Is human the end of evolution?

[juvenissun]

I was struck by an insight of TE belief and would like to confirm it:

TE thinks human being is a result of evolution. That is fine. But if so, would human being further evolves into something else?

If not, does it mean the evolution of life ends now? Why should it be so?

If yes, then, which species would be saved? human being or the future evolved species after human being (wait for a few more million years should not be a concern at all)? Why would our Lord come as a human being, but not earlier as an ape or later as a xxx ? If the Lord came earlier in the process of evolution, and all dinos or apes were saved, what was wrong with that?

Why should human be special in the process of evolution?

--------

Based on these questions, I think if TE liked to include human into the process of evolution, then it does not make sense at all.

 

[Mallon]

You do not understand common ancestry. Humans cannot evolve into something else. Anything descended of a human will remain human, just as anything descended of a mammal will remain a mammal, and anything descended of a vertebrate will remain a vertebrate.
Good try, though.

 

[gluadys]

I was struck by an insight of TE belief and would like to confirm it:

TE thinks human being is a result of evolution. That is fine. But if so, would human being further evolves into something else?

If not, does it mean the evolution of life ends now? Why should it be so?

As long as biological beings reproduce, evolution will not end. But, as Mallon says, even if the current human species broke into several isolated lineages (new species) they would all be human species. All descendants of humans are humans---whatever else they may also be.

If yes, then, which species would be saved? human being or the future evolved species after human being (wait for a few more million years should not be a concern at all)? Why would our Lord come as a human being, but not earlier as an ape or later as a xxx ? If the Lord came earlier in the process of evolution, and all dinos or apes were saved, what was wrong with that?

He didn't need to redeem animals until humans appeared with their capacity to sin. Without sin there is no need for atonement and redemption.

And all of creation is saved as part of the redemption of humanity. Just as the fall of humanity impacted non-human creation, so will the redemption of humanity. Romans 8:19-21

 

[metherion]

Remember, humans are all of the below:
Mammals
vetebrates
animals
primates
great apes

Let's say humans evolve into qahats. Just so we have a name to toss around.
Now, qahats will be
vertebrates
animals
primates
mammals
great apes
human

and so on.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

All descendants of humans are humans---whatever else they may also be.

So, all descendants of apes are apes? include us?
I don't think you want to use this nomenclatural system.

He didn't need to redeem animals until humans appeared with their capacity to sin. Without sin there is no need for atonement and redemption.

I like this one. It means you are on my side. Human has something unique and is not a product of evolution. (do we have a gene of sin?)

 

[Mallon]

So, all descendants of apes are apes? include us?
I don't think you want to use this nomenclatural system.

Yes, everything descended from the ape common ancestor is an ape. Human's have been referred to as apes since Linnaeus. What's the matter with that? We do look an awful lot like apes. Ever see an orangutan or a gorilla in person?

I like this one. It means you are on my side. Human has something unique and is not a product of evolution. (do we have a gene of sin?)

Humans are unique because they bear the image of God. But even if that were a product of evolution, I should hardly see why that would be a problem. God doesn't need to intervene miraculously in order to bring about His will.

 

[gluadys]

So, all descendants of apes are apes? include us?
I don't think you want to use this nomenclatural system.

Speak for yourself. Why would I object to a nomenclatural system that correctly identifies our relationship to our fellow creatures.? (Personally I like the aboriginal insight that all creatures are my relations.)

I like this one. It means you are on my side. Human has something unique and is not a product of evolution. (do we have a gene of sin?)

Sides? Humanity is a product of evolution, but humanity's unique relation to God and to the rest of creation is a gift of God.

No, we don't have a gene of sin. We have a broken relationship with our Creator and with the creation which he gave to us to rule over and care for. That is the nature of the fall.

 

[busterdog]

So, all descendants of apes are apes? include us?
I don't think you want to use this nomenclatural system.



I like this one. It means you are on my side. Human has something unique and is not a product of evolution. (do we have a gene of sin?)

I think nomenclature has been used to avoid a perfectly qood question in the OP.

So, what will we become and how?

TEs make a complete disconnect between 1. the progression from ancestor to Adam; and 2. the progression of us now to what we (or our descendents) will be. We certainly differ on whether there should be a disconnect. That is at the root of your question.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

1Cr 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory

 

[juvenissun]

Why should human be special in the process of evolution?
QUOTE]

So far, I have not read a impressive response to my question. I do not want to embarrass my brothers and sisters, but the answers I got from TE people are not logic enough to be accepted as valid arguments. Basically, this is not a biology or a theology question, it is a logic question.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

When did this separation occur? Which stage of evolution? Should we witness to our "ancestors"?

 

[metherion]

Why should humans be special? Because God chose us to be special. That's really what the be-all end-all answer is. God decided that we were what He wanted to reveal Himself do and did so.

Also, our "ancestors" aren't around anymore. They're dead. Ancestors beyond a generation or two usually are. We aren't witnessing to the other great apes because they're brains aren't as advanced as ours and therefore they can't understand the messages we would tell them.

Metherion

 

[Mallon]

So, what will we become and how?

We don't know.
Why does it matter?
Do you think if man continued to evolve, that God would stop loving us? Do you think He would suck His own image out of us because we've become adapted to different environments?
Why the concern? Surely you believe that God will love your great-grandchildren as He did you.

 

[shernren]

Is a person with Down's Syndrome still created in the image of God?

Surely no Christian would say no.

Yet a person with Down's Syndrome is quite different from a normal person at a fundamental genetic level - s/he has three chromosome-22s, instead of the usual two. If that big a genetic difference doesn't disqualify him/her from having a relationship with God, why should evolution do any different? God relates with whomever He chooses to, genes aside.

 

[busterdog]

We don't know.
Why does it matter?

Well, the fact that God wrote it in the Bible suggests some significance.

Last I looked, faith and hope were still what we live by.

 

[Assyrian]

Of course they are.

Now what has that Got to do with Mallon's point

Mallon just said, in the bit you snipped out, that God was going to keep loving the human race even if we keep evolving. That sounds like faith and hope to me.

 

[juvenissun]

Why should human be special in the process of evolution?

I read two interesting pieces of reaction. A more logic one go first:

"We are special because we are made in (evolved into ?) God's image."

This argument, in fact, is not an answer to my OP, but is an elaboration to the question asked in the OP.

IF, we are product or result of evolution, how did the evolution process determine what would we look like? God's image is not changing, but evolution is changing (unpredictable?). If God took His hands off evolution, then how could He expect that we end up as something "after His image"? Is God waiting in heaven and see how does His original creation evolve (on itself), and intervene at any time when He sees something popped out of the evolution process which bears an acceptable image like Him?

Very funny.

---------

The second one is actually a run-away answer:

"We are special because God decides so. He does thing whenever He likes to."

This is, in fact, the spirit of YEC in the eyes of TE.
Shame on TE.

 

[Assyrian]

I have no idea what you mean by 'the spirit of YEC in the eyes of TE', however the question of why God chose us and loves us is one that has long predated the CrEvo debate. So has the question of the nature of the soul and the spirit. In the early church they asked when the developing foetus got a soul. Now the CrEvo debate asks when the human race got theirs. It is the same question and any answers can only be just as speculative. I think the difference between TEs and creationists here is that TEs seem to realise these are questions without answers and are happy to live with that. The creationists think it is a flaw in TE that there is no answer, not realising the church has never answered these questions.

I read two interesting pieces of reaction. A more logic one go first:

"We are special because we are made in (evolved into ?) God's image."

This argument, in fact, is not an answer to my OP, but is an elaboration to the question asked in the OP.

IF, we are product or result of evolution, how did the evolution process determine what would we look like? God's image is not changing, but evolution is changing (unpredictable?). If God took His hands off evolution, then how could He expect that we end up as something "after His image"? Is God waiting in heaven and see how does His original creation evolve (on itself), and intervene at any time when He sees something popped out of the evolution process which bears an acceptable image like Him?

Very funny.

If Jesus could compare himself to a hen gathering its chicks under its wings, does that mean chickens bear something of the image of God? What about an ant that lays down its life for the nest? Bacteria cooperating to form a biofilm that protects the whole colony? Two swans that pair for life? A mother bear with her cubs? Elephants gathered around one of their injured?

It looks like as life evolved, reflections of the creator keep popping up all the time.

 

[busterdog]

-. He does thing whenever He likes to."

Agree with your points.

The distiction between Islam and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is that the latter speaks to what He is doing and will do. The former is just arbitrary. One point of the YEC argument is that "speaking" God does has done so explicitly, to His credit.

 

[metherion]

F, we are product or result of evolution, how did the evolution process determine what would we look like? God's image is not changing, but evolution is changing (unpredictable?). If God took His hands off evolution, then how could He expect that we end up as something "after His image"? Is God waiting in heaven and see how does His original creation evolve (on itself), and intervene at any time when He sees something popped out of the evolution process which bears an acceptable image like Him?

Very funny.

This assumes "in the likeness of God" means looking like Him in a physical body". Not "Having a soul." Most TEs figure on the latter. God in His infinite wisdom designed a process that would eventually spit out a being with enough brainpower to hold and understand a soul and knowledge of Him. And voila! It did. Here we are.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea what you mean by 'the spirit of YEC in the eyes of TE',

TE laughed at YEC that there is no scientific evidence for the idea (TE's idea fits much better SCIENTIFICALLY).

That is what I meant. But when the very scientific TE is pushed to the corner, then it called the idea of Creation (God made it that way, or No one really knows the truth) and trying to get by.

If Jesus could compare himself to a hen gathering its chicks under its wings, does that mean chickens bear something of the image of God? What about an ant that lays down its life for the nest? Bacteria cooperating to form a biofilm that protects the whole colony? Two swans that pair for life? A mother bear with her cubs? Elephants gathered around one of their injured?

It looks like as life evolved, reflections of the creator keep popping up all the time.

Thanks for the elaboration. What you said simply emphasized my question. Why should then God choose us, if His image was everywhere in the sequence of evolution. He could choose apes (not that much worse from us) and saved them. Then the salvation would be completed 10 million years ago (just 0.1% earlier in time, no big deal).