Theistic Evolutionists: Let us reason!!!!

[Mallon]

true. I am sure that you are prepared for me to attribute that to David's poetic license. Even today, we talk of sunrise and sunset... in which really doesn't happen.

Sure we do. And when we use these words, we are speaking from our own limited, human perspective. Not God's infinite perspective. Our human limitations play very much into how the Bible was written, and we should expect that God would accomodate himself to our limitations (as He did in the form of Jesus, and as He did in inspiring Genesis, I would argue).

I guess I can't reconcile that with evolutionary model.

You don't need to. That's what I've been saying all along. Genesis wasn't written to tell how the world was created. It was written to tell of why and by whom; just as the author of Job and the psalmist didn't mean to speak of the fact that the earth actually sits on pillars, but of the fact that God is the one who set the earth on them, as part of a firm foundation. The imagery is simply the vehicle God uses to deliver His deeper messages with.

Perhaps it's my reading of it, but I don't get the sense from any of these passages that the authors were speaking of more than God's constancy as caretaker of the earth.

And I don't get the sense from Genesis 1 that the author(s) was speaking of more than God's singularity and purpose for creating the earth. And just as you would disagree with me on this, so too would a geocentrist disagree with your 'liberal' understanding of the Bible.

Extrapolating with current knowledge, you could see how the references fit.

If you're going to let "current knowledge" influence your understanding of the Bible, then why don't you let those advances made in geology and biology over the last hundred years influence your understanding of Genesis?

it isn't that I expect the Bible to be a science textbook, I just believe that the evolutionary model, and the creation account in Genesis, are not compatable as an allegorical referece... in my opinion, they contradict.

Again, I'm not arguing that Genesis 1 is an allegory for evolution. That would be a concordist approach to the Bible. Did you read the link I provided you?

Your belief in TE, and my belief in the literal account, would have no bearing on meeting you in heaven one day.

There's something we can agree on.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Sure we do. And when we use these words, we are speaking from our own limited, human perspective. Not God's infinite perspective. Our human limitations play very much into how the Bible was written, and we should expect that God would accomodate himself to our limitations (as He did in the form of Jesus, and as He did in inspiring Genesis, I would argue).

difference being, that we are aware that the sun does not circle the earth, but still use language that dictates otherwise. (Not that we have a firm grip as to whether or not any of the OT authors were aware of the truth about cosmology.... doubtful, I'd warrant.)

You don't need to. That's what I've been saying all along. Genesis wasn't written to tell how the world was created. It was written to tell of why and by whom; just as the author of Job and the psalmist didn't mean to speak of the fact that the earth actually sits on pillars, but of the fact that God is the one who set the earth on them, as part of a firm foundation. The imagery is simply the vehicle God uses to deliver His deeper messages with.

hnnn... Reason for thought. I would venture, however, that God would not need to have a story at all then, just a declaration. Who created the earth? I did. Why? To populate with my children, and the beasts and the fowl, etc... The accounting in Gen 1 would be superflouous.

And I don't get the sense from Genesis 1 that the author(s) was speaking of more than God's singularity and purpose for creating the earth. And just as you would disagree with me on this, so too would a geocentrist disagree with your 'liberal' understanding of the Bible.

likely. Put 10 people in a room, you'll get 90 disagreements.

If you're going to let "current knowledge" influence your understanding of the Bible, then why don't you let those advances made in geology and biology over the last hundred years influence your understanding of Genesis?

because of what I view as contradiction.

Again, I'm not arguing that Genesis 1 is an allegory for evolution. That would be a concordist approach to the Bible. Did you read the link I provided you?

'fraid not. it's on my to do list, but I'm limited in reading time at the moment. (I SHOULD be working as I type THIS.

I will read it, I promise.

There's something we can agree on.

excellent.

 

[Mallon]

difference being, that we are aware that the sun does not circle the earth, but still use language that dictates otherwise. (Not that we have a firm grip as to whether or not any of the OT authors were aware of the truth about cosmology.... doubtful, I'd warrant.)

To be honest, I don't see what difference this makes. Regardless of the fact that we now know that the earth revolves around the sun, we still use "sunrise" and "sunset" as terms spoken from an earth-bound, human perspective. What's more, these terms are holdovers from a day when people literally believed the sun revolved around the earth, as you yourself admit. So if we can overlook the blatant geocentrism of the Hebrews, and accept heliocentrism as not being contrary to the Bible, why can we not do the same for evolution or deep time?

hnnn... Reason for thought. I would venture, however, that God would not need to have a story at all then, just a declaration. Who created the earth? I did. Why? To populate with my children, and the beasts and the fowl, etc... The accounting in Gen 1 would be superflouous.

Are Jesus' parable "superfluous" for that same reason? He could've just said "Don't be greedy" instead of droning on and on about that Rich Fool.

because of what I view as contradiction.

But we've just spent the last several posts showing why heliocentrism is not in conflict with the Bible even though the Bible uses geocentric language. Why do you still view modern biology in conflict with the Bible and not modern cosmology?

 

[shernren]

Put 10 people in a room, you'll get 90 disagreements.

[pedant]

Actually, 45, since disagreements are typically mutual.

[/pedant]

 

[crawfish]

hnnn... Reason for thought. I would venture, however, that God would not need to have a story at all then, just a declaration. Who created the earth? I did. Why? To populate with my children, and the beasts and the fowl, etc... The accounting in Gen 1 would be superflouous.

This is a great question. And I think I've got a great answer. I think.

Does your preacher/pastor ever tell a joke or a story to lead a sermon off, whose punch line or point tied into the main point of the sermon? If so, you might be like me - I forget exactly what was said in the sermon but remember the joke - and through that, I am able to work back through to the sermon's primary content. A story can act like a glue that causes the substance behind it to adhere to our memories.

There were plenty of reasons to make it a story. At the time Genesis was written, there were many opposing cosmologies being told by their neighbors and enemies - the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites, etc. If you read these and become familiar with them, you'll see that many of their elements are present in the Genesis story. However, unlike them, the Genesis story is "de-mythologized"; that is, the supernatural elements are removed or de-emphasized. There are two actors in Genesis 1 - the creator and the created. In other cultures, everything was attributed to the gods - the winds, rain, sun, moon, oceans, etc., with man set below them. God turned this on its head by introducing a story where the pattern is partially reversed; God, then man, then the rest of creation.

I think it is very likely that Genesis 1-2:3 was either sung or recited by the Israelites in corporate ceremony quite often. It put their mind on who they are, who they worship, and what their place in creation was. There were rituals created around the story, such as the Sabbath, that would also keep their minds on this fact. Certainly, pointing out evolution, big bang, biogenesis or any other pure scientific data outside of their capability of understanding would only distract from this purpose.

Personally, I could never appreciate the beauty and elegance of Genesis 1 until I accepted the fact that it wasn't a scientific reading. This realization has only made me feel closer to God.

 

[gluadys]

Reason for thought. I would venture, however, that God would not need to have a story at all then, just a declaration. Who created the earth? I did. Why? To populate with my children, and the beasts and the fowl, etc... The accounting in Gen 1 would be superflouous.

What crawfish said. Think of it this way. What do you remember best about American history? Is it a list of the Presidents? Or is it stories about events like the Boston Tea Party and Paul Revere's ride?

For that matter, which parts of scripture do you remember most easily? The laws of Leviticus? The genealogies of Chronicles? Or the stories of Joshua, Samson, David, etc.?

A declarative statement is easy to make and just as easy to forget. Stories stick in the mind.

In ancient cultures, story-telling was a refined art and good story-tellers were highly honoured. Long before writing was invented, story-telling was how people kept their culture (including their history and their faith) alive.

Stories have a life and a power of their own. They are both memorable and flexible. They can travel from language to language, culture to culture, generation to generation and still keep the same core message.


So they are a wonderful way for God to ensure that people remember really important stuff. And remember it not just for a little while, but through thousands of years.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What crawfish said. Think of it this way. What do you remember best about American history? Is it a list of the Presidents? Or is it stories about events like the Boston Tea Party and Paul Revere's ride?

For that matter, which parts of scripture do you remember most easily? The laws of Leviticus? The genealogies of Chronicles? Or the stories of Joshua, Samson, David, etc.?

A declarative statement is easy to make and just as easy to forget. Stories stick in the mind.

In ancient cultures, story-telling was a refined art and good story-tellers were highly honoured. Long before writing was invented, story-telling was how people kept their culture (including their history and their faith) alive.

Stories have a life and a power of their own. They are both memorable and flexible. They can travel from language to language, culture to culture, generation to generation and still keep the same core message.


So they are a wonderful way for God to ensure that people remember really important stuff. And remember it not just for a little while, but through thousands of years.

I guess, to me, that if the story and the reality are that divergent, there is a problem. I'm just looking at it from my point of view.

 

[crawfish]

I guess, to me, that if the story and the reality are that divergent, there is a problem. I'm just looking at it from my point of view.

It is a distinctly 21st century point of view. OK, 19th and 20th-century, too.

Keep in mind that God was communicating to ALL centuries and cultures, not just ours. It is important that we look at scripture through that filter rather than filtering the scripture through our cultural preconceptions.

 

[gluadys]

I guess, to me, that if the story and the reality are that divergent, there is a problem. I'm just looking at it from my point of view.

Well, that was not the issue you were raising. You were asking why reveal the truth in a story at all.

And is it not a matter of personal opinion as to whether the story diverges too much from reality? What is "too much"?

 

[Tinker Grey]

It strikes me that if I had a truth to convey and I wanted it to be applicable across generations -- whether subsequent generations were more advanced or whether because of some catastrophe were less advanced -- the ideal method of keeping these truths relevant and accessible is through story.

 

[cleminson]

Uphill Battle. quote A Theistic evoloutionist cannot reconcile the "evidence" they have on hand that supports the theory of evolution with the record in the bible. (I.E. that they believe that evidence points to a longer time frame than the bible suggests) therefore, something has to give, and the value of "days" in the bible is the first to go.

of course, that's a HUGE overgeneralization, because you will find many other takes on it (such as an allegorical Genesis, where NONE of it is true.)

Uphill Battle. I concider myself both a Creationist and a Theistic Evolutionist and have found a way to make belief in both possible. I differ from most TE's in that I do believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve and dissagree in the evolutionary words used by evolutionists to describe the process namely "gene mutation". Should read genetic changes brought about by God's creative design over billions of years. Words like "gene mutation" are not helping those of us who are trying to find a way of firstly joining TE's and Creationists together. So that we can with gentleness and meekness reach out to the YE's to show them that belief in an OE is possible and not anti God.

 

[phoenixgw]

It has been said that the Creationist/Evolutionist debate is a petty one. I have read all the posts, and it seems that quite the opposite is true.

By my observation, most Evolutionists seem to find creationism an insult to one's intelligence, while most Creationists find evolution to be an insult to one's faith. These are not petty issues, for they both speak to the matter of faith (Who or what do you place your absolute trust, if anything?).

At one extreme, you have people believing that the life forms that are here today are here as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow . This is essentially a Deistic view, and as such see God as inactive in worldly activities. Their faith is based on reason and experience, and therefore, cannot be classified as Theists.

At the other extreme, we have verbal plenary inspiration, which essentially means that the very words in the Bible are God-breathed into the writers and onto the pages of Scripture. I could give these extremists enough discrepancies in the Gospels alone to blow their brains out. To hold the Bible in this view is to look at the backside of a tapestry and never see its true beauty or perfection.

Interpretation, in a Biblical sense, means to untie or loosen, as in a ball of string full of snags and knots (Heb. pashar). To interpret scripture is to untie a mystery so that one can see God's message to the reader in the text. In other words, the scripture is reading you. This day to day struggle with Biblical interpretation (individually or in groups) enriches our spiritual life and relationship with the living God.

Consider the following passage: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
If your reading of the Bible is allegorical, you've got an allegorical Jesus. What does that say about salvation? Can anyone put their absolute trust in an allegory?--of course not.

So, say you believe that Jesus came to earth to die for your sins, and if you confess your sins, turn from your sinful ways and accept the pardon, your guilt will be lifted and you will be free to live a life like Christ did, carefree and loving, knowing that this life on earth is the only hell you'll ever know. Good for you!

Let's re-examine the evolutionary worldview regarding our world. The underlying assumption of this worldview is uniformitarianism. That means, for the most part, the forces that are at work on natural and geological phenomena on Earth are relatively constant. Things like sedimentary rock, canyons, and mountains are seen as a result of billions of years of natural activity (as opposed to any supernatural activity).

A supernatural explanation of these events would be attributed to catastrophism, meaning that much of the radical landscape that we see was caused by sudden or unusual events. A sudden flood, for example, can produce a thick layer of sediment in a few hours.

Fossils, in order to occur, must be covered by some sort of sediment in a short period of time, otherwise these would turn to dust. Considering the existence of massive fossil beds on every continent (eg: Karoo, Africa - 800 billion fossils, not to mention the huge concentrations of fossil fuels), as well as fossils being found on mountain tops, it is counter-intuitive to assume these fossils accumulated together over billions of years.

Massive erosion from flooding could also account for the formation of the Grand Canyon. People that live near Georgia, USA are aware of Providence Canyon. This canyon is a mile long and 150 ft deep and its features are indistinguishable from canyons geologists claim took billions of years to build. Providence Canyon was caused by heavy rainfall in 1846.

A massive flood would also explain the sudden volcanic activity that it would take to the twist and upthrust rock formations we know as mountain ranges (which show geological evidence of once being under the sea).

Finally, the dinosaurs--in the book of Job (the oldest book in the Bible) God describes a behemoth:
Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God,
yet only his Maker can approach him with his sword. (Job 40:15-20).


Job lived before Noah. A flood would have killed all the dinosaurs and preserved them as fossils like we find today. If these were not covered with tons of sediment, there would be no fossils to find.

Consider the firmament (atmosphere) above the earth as described in Genesis. It was thick enough to protect life from radiation so that humans lived to almost a 1000 years. It never rained. After the flood, the special atmosphere was gone and 120 years was given as the maximum life expectancy for humans. Deterioration and decay on earth accelerated at that point; and life forms that died before the flood would appear to be millions of years older (i.e. dinosaurs) than the post flood fossils. Any measurement of age based on rates of decay would be extremely unreliable, given the abundance of fossils and evidence of catasrophic activity on our landscape.

Does this mean that "evolutionary" events like natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow don't happen?--of course not! But given a catastrophic model for radical earth formations, the contribution of these events are infinitesimal compared to a worldwide flood.

If you consider the evidence presented, a young earth view is not only plausible, but probable. Also consider that if creation "days" in Genesis were actually billions of years apart, the trees and plants created on day 3 would have no viable means of pollination, given that birds weren't created till day 5 and bugs didn't appear till day 6. Also consider the phrase, each was made according to their kind, implying anomalies such as genetic drift and gene flow were not present in this perfect, awesome world.

Finally, if you are a theist, you recognize that God is omnipotent. As such, God is more than capable of displaying to us the glory of the heavens millions of light years away by accelerating the speed of light.

 

[troodon]

At one extreme, you have people believing that the life forms that are here today are here as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow . This is essentially a Deistic view, and as such see God as inactive in worldly activities.

I disagree with this. Whether or not God is active in the lives of people has nothing to do with whether or not He is active in natural processes. Evolution is just what happens when you have:

1) a population of organisms
2) hereditary diversity of phenotype
3) competition

It's a natural phenomenon like dew condensation in the morning or lakes freezing in the winter, so unless you think a Theist has to believe God has an active role in those occurances I don't see why you'd necessitate one believe He has an active role in biological evolution (or abiogenesis, or planetary creation, or the sun rising, or anything else that happens naturally in this universe).

At the other extreme, we have verbal plenary inspiration, which essentially means that the very words in the Bible are God-breathed into the writers and onto the pages of Scripture. I could give these extremists enough discrepancies in the Gospels alone to blow their brains out. To hold the Bible in this view is to look at the backside of a tapestry and never see its true beauty or perfection.

Wonderful, we have agreement

Consider the following passage: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
If your reading of the Bible is allegorical, you've got an allegorical Jesus. What does that say about salvation? Can anyone put their absolute trust in an allegory?--of course not.

No Christian argues that the Bible is allegorical, your average theistic evolutionist argues that certain parts of it are allegorical; you might as well say that everything Jesus said was allegorical because some of what he said was allegory. That's absurd.

A supernatural explanation of these events would be attributed to catastrophism, meaning that much of the radical landscape that we see was caused by sudden or unusual events. A sudden flood, for example, can produce a thick layer of sediment in a few hours.

Yes, catastrophism was the paradigm some segments of academic geology operated under for some time.

Fossils, in order to occur, must be covered by some sort of sediment in a short period of time, otherwise these would turn to dust.

Geologically short, yes.

Considering the existence of massive fossil beds on every continent (eg: Karoo, Africa - 800 billion fossils, not to mention the huge concentrations of fossil fuels), as well as fossils being found on mountain tops, it is counter-intuitive to assume these fossils accumulated together over billions of years.

I don't follow your logic. A single fossil bed does not represent billions of years, though it could conceivably be billions of years old (although, if it is, there wouldn't be anything very interesting in there). The bed represents a much shorter period of time during which there was deposition in that environment - floods are very good ways to get a lot of deposition, so some beds do represent times of flooding. Far from all.

Massive erosion from flooding could also account for the formation of the Grand Canyon. People that live near Georgia, USA are aware of Providence Canyon. This canyon is a mile long and 150 ft deep and its features are indistinguishable from canyons geologists claim took billions of years to build. Providence Canyon was caused by heavy rainfall in 1846.

I refer you to point 5 in this thread. That feature could not be produced in a flood.

A massive flood would also explain the sudden volcanic activity that it would take to the twist and upthrust rock formations we know as mountain ranges (which show geological evidence of once being under the sea).

Firstly, how does a flood produce volcanism? Secondly, do you believe it's a coincidence that many mountain ranges occur where two supposed "continental plates" converge or do you think there's a correlation there? Thirdly, how do you suppose ophiolites got up into the Tibetan plateau if it was produced by volcanic activity pushing up rocks?

Finally, the dinosaurs--in the book of Job (the oldest book in the Bible) God describes a behemoth:
Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God,
yet only his Maker can approach him with his sword. (Job 40:15-20).

What Dinosaur are you suggesting this is? I hope your answer is not "a Sauropod", because then I'd have to search through my old posts so I can paste for you my very old refutation of that claim

Job lived before Noah. A flood would have killed all the dinosaurs and preserved them as fossils like we find today. If these were not covered with tons of sediment, there would be no fossils to find.

Why didn't Noah take the Dinosaurs with him? Wasn't he commanded to "bring into the ark two of all living creatures"?

Consider the firmament (atmosphere) above the earth as described in Genesis. It was thick enough to protect life from radiation so that humans lived to almost a 1000 years. It never rained. After the flood, the special atmosphere was gone and 120 years was given as the maximum life expectancy for humans. Deterioration and decay on earth accelerated at that point; and life forms that died before the flood would appear to be millions of years older (i.e. dinosaurs) than the post flood fossils. Any measurement of age based on rates of decay would be extremely unreliable, given the abundance of fossils and evidence of catasrophic activity on our landscape.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm only a paleobiologist so I'm going to require some explanation here. How does an abundance of fossils or an abundance of catastrophic activity speed up radioactive decay?

If you consider the evidence presented, a young earth view is not only plausible, but probable. Also consider that if creation "days" in Genesis were actually billions of years apart, the trees and plants created on day 3 would have no viable means of pollination, given that birds weren't created till day 5 and bugs didn't appear till day 6. Also consider the phrase, each was made according to their kind, implying anomalies such as genetic drift and gene flow were not present in this perfect, awesome world.

This is fascinating. I've never met a real proponent of catastrophism. My paleo friends will be amazed. **virtual hand shake**

Finally, if you are a theist, you recognize that God is omnipotent. As such, God is more than capable of displaying to us the glory of the heavens millions of light years away by accelerating the speed of light.

Even us lowly "Deists" would acknowledge that God is capable of such a thing. What we question is whether God would see fit to do such a thing.

 

[phoenixgw]

I came here to listen to what theistic/evolutionists had to say and walked into a debate initiated by a creationist.

As such, I read each post and addressed the premise that one did not to have to abandon one's sense of reason and experience to embrace a creationist's view of the Bible.

If nothing else, I hope evolutionist readers will re-examine their strongly held views in light of the possibility that a young earth experienced a massive God-induced flood which was capable of creating the landscape we see today and for creating the large amounts of fossil deposits that we have on this earth.

I will also keep an eye out for natural selection, gene flow, and genetic shift.

May your journey of discovery lead you to eternal life through our creator, Jesus Christ.

Grace and Peace to you all.

 

[crawfish]

May your journey of discovery lead you to eternal life through our creator, Jesus Christ.

And not yours?

I'm just kidding.

What you say is all we hope. We want people to remain open to discovery, both spiritual and scientific. It seems that YEC wants to keep this particular door closed.