Theistic Evolutionists: Let us reason!!!!

[WileyCoyote]

I've been curious as to what makes a Christian believe in evolution. There is no mention of evolution anywhere in the Bible. I've heard theistic evolutionists say the days God created the earth weren't 24 hour days but spanned many years and evolution happened in between. Ok, but the book of Genesis STILL does not mention anything about evolution, so you are basically teaching this from silence.

Adam and Eve were described as man and woman, not monkeys. I've heard the 'pre-adamite' argument floating around to say that there were different people who existed before Adam. So how do we tell the difference between a child of Adam and Eve (one who came from their lineage) and a person who evolved in the process of evolution. I mean, there are some signs right? Are their heads more pointed? Do they have a sixth toe? (Is their skin darker? )

Judging by that line of reasoning, pre-adamites aren't God's children because only ADAM AND EVE were created in God's image, in HIS likeness. And Adam and Eve were given dominion over all of God's creation, so those who are descendants of Adam and Eve rule over those who evolved from monkeys. But how do you tell? How do I tell if I'm a descendent of Adam and Eve or not? Because if I'm not, I need to throw away everything and become a slave to the descendents of God's true image.

Kind after kind is what the Bible teaches. So if theistic evolution is true, Adam and Eve's descendents shouldn't mix with pre-adamites. It's beastiality, correct?

I must admit, I don't know everything about evolution. But there are questions I have regarding this. Maybe someone can shed some light on the situation for me. And if it is true and you accept the 'pre-adamite' belief, tell me. Am I a pre-adamite? If I am, how do you know?

 

[intricatic]

Don't make the inverse mistake theistic evolutionists make. Don't teach science from the Bible.

 

[Uphill Battle]

an oversimplification:

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.)

 

[WileyCoyote]

an oversimplification:

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.)

So if they have to deny Genesis as being literal, then they are obviously wrong, right?

 

[Uphill Battle]

So if they have to deny Genesis as being literal, then they are obviously wrong, right?

according to one who holds to a literal Genesis, yes.

according to the one who does not, no.

depends on whom you ask.

 

[intricatic]

Ah, this quote basically sums up my thoughts about it:

Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?
-- E. O. Wilson

 

[namericanboy]

Hey UB...Good to see ya..

 

[Uphill Battle]

Hey UB...Good to see ya..

thanks. S'up?

 

[Stinker]

TEs believe that the creation story was just that. A story that the ancients could understand. We do not believe that everything (advanced life forms, etc.) was suddenly created, but that God used (and helped along) Evolution. That God miraculously made species make advanced 'jumps' to become more advanced species.

 

[Uphill Battle]

TEs believe that the creation story was just that. A story that the ancients could understand. We do not believe that everything (advanced life forms, etc.) was suddenly created, but that God used (and helped along) Evolution. That God miraculously made species make advanced 'jumps' to become more advanced species.

so then.... that begs the question, why?

TE's believe in the Omnipotence of God, I'd have to assume.

so, if God could do it in a one step process, why would he do it another way, and THEN have a "story" written detailing that one step process that he supposedly didn't do?

 

[Uphill Battle]

TEs believe that the creation story was just that. A story that the ancients could understand. We do not believe that everything (advanced life forms, etc.) was suddenly created, but that God used (and helped along) Evolution. That God miraculously made species make advanced 'jumps' to become more advanced species.

so then.... that begs the question, why?

TE's believe in the Omnipotence of God, I'd have to assume.

so, if God could do it in a one step process, why would he do it another way, and THEN have a "story" written detailing that one step process

 

[thecherb]

Suppose evolution was mentioned, or even explained in the Bible. Would the ancient readers of the Hebrew scripture have even the slightest idea what the book was talking about? Of course not. Just because evolution is omitted doesn't mean it is not true. Not that I'm saying it is true...

 

[New_Wineskin]

Suppose evolution was mentioned, or even explained in the Bible. Would the ancient readers of the Hebrew scripture have even the slightest idea what the book was talking about? Of course not. Just because evolution is omitted doesn't mean it is not true. Not that I'm saying it is true...

Same here . After all , there is no mention of "bible" in the "bible" yet the same people have no problem with it existing or being true .

 

[WileyCoyote]

Same here . After all , there is no mention of "bible" in the "bible" yet the same people have no problem with it existing or being true .

Hmmm. Interesting. I was hoping somebody could explain the whole seven days translating into BILLIONS of years argument. If evolution is true, even theistic evolution, it would take BILLIONS OF YEARS, according to evolutionists, for everything to evolve. But the Bible says God created it all in six days and rested on the seventh. Did Genesis really mean days? Or is it really YEARS? If it is years, how many years does a day translate into? Over 600 million years? And if so, you mean to tell me on the day God rested, He rested for over 600 MILLION YEARS? God blessed the seventh day and made it holy. He told man to rest on this day, just as He had rested. Does that mean we all have to rest until we die?

 

[thecherb]

WordofFaith2008, a question for you. How do you reconcile your literal interpretation with the evidence of an old earth? Not the evidence of evolution, as that doesn't apply. But, if the earth isn't millions of years old, how did we get all of this evidence of an old earth lying around? Fossil Fuels, the Grand Canyon, dinosaur bones. Did God really create this earth recently, and just throw some stuff on earth to 'appear' old? I realize you didn't say that you are a 'young earth creationist' in your post, so pardon me for assuming. But usually such a strict interpretation implies a YEC stance.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Suppose evolution was mentioned, or even explained in the Bible. Would the ancient readers of the Hebrew scripture have even the slightest idea what the book was talking about? Of course not. Just because evolution is omitted doesn't mean it is not true. Not that I'm saying it is true...

why wouldn't they? were they dumber than us?

 

[Mallon]

I think there are some misunderstandings here about what evolutionary creationism (or theistic evolution) is and isn't. Hopefully, I can add my two cents and clarify.
EC isn't an attempt to read evolution or deep time into the Bible. We seek no means of reconciling what science has to say about the history of the earth with the Scriptures because the Scriptures were not written to speak of science. They were written to tell of God's existence, character, and plan for salvation. Spiritual matters. The Bible itself claims to be nothing other than this.
With this in mind, ECs at large (with a few exceptions) subscribe to an accomodationalist reading of the Bible. That is, they understand the Scriptures to have been written using the language and science of the day in order to deliver God's timeless spiritual message. Yes, God could have framed the creation account within an evolutionary framework. But considering that the theory of evolution -- even the notion of deep time -- didn't come about for another several thousand years, it is little surprise that God spoke to those first Hebrews using a framework they were familiar with: a young, small earth, at the middle of the universe, with a solid dome over top and pillars underneath. This was the science of the time, and this is the vessel God used to counter the rampant polytheism of the surrounding cultures.
There is thus no difficulty with reconciling the Bible with evolution because, again, they speak of very different things. Genesis seeks to expound upon the nature of God, why He created us, and our relationship with Him as a result. Evolutionary theory simply seeks to describe how God created us, with reference to the physical evidence He left here for us to find.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think there are some misunderstandings here about what evolutionary creationism (or theistic evolution) is and isn't. Hopefully, I can add my two cents and clarify.
EC isn't an attempt to read evolution or deep time into the Bible. We seek no means of reconciling what science has to say about the history of the earth with the Scriptures because the Scriptures were not written to speak of science. They were written to tell of God's existence, character, and plan for salvation. Spiritual matters. The Bible itself claims to be nothing other than this.
With this in mind, ECs at large (with a few exceptions) subscribe to an accomodationalist reading of the Bible. That is, they understand the Scriptures to have been written using the language and science of the day in order to deliver God's timeless spiritual message. Yes, God could have framed the creation account within an evolutionary framework. But considering that the theory of evolution -- even the notion of deep time -- didn't come about for another several thousand years, it is little surprise that God spoke to those first Hebrews using a framework they were familiar with: a young, small earth, at the middle of the universe, with a solid dome over top and pillars underneath. This was the science of the time, and this is the vessel God used to counter the rampant polytheism of the surrounding cultures.
There is thus no difficulty with reconciling the Bible with evolution because, again, they speak of very different things. Genesis seeks to expound upon the nature of God, why He created us, and our relationship with Him as a result. Evolutionary theory simply seeks to describe how God created us, with reference to the physical evidence He left here for us to find.

I'm sorry, but your accounting of it would show a God that lied.

I cannot reconcile that with the God who doesn't.

 

[Mallon]

I'm sorry, but your accounting of it would show a God that lied.

How so?

 

[Uphill Battle]

How so?

you show a God that used "language" to explain a young earth model, when he did it another way. That would be a lie, not a simple "explain it how they'll get it" tactic.