Theistic Evolution incompatable with Scripture

[Singing Bush]

• The instanteous creation account is more majestic and characteristic of the God portrayed throughout the rest of the Bible

• There's already been a lot of chitter chatter in this thread so I'll just add a quick comment I've heard elsewhere that always stuck w/ me.

Which is more majestic and an amazing example of skill and calculation? Getting every pool ball in a pocket by manually stepping to each table pocket one by one, dropping the balls in? Or, with one thrust of the cue, sending into motion a sequence of events that ends with every ball being knocked into their respective pockets as planned when the shot was lined up?

Personally, I see the theory of evolution as being one of the most amazing things about nature.

 

[California Tim]

by this, I am assuming that despite our beliefs, you accept us TE's as brothers and sisters in christ, who will spend eternity in heaving with you?

Yes I do. While I feel holding the theory of evolution over creationism is an error, I do not believe it is indicative of an insincere commitment to Christ in and of itself, nor is it identified as a prerequisite (or postrequisite) for salvation.

 

[California Tim]

CT, please do us the favor of first educating yourself on the following topics before assuming what they are first please. It would add a lot of credibility to you:

1. What is Science?
2. What is evolution?

Why not save me a trip. Please enlighten me while in the process helping countless other simple-minded faith-based Christians here like me who simply accept God at His word. I look forward to your insight.

 

[Vance]

Why not save me a trip. Please enlighten me while in the process helping countless other simple-minded faith-based Christians here like me who simply accept God at His word. I look forward to your insight.

Three points:

1. TE's are faith-based Christians as well, and to the same degree as YEC's

2. TE's simply accept God at His word to the same degree as YEC's. We just think He is saying things differently that they do.

3. Evolution is a very big subject, and it is entirely unrealistic to ask someone to educate you on what it says and how it is supported. If you wish to discuss the issues, it is for you to learn at least a bit about it, and not from Creationist sources for the reason stated in my signature line.

Here is a very good place to start:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

This provides answers, and links to even more detailed answers, to most of the questions raised by Creationists. Whether you agree with these answers or not, it is not asking too much for you to at least learn the basics of the discussion first. This prevents unecessary repetition of presentations of evidence and issues.

 

[gluadys]

I do not know if you meant to present so obvious a contradiction. To suggest ET requires species to reproduce "after their kind" is untrue.

Clarification please. I am familiar with TE = Theistic Evolution(ist) and ToE=Theory of Evolution and ET=Extra-terrestrial. But that does not seem to be how you are using ET.

The Theory of Evolution requires that species reproduce after their kind, with variations. Darwin called this "descent with modification". That is also what we see in nature. The ToE does not require, indeed forbids, tampering with the observed processes of nature.

That they do reproduce is true and we have empirical evidence to support that. However, the fundamental difference between ET and Creationism is the concept of a species ability to spawn a completely new, unique and unrelated species versus the limitation of reproduction solely within the boundaries of the species.

The Theory of Evolution agrees that reproduction is ordinarily limited to the boundaries of the species. In a few instances, hybrids can be born of a mating between individuals of closely related species. In even fewer instances, such a hybrid may prove fertile and become a new species of its own. (Instances of the latter are found almost entirely in plants and are often accompanied by polyploidy--the doubling of the whole genome--which allows for continued reproduction.) The Theory of Evolution would be falsified, or at least seriously called into question by the production of a "new, unique, unrelated species". In the case of speciation (one species splits into two species) the two daughter species are always closely related. There are no saltations in nature.

Any view of evolution which suggests a plant or animal can produce offspring unrelated to itself, is nonsensical. Parents are always related to their children. Any view of evolution which suggests organisms can produce offspring distantly related to themselves (e.g. of a different order or family) is equally nonsensical. A parent-child relationship is only matched by a sibling relationship in closeness. All new species are daughter or sibling species to the population they are derived from.

New species are not unique in the sense of having major genetic or morphological differences from closely related species. The difference is one of reproductive isolation and rarely involves more than minor differences from the sibling species. The major differences are accumulated gradually after reproductive isolation has set in and are observed in the descendants over time, not in the original separating species.

So I take it you feel physical death was not part of the curse on creation since it must have already existed as an integral part of the process of evolution.

Anything created to reproduce is created to die. Mortality is a necessary consequence of reproduction.

It is clear that many organisms died before humanity existed. IIRC 99% of all species which have existed on earth at one time or another, are now extinct. While human interference with nature has accelerated the rate of extinction, most of these were extinct before humanity existed.

I would be interested in your interpretation of Genesis 1:30 insofar as the development of carnivores is concerned:

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.​

Many carnivores existed well before the appearance of humans on earth. Many became extinct long before the creation of humanity. The verses must be interpreted in light of these facts.

What might the significance of these verse be?

Genesis 5
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh.

snip

Are you of the opinion that all these very precise lifespans were ?
a) poetic
b) fabrications
c) non-essential, flipant information
-or-
4) meaningful representations of historical figures​

Such geneologies are typical of ancient mythology.

I just can't seem to bring myself to the point that any part of the written Word is to be dismissed as irrelevant to the overall plan of God for us - including these otherwise innane geneologies.

Neither can I. And no one is asking that of you. I believe all scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, instruction, reproof, etc. Sometimes the usefulness eludes me, but I assume that is a problem with me, not with the scriptures.

The Bible seems so plain to me I have trouble understanding those who read into it something other than the obvious unless otherwise clearly instructed to do so.

But it seems plain to you in a different way than it did 2-3000 or more years ago. Mythical world-views were the norm then, and a mythical interpretation would be seen as the plain, obvious way to read it.​

 

[California Tim]

Many carnivores existed well before the appearance of humans on earth. Many became extinct long before the creation of humanity. The verses must be interpreted in light of these facts.

If I were to echo one grave concern I have over the average TE position, this quote encapsulates the whole of it in a nutshell. Once again, it seems obvious to me, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a "scientific fact" is being used as the acid test for authenticity of scripture here. Please note, I use the word "fact" loosely, only to advance the discussion since "scientific facts" are in a constant state of flux.

To conclude that "carnivores existed well before the appearance of humans on earth" is to place a secular humanistic interpretation of evidence in authority over the plainly written Word of God. All passages of scripture are thus apparently subjected to the litmus test of secular humanistic reason before acceptance in cases like these. IF the scripture passage appears to contradict the secular hunmanistic conclusions, then it is either deemed metaphorical or an outright error.

Rather than engage in endless creation debate from these diametrically opposed positions on the preeminence of the Bible as objective Truth, we should simply start a new debate on that issue alone - When the Bible and secular science appear to contradict each other, which one prevails, forcing the other to conform? In fact, I'll start the new thread right now.

 

[gluadys]

Correction: Evolution asserts that species already must have spawned new and unrelated distinct species. It is accepted as the ONLY possible explanation for the existence of all distinct species on the planet, both plant and animal. Any attempt to refute this is spurned as fantasy. The evidence is thus wedged into the theory on the basis that no other explanation is possible - and then interpreted from that bias. It is not a symptom unique to Creationists.

An incorrect correction.

In the first place, the Theory of Evolution makes no assumption about how many original and unique creations of species there were. It only stipulates that however many there were, they have all evolved and produced new species.

All of the various species with a common ancestor are related. How could they not be?

The determination of which species are related to others by common ancestry, and what the current degree of relationship is, is a matter of research. Quite similar to researching a family tree, but without the advantage of finding birth certificates and similar documentation to help. Scientists have to rely solely on physical indicators of relationship.

It is also a hugely daunting task which has barely begun. With over a million species already catalogued, and an estimated 10 million not discovered yet, very few have been subjected to the detailed research required to establish firmly what their relationships are in detail. Broad outlines are easier to establish than fine details and are therefore much firmer.

Nevertheless, much has been learned, including how many species are related to the same common ancestor.

As it turns out, the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion (not assumption) that all living species are ultimately related to the same Universal Common Ancestor. If there ever were other original unique creations, those species have died out and left no trace either among living species or in the fossil record.

Because all living species go back to a single Universal Common Ancestor, they are all related to each other as well. Some are closely related (as sibling species) through a recent common ancestor. Some are rather like first cousins---related through a common "grandparent" species. And as one continues tracing the known phylogeny, the current species become less and less alike as their last common ancestor is more and more remote in time.

What many people forget about relationship through a common ancestor is that as you go back through the generations, the relationships among the ancestors becomes closer. Take your grandparent and the grandparent of your fourth cousin. They were second cousins to each other. And their grandparents were siblings--children of the same parent.

The same applies in phylogeny. A horse is quite distinct from a rhinoceros today---but the common ancestor of the horse and the common ancestor of the rhinoceros differed in only a few details of skull and tooth shape. They differed no more than a husky does from a wolf. The additional differences were accumulated since the two species split from each other and went their own separate ways.

 

[Vance]

Tim,

But the problem is that you have two possible interpretations of Scripture (sorry, the "clearly" doesn't cut it, since the literalness of Genesis has been an issue since day one of Christianity, and even before with the Jews).

Then you have the evidence of God's Creation, which we discover through scientific inquiry. This is done by both Christian and non-Christian scientists.

Now, which interpretation is most likely correct? The one that agrees with the evidence of God's Creation or the one that contradicts it?

This is a balancing process, taking into consideration the strength of the evidence from God's Creation, the strength of the given human interpretation of Scripture and the nature of the doctrine being impacted by the various possible interpretations. To say that Scripture should not be informed to some degree by the evidence of God's Creation itself is simply "baby with bathwater".

Remember geocentrism. It should be a mantra.

 

[gluadys]

Please note, I use the word "fact" loosely, only to advance the discussion since "scientific facts" are in a constant state of flux.

Well, that is not necessary. It is important to science to hold strictly to the facts.

To conclude that "carnivores existed well before the appearance of humans on earth" is to place a secular humanistic interpretation of evidence in authority over the plainly written Word of God. All passages of scripture are thus apparently subjected to the litmus test of secular humanistic reason before acceptance in cases like these. IF the scripture passage appears to contradict the secular hunmanistic conclusions, then it is either deemed metaphorical or an outright error.

Ever come across a vegetarian shark? Shark fossils are found in Cambrian rocks dated at over 500 million years ago. The earliest human remains (assuming one counts all the genus Homo as human) are only about 2 million years old.

What do you think sharks ate during those 500 million years?