's miraculous works, he told them. But you may diligently study and come to comprehend God's ordinary works of providence (which we today call 'naturalistic').

Keep in mind that people in the late Middle Ages in Europe generally had a Biblical or Christian worldview and many acknowledged at least the existence of God. Is that the same today?

Never. God is the authority and while God speaks to us through scripture, God also speaks to us in other ways. We must hear God in all the ways God speaks and accept the authority of every chosen witness of God--among which are, of course, his incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit, and the world they created. Scripture has a pride of place among these and its own function in the life of the believer, but it is not to be set against them or held above them. We must no more make an idol of scripture than some do of science. Especially, we must not make an idol of one particular way of reading scripture, since all readings of scripture are human and subject to human fallibility, just as are all human readings of creation.

Holy Scripture is the authority because it is the word of God. Holy Scripture is trustworthy 2 Tim 3:15-17 and God does not change His mind Num 23:19. If you cannot trust Holy Scripture to be correct then how do you know Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead? How do you know that Jesus rose from the death in a physical body? Or whether you are still in your sins and your faith is in vain? How do you know that from "the world?" It is Holy Scripture that gives wisdom for salvation. God for whatever reason has chosen to speak primarily through His holy and inerrant word to believers in this age and it is foolish to dismiss it because interpretation is subject to "human fallibility" or because it doesn't agree with evolution or because the spiritual interpretation is more comfortable. It is no idol to cleave to the revealed revelation of God.

Here is a good summary of what Holy Scripture says of itself from the-highway.com
pure—perfect—sure—truth—eternal—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17).

It is the word of God at least according to Jesus in Mark 7:13. Jesus rebuked the pharisees for following human traditions rather than the word of God. Jesus frequently rebuked the devil, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. with Holy Scripture.

True, interpretations may not always be correct that is why God gives us this warning in 1 John 4:1 to "test the spirits." Paul also commended the Bereans for checking his teachings with the Scriptures Acts 17:11. This is a rather puzzling warning in regards to your comment as Paul was the apostle chosen by Jesus Christ in a vision Acts 9. Why were the Bereans commended for checking Paul's teaching if Paul is God's representative? Too bad there are not more Bereans today. Shouldn't Paul have rebuked them on the spot and claimed apostolic authority over the revealed Scripture? How could he trust a fallible human interpretation?

Indeed, and the best place for a scientist to do that is in the Word revealed in the world created and sustained by God's love and power. That is a Word we can always trust--though it is difficult at times to find and understand it.

The word written in scripture does not have the function of teaching us about the natural world in a scientific way. It has a different, and complementary purpose: to lead us to Christ. So there is no reason to give it authority about what a scientist is permitted or not permitted to discover in nature. But whatever the scientist finds that is true of creation is a matter for which we can glorify God, as scripture teaches us.

Not if what is found true in creation contradicts the revealed word of God. Lev 17:11 states that the life of a creature is in the blood. Now doctors long ago used leeches to remove the bad humors from a patient. The leech somehow knew how to take in the bad humor and leave the good according to them. It is unfortunate that doctors were not more familiar with this text.

How about the steady-state theory for the universe or that the universe is eternal? Gen 1:1 says that the universe has a beginning and an end (Rev 20). How about Lamarck's theory of evolution? How about Haeckel's long discredited embryo chart (that is still in some textbooks today, btw)? How about pilt-down man, nebraska man, peppered moths, vestigial organs, etc.? It is sad how people are deceived by such hoaxes, as Christians, we know who the father of lies is John 8:44. This reminds me of Col 2:3: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces (or the basic principles) of this world rather than on Christ." You cannot compartmentalize Holy Scripture.

I expect your experience is rooted in a distorted understanding of evolution.

btw, what do you understand by "evolutionist"? In your view is an evolutionist always an atheist? What term would you use for Christians who have no intellectual or spiritual problem with evolution?

Since this is a forum in the Christian-only section of this site, it would be best not to use terms that imply your interlocutor is an unbeliever.

An evolutionist is simply someone who holds to evolution.

The Bible does not give us scientific theories. Any affirmation or contradiction of scientific theory attributed to the Bible is a work of human interpretation and likely a distortion of the Biblical message intended. Personally, I think it is as much a distortion of Biblical teaching to find confirmation of a scientific theory in its pages as to find contradiction of science in it. Science is just not what the bible is about and it never speaks authoritatively about it. Only human interpreters do, but I question their authority to do so.

It is not a distortion of Holy Scripture to check a scientific theory against revealed Scripture. It in fact would have saved secularists a lot of time, effort, and money. What if I came to you and said that the universe has no beginning and gave strong proof for it being so, would you believe it? Scientists used to believe this and there was consensus. According to what you said above, I have to lean to yes you would believe it even though it violates God's holy word. What if I came to you and said that crucifixion was not used in Jesus' time and gave a scientific proof for it, would you believe it? You have already compromised the word of God and this is really the underlying issue. I start with Holy Scripture and let Holy Scripture order my doctrine. You do not, you start with a fallen creation or the consensus of fallible man and let that interpret scripture for you (at least this is my impression, but then I am a fallible human).

 

[gluadys]

The spiritual death is more important. Do you mean Matt 10:28?

Yes

So why would God not describe the origin of creation accurately or veil it in some spiritual interpretation before the literal interpretation is established?

Why not? Scripture often depicts God as a potter who made humanity as a potter makes vessels. Why should we presume that God is intending to present us with a scientifically factual description?

Jesus quoted Genesis 1 and 2 when responding to the pharisees to justify marriage.
[snip] This would have been a great opportunity to correct the interpretation of Genesis...

Well, we know the Pharisees' interpretation of divorce needed correcting, but we don't know if their interpretation of creation did. Even if it was, it would be poor teaching procedure on Jesus' part to expand the topic from the bond of marriage to the creation of humanity. He very wisely sticks to the one point that needed to be made in this circumstance.

God is the sole object of worship (Col 3:17) and is only revealed in Holy Scripture.

I agree with the first half of this statement, but not the second. God has never limited his self-revelation to scripture alone.

Creation cannot and does not reveal the gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ.

True, that is why we do need the testimony of the Spirit, the prophets and the apostles as recorded in the Holy Scriptures. That is why the scriptures are essential and important in Christian teaching and practice. Creation is revelation of a different sort: general revelation. It can and should lead to acknowledgment and possibly worship of the Creator, and for this reason idolatry and atheism are without excuse on the day of judgment. But it is insufficient to lead us to salvation. However, insofar as both creation and scripture each reveal God, though in different ways and for different purposes, they cannot be set against each other as if one were true and the other not.

The only arena in which conflict can appear is in human frailty of understanding and interpreting what God is saying in each of these modes of revelation. So, for example, to interpret a sound scientific discovery as if it excluded God and supported atheism would be a misinterpretation of the science. The Christian dealing in scientific matters needs to be able to distinguish the scientific verity from any such misappropriation of it for atheistic purposes. It is just as important to retain what is the truth about creation even as one rejects the swaddling clothes of atheism wrapped around it.

Creation is fallen, you cannot use a fallen creation to reinterpret Holy Scripture, which is "God-breathed." Sin and the fall distort the conclusions you make based on the observations you make about creation.

Now this is a good example of what I would call a misinterpretation of the relevant scriptures. Creation is not fallen and has never fallen. It is humanity that is fallen. Even in respect to humanity the fall does not take away from us the God-given marks of humanity. We are still made in the image of God--however we deface and mar that image in our pursuit of sin. We still hold dominion over the other creatures--and in our fallenness, that is indeed bondage to them, just as in human society, to be under the rule of a just king is a blessing, but to be under the rule of a wicked king is oppression.

Creation itself cannot be fallen, for it was made to sustain us, and all living creatures and it does. It was made to reveal God as Creator and testify of his glory, and it does. But creation does suffer futility, for it cannot be entirely what it was meant to be because its caretaker, its human lord, stands in the way of fulfilling its purpose. Even more, we who should be nurturing the earth and wisely managing its populations, are actually harming it with our greed and our wars. So it is no wonder that under the oppressive hand of a wicked ruler (sinful humanity) creation groans with longing for the revealing of the children of God and the end of its futility and bondage. But scripture never uses the term "fallen" of creation.

btw, for a more extensive discussion of the proper interpretation of scripture on this point you might like to read C. John Collins "Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary". In most respects you will certainly find his conservative evangelical approach compatible with your own. For example, he upholds the Mosaic authorship of Genesis.

The plain meaning is important because I would never want to stand before Jesus Christ and have to explain why I did not take Him at His word.

Sometimes, taking a person at their word requires not taking the plain meaning as the intended meaning. Have you cut off your right hand or plucked out your eye? Interpretation must always begin with the plain meaning, for that will inform the intended meaning, even when the intended meaning is less plain. But it will hardly do to say that discerning a discrepancy between plain meaning and intended meaning is a matter of not taking Him at his word.

I would rather God explain to me why I was wrong, than have to explain why I did not believe what He said. Jesus frequently asks in the gospels "have you not read?" or says "whoever has ears, let them hear."

True, the interpreter may mistake the intended meaning, but that just puts him in the same place as yourself if you have held to the plain meaning and been wrong. IOW holding to the plain meaning may be wrong and not holding to it may be wrong, but in either case it is a mistake to be explained and corrected, nothing more. You can be open to God explaining why you should have looked deeper than the plain meaning and I can be open to God explaining why I should have accepted the plain meaning. But neither of us should be charged with not believing what God said. Each of us has believed to the best of our understanding.

Although Augustine did fluctuate between an allegorical interpretation and literal interpretation at times, the below two quotes are pretty definitive. He by no means believed in billions of years, whether he held to a 6 literal day creation or an instantaneous creation I cannot say for certain.

Augustine had no reason to believe in billions of years. But he did not take the creation days to be ordinary days.

Many early church fathers believed in a literal 6 day creation from what I have read among them being:

And that tells us there have always been varieties of interpretation of the scriptures since the earliest days of the church. We should not therefore pass judgment on one another because we have varities of interpretations. .

So how this bolsters a merely spiritual interpretation of the text,

Oh, we are back to "merely" spiritual interpretations again? Why do you continue to denigrate the importance of the spiritual vis-a-vis the material?

...billions of years, or evolution is beyond me.

Why should scripture bolster modern science? That is not its function. None of the writers knew anything of modern science and could not, did not comment on it. Whenever they commented on natural things, they did so within the understanding of their time. Sometimes that understanding was very different from ours--we might even call it scientifically false--yet God used their less than perfect understanding of the mechanics of nature to teach them and us timeless spiritual truths about Himself, ourselves, our need for salvation and our hope of redemption. John Calvin called this practice of God stooping to our level of understanding as parents do with young children "accommodation". God accommodating himself to our understanding in scripture is a foretaste of his coming to us as one of us in Jesus Christ.

I was merely referring to Adam and Eve, since that was what my original question was based on, but certainly all of creation groans because it is subject to the bondage of corruption Roms 8:21-22 (most of Romans 8 speaks of this), the earth waxes old like a garment Is 51:6. And the new creation, (created ex-nihilo) Rev 21 will no longer have death, just like the original creation should have been.

ex nihilo applies to the original creation. John Polkinghorne (another theologian worth reading) suggests the new creation will be ex vetero--out of the old. That makes sense to me for to make a new creation ex nihilo would mean that God's purpose in creating this world could not be brought to fruition. And that is hardly what scripture tells us of God. Cleansing and healing this creation, banishing all evil from it, fits better with the scriptural outline of God's plan. Redemption is not limited to humanity.

So in your estimation, when did the proto-human or pre-human obtain a soul by God? If God did not create Adam out of the dust, at what point did small changes necessitate the hand of God to give "Adam" a soul?

I have not the vaguest idea and I don't think it is a particularly important piece of information to have. btw, nothing "necessitates" the hand of God. We are who we are by God's free grace, not because anything ever forced his hand.

I would say my definition of "naturalistic" could fit either definition, but perhaps I am more accustomed to the vulgar use of it by the atheist rather than its original meaning. It is true, at least to my memory, that not even Darwin was an atheist.

Yes, Darwin ceased being a Christian, but he never ceased being a theist--though at times he considered himself an agnostic (a term coined by his friend Thomas Huxley). In his youth he considered himself a devout Christian who could in good conscience affirm the creeds of the church and contemplate entering the priesthood; in his old age his beliefs such as they were (he himself declared them "muddled") were more Deist than Christian.

One of the problems with being accustomed to the atheist use of "natural/naturalistic" et al is that it leads to misinterpreting older scientific documents more atheistically than the authors intended. Even as late as Darwin's time "naturalist" simply meant "one who studies the natural world" and was the normal term for what we call a scientist. It had no implication of atheism at all. So IMO it is good practice for Christians to constantly affirm that God is as much present in ordinary everyday nature as in extraordinary miraculous works. Let's not be scared off by "naturalistic" as if it were an automatic denial of God. That's giving in to atheist perceptions in our very own thinking.

We should be teaching our children that all of nature is God's realm and whatever is not artificial (made by human skill) is natural (God's work).

 

[gluadys]

Except the atheist does...any worldview on origin that has a consensus among non-believers should be automatically suspect.

But the consensus of scientists on such issues as deep space, deep time and evolution is not a consensus among non-believers; it is a consensus that believers among scientists subscribe to as well.

If you are willing to accept evolution, then the atheist will always co-opt it to destroy God's role in creation by adding more and more time.

How can he do that when God is in all times? God's eternity embraces an infinity of time, so deep time is no threat to God's role in creation.

Really? I learned these from evolutionists...are you saying that evolutionists do not understand the assumptions with evolution or the supposed mechanisms of evolution?

Evolutionists or scientists? A lot of people who would identify themselves as accepting evolution are not very knowledgeable about the science. So make sure you are getting your information from knowledgeable and, as far as you can tell, unbiased sources. Especially in the U.S., textbooks are not to show religious or anti-religious bias but discuss only the science. A good on-line source is Understanding Evolution. A Christian source that explains the science well is Evolution Basics.

It is interesting however that you hold a science text higher than the Holy word of God.

That is both untrue and unfair.

What I will say is that when science is right about creation (and it is not always right) then that truth cannot be denied because of the way you choose to read scripture. Any truth about creation comes straight from the mouth of God. He spoke it into being; it was made by His Word. And so we can be confident that He will not contradict it in scripture.

If we think we have found such a contradiction, we can be sure the fault is in us, in our errors of understanding, either of science or of the scriptures or both.

In other words, you assume the science text correctly presents evolution, its mechanisms and assumptions, even though it is written by fallible men, which can be taken at face value despite its many errors,

To the best of human capacity, yes. After all, a text is intended for the instruction of the young, and science does not get into a text until it has been tested enough to present it with confidence in its reliability. But if one peruses text books written 20 or 50 or 100 years ago, one will certainly find many errors in them and we can only guess how today's text will look to those studying science 20 or 50 or 100 years from today. Part of any good science teaching is to teach the principal of humility in the face of the facts, especially when the facts blow your theory out of the water.

So the main reason I recommend a text is not that the text will be free of errors, but that it will be free of the false assumptions about evolution often found in popular material.

but Holy Scripture inspired by God Himself cannot be taken at face value...

When God intends it so, surely it must be. And not when it is not so intended. Do I have an infallible sense of when the plain meaning is intended? Of course not. And neither do you.

Evolution--as taught in public schools--is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for people to come to faith in the west.

And that is a needless tragedy the church has brought on itself. Even churches that never disputed evolution failed to equip their members with a Christian understanding of evolution to supplement the school curriculum. Other churches turned to denying the truth about evolution in a futile defence of scripture. For truth cannot be defended with untruth. Fortunately, that situation is now being remedied, and we can hope it is not too late. Many Christians are now speaking up on the importance of embracing both scriptural and scientific truth.

If evolution has the answers, then Holy Scripture does not.

That is the false dichotomy and as long as you adhere to it and proclaim it you will be a stumbling block to people who might otherwise accept Christ.

A simple definition of evolution (as was taught to me) stresses small changes in alleles in a population of organisms that are inherited through subsequent generations. Now there are two aspects to this one is micro-evolution (or variation as it was called prior to evolution); the second is macro-evolution. Variation allows changes within kinds, macro-evolution does not.

You did not learn about "kinds" in science class. So I can assume you learned this version of evolution from a non-science (even anti-science) source.

Here are three points to consider:
1. "variation" is not a synonym of "evolution" or "micro-evolution". Variation is both a product and a pre-requisite of evolution. It is a product of evolution insofar as all variation is a consequence of changes in alleles. It is a pre-requisite insofar as absence of variation in a population gives natural selection nothing to work on.

2. Science deals with species, not kinds. My experience with people who like the terminology of kinds is that they cannot decide if kind is a synonym for species or refers to a group of species.

3. Depending on how you define "kinds" all evolution, including macro-evolution, occurs within kinds and cannot do otherwise. The distinction between micro and macro evolution is at the boundary of the species, not of the kind (unless you define kind as synonymous with species). Micro-evolution is evolutionary change within a species. Macro-evolution deals with how species are multiplied into more numerous and diverse species.

Gen 1 says that plants and animals propagate after their respective "kinds." There is a limit to the amount of change allowed in a population according to Holy Scripture.

The first statement comes from Holy Scripture. The second does not. Beware of putting human interpretation into the sacred text. Even when it seems logical, it is still not scripture and so not inspired truth.

Evolutionists also push a "common ancestor" if you open a biology textbook you will see great diagrams of the phylogenetic tree showing that all life comes from a common ancestor.

Yes, indeed. There is plenty of evidence to show that it is probably true.

Either God created mankind as human beings in the image of God Gen 1:27 or he created a lesser form of life and had it evolve over countless generations

You are assuming a particular mode of creation and rejecting the possibility that evolution is how God chose to create. This assumption is not supported by scripture. Scripture focuses on the fact of creation, not the mode of creation.

as I previously intimated through unknown mechanisms.

The mechanisms of evolution are known through observation.

These mechanisms are unknown because God rested on the seventh day Gen 2:2.

I don't think science should be used to interpret scripture any more than I think scripture should be used to interpret science. But neither should be interpreted in a manner that denies the truth of the other.

Keep in mind that people in the late Middle Ages in Europe generally had a Biblical or Christian worldview and many acknowledged at least the existence of God.

Exactly my point. And it was these people who established the basic parameters of western science which, ironically, some Christians now attack.

If you cannot trust Holy Scripture to be correct then how do you know Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead? How do you know that Jesus rose from the death in a physical body?

I would know because God's people have recounted the story generation to generation for over 2,000 years and because the Holy Spirit confirms their testimony in my heart. Do you really think God is incapable of seeing to it that the gospel is made known apart from a book? Paul asks, "how can they know without a preacher?" not "how can they know without the scriptures?"

it is foolish to dismiss it because interpretation is subject to "human fallibility" or because it doesn't agree with evolution or because the spiritual interpretation is more comfortable.

You are overreaching again. I have certainly never suggested dismissing scripture. Disagreeing with how you read and interpret the Bible is far from any such thing as dismissing or rejecting the sacred inspired writings. Unless you claim to be an infallible interpreter, be clear that my disagreements are with you, not with God or the Bible. Please do me the courtesy of letting God be my judge, not you.

I had hoped not to prolong this into another post, but the most important things have not yet been said. So continue to next post.

 

[gluadys]

Here is a good summary of what Holy Scripture says of itself from the-highway.com
pure—perfect—sure—truth—eternal—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17).

With a few exceptions, these are not things the scriptures say about themselves. They are what the scriptures say about the Word of God. And that is not quite the same thing. For example, Word of God is rightly described as eternal, but the Bible is not. Or do you think there was there a copy of the Bible in heaven before the creation began? (That is what Muslims believe about the Qur’an.) No, the scriptures came into being bit by bit as its authors were inspired to set it in writing.

The Psalmist says: Your word is a lamp unto my feet and a light to my path. In John’s gospel, Jesus says: I am the Way, the Truth and the Light. And Jesus is also identified as the Word. So, is the Psalmist alluding to the scriptures or to Christ or to both?

So, basically, what I am saying is that to speak of the scriptures is one thing; to speak of the Word of God is to speak of more than scripture and we cannot truly say that every scriptural reference to the Word of God is a reference to scripture or at least to scripture alone.

What scripture clearly says of scripture itself is set out in Paul’s letter to Timothy: it is inspired (God-breathed) and it is useful (an interesting term that includes neither infallibility nor inerrancy). And the ways in which it is useful are: for teaching, especially for instruction in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, for reproof and correction—as you note, Jesus often reproved the Pharisees on the basis of scripture—and for training in righteousness and equipping believers for good works. Scripture nowhere else speaks specifically of scripture, but this is still a very high view of scripture. Every other reference is to the Word of God, which is, as I said, a larger concept.

Now consider a few more elements of the description above: “it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—“ Scripture itself tells us that these are works of Christ (the Word, the Truth) and the Holy Spirit.

Is there a connection here to scripture? Of course there is. When we approach the sacred writings with reverence and a willingness to be taught of God by them, then by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit we are given the illumination of wisdom to understand. But it would be incorrect to say the scripture alone does these things. A cooperation is required by which the spirit of the reader receives the illumination of the Spirit and so, by the Spirit, through the medium of the scriptures is healed, regenerated, converted, strengthened in faith, spiritually fed, etc. Scripture plays an important part, but let us not attribute to words on a page what is also a work of God in a believer’s heart. It is the Spirit who turns mere human words into a living Word. John Calvin also taught, and I agree with him, that only the reader whose spirit is illuminated by the same Holy Spirit who originally inspired the writing of the scriptures can wholly receive the wisdom of God by them.

So my point is not to deny that the scriptures open the Word of God to us and us to the Word of God, but to reiterate that Word of God is a larger, more inclusive reality than Holy Scripture alone. I don’t know what Christian tradition you identify with, but I identify most closely with the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition. In that tradition, there is a very high regard indeed for the scriptures and we typically end readings with “hear the Word of the Lord”. But, as I learned in confirmation class, it is also part of that tradition that preaching is also a means of hearing the Word of God. The Word of God also comes to us in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (that is why, much to the dismay of the good burghers of Geneva, Calvin proposed the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper.) Above all, Christ is the incarnate Word of God and we should never lift the scriptures above that Word. Nevertheless, it would be foolish indeed to neglect the reading of Holy Scripture as it is very closely associated with, though not precisely identical to, the Word of God.

Paul also commended the Bereans for checking his teachings with the Scriptures Acts 17:11. . . . Shouldn't Paul have rebuked them on the spot and claimed apostolic authority over the revealed Scripture? How could he trust a fallible human interpretation?

I adhere to the Protestant principle that only the Holy Spirit can claim authority over revealed scripture.

Not if what is found true in creation contradicts the revealed word of God.

There is no such “if”. What is true in creation is an utterance of God for that is how it came to be. Therefore it cannot contradict the revealed Word of God for it is part of that revealed Word.

What it can contradict is an erroneous understanding of scripture.

We have seen this before, when Copernicus proposed and Galileo demonstrated that the earth orbits the sun. Martin Luther mocked the idea pointing out that Joshua told the sun to stop moving, not the earth. And some church leaders pointed to the words of the Psalmist which declare that the earth stands still forever. Clearly, they believed that one should take the plain meaning of these words at face value, for they are the words of Holy Writ, inspired by God himself.

Yet, by and large, Christians and Jews as well have decided to give these words a different interpretation. Mostly, it is said now that God permitted the ancient authors to use a language of appearance, to describe what an observer on earth would see, rather than the actual mechanics of the solar system. I think that is a very useful principle to keep in mind when dealing with other aspects of science as well.

How about the steady-state theory for the universe or that the universe is eternal? Gen 1:1 says that the universe has a beginning and an end (Rev 20).

Thomas Aquinas dealt well with that I think. He noted that from philosophy (i.e. science) alone, one could not show that the universe had a beginning. Of course, one could not show the opposite either. So it is wise in this case to heed the teaching of scripture and the church that it had a beginning as God created it. Lack of evidence of creation is not evidence of non-creation.

How about Lamarck's theory of evolution?

Not consistent with the evidence derived from the creation—as the people of the Soviet Union learned to their sorrow when Stalin forced it on their agricultural practice.

How about Haeckel's long discredited embryo chart (that is still in some textbooks today, btw)? How about pilt-down man, nebraska man, peppered moths, vestigial organs, etc.? It is sad how people are deceived by such hoaxes, as Christians, we know who the father of lies is John 8:44.

It is also sad that some people throw around hasty and unjustified accusations. The only actual hoax in that list is Piltdown Man.

You cannot compartmentalize Holy Scripture.

Agreed

An evolutionist is simply someone who holds to evolution.

Holds to? What does that mean? At least I take it that by “evolutionist” you include many people who don’t actually know much about evolution—like a kid in Grade Five who has learned a bit about natural selection but probably got it garbled because he wasn’t really paying attention in class. I hope you realize that just because a person “holds to” evolution, it doesn’t mean they can say anything worthwhile about it—and what they do say may be very wrong. That is why, for good information on evolution, one should go to scientists and science text books. Don’t just quote any old “evolutionist”.

It is not a distortion of Holy Scripture to check a scientific theory against revealed Scripture.

I would say it is. At least it is a misuse of scripture. It is using scripture for a purpose other than its intended purpose and that can easily lead to misinterpretation.

What if I came to you and said that the universe has no beginning and gave strong proof for it being so, would you believe it? . . . What if I came to you and said that crucifixion was not used in Jesus' time and gave a scientific proof for it, would you believe it?

In the first place one would have to check out the evidence. We are not likely to really find evidence that the Romans did not use crucifixion in Jesus’ time, so any evidence presented is suspect to begin with. I would rather not speculate on non-existent evidence that might lead me away from faith altogether. But I certainly don’t say one should roll over and accept anything and everything that is tagged “science”. We can afford to wait and see if the latest theory meets the test of the reality of the created world. Only then, if it does, we must accept the verdict of the creation and be humble enough, if necessary to admit that we may have misunderstood what is meant by some passages of scripture.

You have already compromised the word of God and this is really the underlying issue. I start with Holy Scripture and let Holy Scripture order my doctrine. You do not, you start with a fallen creation or the consensus of fallible man and let that interpret scripture for you (at least this is my impression, but then I am a fallible human).

Remember that and stop passing judgment. I am fully aware that I interpret some passages of scripture differently than you, but it is not your call to say whether that amounts to compromising scripture To me, your means of interpreting scripture sets many limits on God: limits on the means of revelation, the extent of revelation, and the mode of communication in scripture. But it is not my call to say you are mangling scripture either.

I think it behoves every Christian to study scripture deeply and reverently and seek the wisdom of God to understand it to the best of their ability. I am assuming that you are attempting to do this. So let me add this: if your best understanding of scripture leads you to see the theory of evolution as incompatible with scripture, you should reject evolution rather than scripture. For the truth about the created world (in a scientific sense) is not a truth that pertains to salvation while the truth of scripture is.

At the same time, don’t lash out against Christians whose best understanding of scripture does not lead to a rejection of evolution. You may not understand how they think, and that’s ok. It is ok to say to them “I can’t for the life of me figure out how you reconcile what scripture says with what science says, but as long as you love and serve the Lord, I offer you the right hand of fellowship. One day we will both understand as God does.”

 

[Roms916]

The crux of the argument has already been exposed: whether Holy Scripture is the authority or whether you reinterpret Holy Scripture based upon a fallen creation and the counsel of fallible man. All other controversies are fruitless.

I will let the Christian reader decide from Holy Scripture whether God created a "very good" creation in 6 days without defect, blemish or death; or whether He created an imperfect creation over billions of years with death, cancer, famine, "survival of the fittest", only the strong survive, decay, corruption, disease, carnivores, tsunamis, earthquakes, meteor impacts, volcanic activity, etc. then said that it is "very good" on the 6th day.

Whether God created a man--Adam--in His image out of the dust and Eve from his side or whether He created a single-celled organism, which evolved using unknown mechanisms.

Please know though that I will be sincerely praying for you gluadys.

 

[gluadys]

The crux of the argument has already been exposed: whether Holy Scripture is the authority or whether you reinterpret Holy Scripture based upon a fallen creation and the counsel of fallible man. All other controversies are fruitless.

No, that is not the crux of the argument at all, for there is one thing we both agree on: Holy Scripture is given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and has the authority of the Word of God.

And there is one thing we both do: interpret the scriptures as best we can.

Where we disagree is in what constitutes correct interpretation.

For example, you interpret scripture to mean that the created world is fallen.
I interpret scripture to mean that humanity is fallen, but not the rest of the created world.

The fact that we have different interpretations here does not mean that either one of us is disputing the inspiration or authority of the Bible.

But our different interpretations lead to different conclusions about the created world.

Since you interpret "fallen" as applying to all the created world--not just humans--you do not see the created world as a reliable revelation of God's Word.

Since I interpret "fallen" as applying only to sinful humanity and not the rest of creation, the created world is to me just as reliable a revelation of the Word of God as scripture is.

Because I see the created world as reliable revelation, I take its testimony seriously. Because you see the created world as fallen and unreliable, you do not trust its testimony.

That is the crucial difference between us, and it is a difference of interpretation, not of the reverence we share for the text of the Bible.

I will let the Christian reader decide from Holy Scripture whether God created a "very good" creation in 6 days without defect, blemish or death;

Well, scripture simply says "very good" without all the rest of it. We do not know for certain what God calls "very good". We don't know if God would call "defect" what we call "defect". We don't know that God considers physical death of plants not good. We don't know that God considers a lion taking down an antelope not good. We do know that when antelope herds are not culled by predators, it is bad for the herd. So it is entirely possible that predation is part of a "very good" creation.

or whether He created an imperfect creation over billions of years with death, cancer, famine, "survival of the fittest", only the strong survive, decay, corruption, disease, carnivores, tsunamis, earthquakes, meteor impacts, volcanic activity, etc. then said that it is "very good" on the 6th day.

Again, scripture says "very good"; it does not say "perfect" (and what is "perfection" anyway? "Perfect" really has two meanings. The more common is "without fault, defect or blemish" But the more fundamental meaning is "complete, finished". So even if God's work is "perfect" that could simply mean he has completed the work, not that it meets human aesthetic standards.

Additionally, in human lives, we often see that perfection is achieved through suffering. Why would that be any less true of the non-human creation?

Whether God created a man--Adam--in His image out of the dust and Eve from his side or whether He created a single-celled organism, which evolved using unknown mechanisms.

I would say this is a choice that does not need to be made. It is "both-and" not "either-or".

Please know though that I will be sincerely praying for you gluadys.

Thank you, and I for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

We should be careful to always separate our interpretation of the Word of God, from the Word itself. None of us is God, nor can any of us say by study of the Word, that we know with absolute certainty our understanding is the correct one.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok.

So we have three basic tenets of Evolution that mess with our idea of a moral life: monkeys, mutation and speciation. These three things combine to create a worldview that is devoid of God, but in the process also devoid of reason and moral accountability. But there are objections.

First: monkeys. Forget monkeys. It's not even relevant. Sure you can line skulls up, but in reality there's no reason to suggest we didn't start as humans and devolve to monkeys. It's all relative and totally laughable. The real crunch comes once you destroy the mechanism, the conviction and the benefit of evolution, everything else is a red herring. Monkeys are a red herring.

Do you mean old world monkeys, new world monkeys or the African Great Apes? I'm not sure what the argument is here but one thing is certain, in order for humans to have evolved from a common ancestor shared with the Chimpanzee our brains would have had to have tripled in size.

Second: mutation. They say it always happens, right? Wrong, Jesus was born of a virgin that means He had to change an XX chromosome into an XY. The simple fact is: He did this without sinning. No sin, no mutation. Just alteration. So the more complex fact is: we can change our DNA and not just by what we pass on to our kids. Evolution's mechanism: demolished.

Guess what happens when a mutation is introduced to a brain related gene.

Third: speciation. Woah! Wait a minute! You're jumping to the effects of Evolution before you've addressed the conviction? That's what they want you to do... there's a step here where you should be aware of the dangers of believing Evolution is the only way: the forbidden fruit. The forbidden fruit is forbidden because it's deadly right? But how do you know? Only by eating it. But what about Jesus, He wouldn't eat the fruit would He? No, so there are some people that survive without knowing, so survival isn't just about what you consume... but that's if you hear from God. How do Evolutionists know this? They don't! So the forbidden fruit proves that not everything can be adapted. Evolution's conviction: squashed.

Speciation is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens all the time. It has no bearing on origins and certainly doesn't warrant assuming an unbroken chain of gradual, exclusively naturalistic causes, going all the way back to the Big Bang.

The problem with Darwinian logic is that it comes before the evidence is ever examined, let alone explained.