Where do you stand on common ancestory and why?

[Pats]

Some time ago I started a thread in the creationist forum to gather perspective on common ancestory.

I'd like to open that discussion up to us down here.

I understand and hope that people will answer this from both their theological stance as well as any scientific data that swayed their opinion.

I hope that you will not simply answer the poll, but post and elaborate on your position.

I am particularly interested in this:

If man does share a common ancestor/s with primates and or every living thing on earth, does this conflict with scripture?

I'd also just like to clarify, that I do not make spiritual decisions based on these things (this has been insinuated to me.) I enjoy discussing the things I'm thinking and studying, and especially learning about resources I was not aware of.

Besides, I know every one is not of one camp of thought on this, but I'm interested to know how many camps there are.

(You can choose any or all that you agree with.)

Thanks,
Pats

 

[Assyrian]

I voted [2] Man shares a common ancestory with primates. The scientific evidence is pretty overwhelming. From my reading of the bible, God made man, but it doesn't tell us how.

I didn't vote [3] All life on earth shares a common ancestory with a single ancestor.

I'm being pedantic here and I have to say biology is not my area, but life very early on may be a bit more complex than we realise. I would say all Eukaryotic life forms (plants animals fungi including the more complex single cellular organism (ones that have a nucleus in our cell) not prokaryotes like bacteria or archaea) all seem to have a common ancestor, but things get messy when you start looking back in the Precambrian at single cellular organisms that swap DNA. What does a common ancestor mean in cases like that? Will we discover there was more than one line of ancestry life began? Does our mitochondria come from a different ancestor to our nuclei? I'm not just talking about mitochondrial Eve here, but much earlier when mitochondria first joined a cell in a symbiotic relationship.

Assyrian

 

[TwinCrier]

I voted Man does not share a common ancestory with any other form of life. The bible clearly tells us how God made man; from the dust of the Earth, not from monkey parts.

 

[Willtor]

Indeed, I voted that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, but I can't back that up. It might not be so. But there wasn't an option for "All life on Earth probably shares a common ancestor."

I don't think it's a theological matter so much as it is a matter of observation. Like a round Earth or a heliocentric solar system, it has some veto on how we ought not to interpret certain passages, but in general, I don't think it can be taken to influence "image of God" or "sinfulness of man" issues.

 

[Pats]

I voted [2] Man shares a common ancestory with primates. The scientific evidence is pretty overwhelming. From my reading of the bible, God made man, but it doesn't tell us how.

I agree that there may appear to be scientific evidence that man descended from primates. For me, the jury is still out on how convincing the scientific evidance is.I agree that God does not specify how He made man beyond forming us from the dust of the earth, as he did all land animals, right? and breathing that good ol' controversial "breathe of life" into us, and making us special-in His image.Maybe this is because I was born and raised in a conservative YEC environment, but certain passages of scripture definately seem to seperate us from animals. God breathed the breath of life into us.God gave us dominion over animal life.Adam is depicted as having named all the animals.

I didn't vote [3] All life on earth shares a common ancestory with a single ancestor. </p>
I'm being pedantic here and I have to say biology is not my area, but life very early on may be a bit more complex than we realise. I would say all Eukaryotic life forms (plants animals fungi including the more complex single cellular organism (ones that have a nucleus in our cell) not prokaryotes like bacteria or archaea) all seem to have a common ancestor, but things get messy when you start looking back in the Precambrian at single cellular organisms that swap DNA. What does a common ancestor mean in cases like that? Will we discover there was more than one line of ancestry life began? Does our mitochondria come from a different ancestor to our nuclei? I'm not just talking about mitochondrial Eve here, but much earlier when mitochondria first joined a cell in a symbiotic relationship.

Assyrian

I understand. I have many of the same questions. I know there are questions about our origins that neither the Bible nor science truly provide answers for at this time. Common ancestory as in "all life stems from a single celled organism or a group of single celled organisms," seems fantastic and not altogether plausable to me at this time.

 

[Pats]

I voted Man does not share a common ancestory with any other form of life. The bible clearly tells us how God made man; from the dust of the Earth, not from monkey parts.

I thought I heard somewhere that technically we contain all the same elements in our bodies as dirt... but I don't quite remember.Anyway, this doesn't help the conversation much because there are so many ways the scripture can be translated and if whatever man descended from came from the dust of the earth than man would have too. Right?

 

[Pats]

Indeed, I voted that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, but I can't back that up. It might not be so. But there wasn't an option for &quot;All life on Earth probably shares a common ancestor.&quot;

I don't think it's a theological matter so much as it is a matter of observation. Like a round Earth or a heliocentric solar system, it has some veto on how we ought not to interpret certain passages, but in general, I don't think it can be taken to influence &quot;image of God&quot; or &quot;sinfulness of man&quot; issues.

Do you think common ancestory is as obviously sound, based on the evidence, that it is comporable to round Earth and heliocentric solar system? It is a theological matter, to me, if the Bible shows that we are seperate from animals, in such a different catergory than they are, that we could not be descended from them.God granted many things to human beings not given to animals. Some I listed in the post above. Others include, an imortal soul.I am wondering if scripture really allows for common ancestory?

 

[chaoschristian]

I accept that the scientific evidence is overwhelming that we share some common ancestor with the other apes.

I accept that the scientific evidence may indicate that all life originates from some type of common ancestor or grouping of ancestors (what Assyrian said).

And as an added bonus, I'm convinced that eventually we will be able to say with a large degree of certainty that life arose from a process of abiogenesis.

I believe that this witness of Creation affirms the awesome and ongoing creative powers of God, and warns us against limiting him to our primitive and childish understandings.

I also believe that it helps to clarify what the scriptural account of Creation is attempting to teach us in Genesis and provides us with a basis for exploring the deeper metaphysical and cultural meanings of that text.

Likewise, I believe that scripture comfirms what Creation itself tells us about God - that he is one awesome and creative God, who is a a God of Order and Light, and not a god of chaos and darkness.

What I am currently personally exploring is the concept of process theology, something that was introduced to me on this board.

Our former pastor says that he believes God's intent was for us to be co-creators with him. But he would admit that it was one of his one personal beliefs, and one that he couldn't figure out how to support from scripture.

Apparently the notion of Adam/humanity as a co-creator is one that exists within process theology.

It's a concept that strikes me as intuitively true. I am exploring, learning and questioning at this point.

 

[ChetSinger]

I chose the first option. While Genesis isn't very specific about the creation of the animals, it is specific about the creation of Adam and Eve. Adam's raw material was soil, not other animals.

 

[Willtor]

Do you think common ancestory is as obviously sound, based on the evidence, that it is comporable to round Earth and heliocentric solar system? It is a theological matter, to me, if the Bible shows that we are seperate from animals, in such a different catergory than they are, that we could not be descended from them.God granted many things to human beings not given to animals. Some I listed in the post above. Others include, an imortal soul.I am wondering if scripture really allows for common ancestory?

I do not think it is not obviously sound. But I do think it is largely sound. Given that we hold certain theological truths as being the content of revelation, the question is how we reconcile those things with what we have observed to be so. There is a lot of this going on in a TE thread that Jereth started about Adam.

I think there are ways in which this is similar to cosmological references within the Bible. For example, we have it that God told Job that He fashioned something that doesn't exist. What does a Christian make of such a reference? Simply, one acknowledges that this is the cosmology held by the original audience and that God was identifying Himself as the creator and maker of the cosmos. Now, it's not really as simple as this, nor is this comprehensive, but you can see that something true can be communicated within a cosmological framework that does not correspond to fact.

Scripture indicates some degree of separation of Man from the other animals, but is it telling us there are physiological differences? This notion was refuted a long, long time before Christianity had to contend with evolution.

 

[gluadys]

I voted (3),though I agree with some of Assyrian's caveats. But to me, the uniformity of the DNA code, the fact that all life uses the same energy processor (ATP) though many similar ones are available are indications that all life is interconnected through common ancestry.

I agree with Wiltor, that this is primarily a matter of observation. I think theology has to deal with what we have established through observation (e.g. heliocentricity, evolution), not try to deny it. The role of theology is not the same as the role of science, but both have to deal with the facts as facts.

Maybe this is because I was born and raised in a conservative YEC environment, but certain passages of scripture definately seem to seperate us from animals. God breathed the breath of life into us.God gave us dominion over animal life.Adam is depicted as having named all the animals.

Maybe it would be easier to understand if you remember that all animals are different from all other animals. Each species is unique, just as each individual in a species is unique. Evolution and common ancestry does not suggest that because we are animals we are not different from all other animals. Nor does it conflict with the idea that we are different in a very special God-given way unique to our species.

if whatever man descended from came from the dust of the earth than man would have too. Right?

Exactly. Sure human bodies are made of the elements of earth. But so are all other living bodies: animal, plant, fungi, even bacteria. This is one of the ways we are the same as every other form of life.

I am wondering if scripture really allows for common ancestory?

The way I look at it is this: if common ancestry is true, scripture has to allow for it or be false to God's truth. Scripture cannot help us decide whether common ancestry is true or not. We first have to look to the evidence to determine that. But if the evidence substantially supports common ancestry, then scripture must support it as well. The special revelation of God's written word cannot contradict the general revelation of God's word in creation.

 

[Pats]

Wiltor and Glaudys, I appreciate your posts.

I am trying to do more listening than talking this evening.

 

[jereth]

Thanks for posing this question, Pats. At the moment I'm not sure how to vote. I'm pretty sure about option 2 at face value, but I hesitate because I haven't yet settled in my mind the precise definitions of "man" "primate" and "ape".

I'm inclined to vote for option 3 as well, but again, I am not a biologist and so I am not absolutely certain. There is much wisdom in the comments by assyrian and glaudys.

I agree that God does not specify how He made man beyond forming us from the dust of the earth, as he did all land animals, right?

Yes, Genesis 2 and Psalm 104:29-30 show that, as far as the biblical authors were concerned, man and animal shared the same basic substance. (Dust + breath)

and breathing that good ol' controversial "breathe of life" into us, and making us special-in His image.

Please be careful not to conflate the 2 things. More below.

but certain passages of scripture definately seem to seperate us from animals. God breathed the breath of life into us.

Please take a look at Genesis 7:14-15, 21-22. Animals have the breath of life too. There are other passages of Scripture which say that animals have "spirit" (ruach) and "soul" (nephesh) just like humans. So this is not where the difference lies. Note also that Adam names Eve in Gen 2-3, so even "naming" is not a point of distinction.

The only clear and true distinction betwen animals and humans in the bible is the concept of "image of God" (which is linked to "dominion" in Gen 1). Somewhere along the line from australopithecus and homo (and it may not have been at an instant in time), God designated humanity as his image-bearers and rulers over other animals. IMHO, this did not involve any kind of metaphysical or ontological change -- as explained above, the Bible is clear that animals and humans are made up of the same component parts (dust/body/flesh + mind/heart/soul + spirit/breath).

 

[PaladinValer]

3, because the Bible isn't a science textbook and scientific evidence currently points to that as the most probably theory.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The way I look at it is this: if common ancestry is true, scripture has to allow for it or be false to God's truth. Scripture cannot help us decide whether common ancestry is true or not. We first have to look to the evidence to determine that. But if the evidence substantially supports common ancestry, then scripture must support it as well. The special revelation of God's written word cannot contradict the general revelation of God's word in creation.


This is indeed the usual way of arguing the issues. The books of Words and Works can't contradict each other. But i wonder if it is all that straight forward.

The example i think about is demon possession. I think it is clear from the NT that Jesus taught that most physical problems and almost all mental problems stemmed from demons and demonic possession.

I simply have no way to translate that into modern disease and biochemistry theories.


Common ancestry is not as problematic, but the straightforward reading of Scripture is that mankind is a unique creation from the hand of God without antecedents. I see two Adams etc theories as a process of compatibilisation in order to not fall into the trap of cognitive dissonance or compartmentalisation, but at the same time i am aware of the RockMan's words: "you see what you want to see" in the Land of Point. And have to admit that the first readers of Genesis had a very different understanding of man's place in nature.

I think that the only way out of this is to distinguish Scripture as using and Scripture as teaching, the difference between things that are part of the cultural context and things that are binding and transcultural.

 

[Pats]

I think it is clear from the NT that Jesus taught that most physical problems and almost all mental problems stemmed from demons and demonic possession.

I don't see how Jesus taught that? but that's off topic....

 

[gluadys]

I think that the only way out of this is to distinguish Scripture as using and Scripture as teaching, the difference between things that are part of the cultural context and things that are binding and transcultural.

I agree entirely.

That is why I do not think that a dissonance between a biblical description of nature and our concepts of nature should be referred to as error or deceit. Each is using the cultural paradigm of its time. Within that paradigm, the description is accurate. And if one treats the ancient paradigm with respect, it is often surprisingly insightful even though it is no longer scientifically useful.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Certainly what we would see as mental problems that he ran into were related to demonic possession, but I don't see that being indicated by the faith healing of physical ailments that he engaged in.

How does putting mud over somebody's eyes indicate demons?

The man on the mat did not walk after his sins were forgiven, nor did Jesus cast out demons, as he explicitly did at other times.

He walked when he was commanded to.

I simply have no way to translate that into modern disease and biochemistry theories.

One has to ask whether or not there are physical reasons that some people may be more succeptable to demonic possession.

The mentally ill do hear voices, i.e. their brain registers a voice talking to them.

But I don't see any evidence of the efficacy of casting out of demons in treating mental illness so...

The evidence suggests that shortly after the time of the first generation of Apostles the efficacy of the supernatural became minimized.

I will do a massive amount of extrapolation here.

Jesus stated that Nahum (?) was the only person cured of leprosy (skin disease). This suggests to me that there are indeed long periods of time during which God does not interact on the physical plane with his people.

And one might expect that God would not allow demons free reign during such time.

 

[gluadys]

Jesus stated that Nahum (?) was the only person cured of leprosy (skin disease).

That would be Naaman. Nahum is one of the minor OT prophets.

I don't think this is an accurate rendition of Jesus's statement though. He was more nuanced. His point was that Naaman the Syrian was cured of his leprosy in the days of Elisha, while the many lepers in Israel at the time were not.

Exodus records Miriam, the sister of Moses, being cured of leprosy as well.

 

[stumpjumper]

I believe that all life does share a common ancestor or source: God.

Don't know why evolution or unique special creation would make much of a difference in that regards...