***Creationists Only*** - Theory on Evolution

[vossler]

I'm posting this here in an effort to test my theory with other creationists, so please if you are not a creationist pleas do not post on this thread. Thank you! Obviously you're more than welcome to start your own thread in OT.

As most of you here know TEs are all over the map on their theology and doctrine. As a group it’s actually rather difficult to pin them down on much. This got me to thinking (to the point I couldn't sleep, hence this thread ) what single thing, theologically speaking, binds them together.

Where is the link or thread that provides the fabric of the TE belief? This is something I've given a lot of thought to over the past few years and my theory came together while studying Genesis and reading a commentary. I came to the realization that almost without exception everything that is visible or scientifically explainable has more value to a TE than what is not. If there is any chance of something being scientifically explainable or viable, they as a general rule believe it. In other words, for the TE, seeing is believing.
This way of thinking works quite well within their belief system. Jesus, who isn't easily proven or disproven scientifically, is much easier to ascent to and ‘believe in' because His deity and claims cannot be scientifically challenged. At least not without stepping out into an area where science doesn't play well, therefore their faith in Him cannot be easily empirically contested. However, God’s own Word, wherever possible is open to scientific interpretation and validation.

With that as my introduction, Genesis 3:6 becomes the basis for my theory on evolution.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.​

Here we have the first humans, Adam and Eve, failing their test of faith. They trusted in what they "saw" rather than believing what God said—His words—and became the first example of man choosing to walk by sight rather than by faith.

Humanity has had no problem since then following their example, thereby proving that Adam and Eve's faithlessness was not an aberration but a trait of every human heart, including ours. We’re constantly, each and every one of us, looking for ways or things that either put us in control or promote the idea we are knowledgeable. Rather than submitting ourselves to our Creator and putting our faith in Him, we’re always looking for ways to gain ‘control’ over our lives and our surroundings. I myself can attest to that.

So Adam and Eve chose to follow the faithless Satan rather than the faithful God. Satan was able to persuade them to focus on what they could see rather than what God said. This strategy was so successful that Satan has consistently used it on humanity ever since, with evolution being one of his best examples.

The problem TEs have however is what to do with Adam and Eve. If they were created as God said then everything else they believe about Genesis falls apart. So by making these first humans mythological figures or allegorical TEs are then able to side step this obvious problem and justify their disobedience.

What do other creationists think about this theory?

 

[busterdog]

I'm posting this here in an effort to test my theory with other creationists, so please if you are not a creationist pleas do not post on this thread. Thank you! Obviously you're more than welcome to start your own thread in OT.

As most of you here know TEs are all over the map on their theology and doctrine. As a group it’s actually rather difficult to pin them down on much. This got me to thinking (to the point I couldn't sleep, hence this thread ) what single thing, theologically speaking, binds them together.

Where is the link or thread that provides the fabric of the TE belief? This is something I've given a lot of thought to over the past few years and my theory came together while studying Genesis and reading a commentary. I came to the realization that almost without exception everything that is visible or scientifically explainable has more value to a TE than what is not. If there is any chance of something being scientifically explainable or viable, they as a general rule believe it. In other words, for the TE, seeing is believing.
This way of thinking works quite well within their belief system. Jesus, who isn't easily proven or disproven scientifically, is much easier to ascent to and ‘believe in' because His deity and claims cannot be scientifically challenged. At least not without stepping out into an area where science doesn't play well, therefore their faith in Him cannot be easily empirically contested. However, God’s own Word, wherever possible is open to scientific interpretation and validation.

With that as my introduction, Genesis 3:6 becomes the basis for my theory on evolution.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.​

Here we have the first humans, Adam and Eve, failing their test of faith. They trusted in what they "saw" rather than believing what God said—His words—and became the first example of man choosing to walk by sight rather than by faith.

Humanity has had no problem since then following their example, thereby proving that Adam and Eve's faithlessness was not an aberration but a trait of every human heart, including ours. We’re constantly, each and every one of us, looking for ways or things that either put us in control or promote the idea we are knowledgeable. Rather than submitting ourselves to our Creator and putting our faith in Him, we’re always looking for ways to gain ‘control’ over our lives and our surroundings. I myself can attest to that.

So Adam and Eve chose to follow the faithless Satan rather than the faithful God. Satan was able to persuade them to focus on what they could see rather than what God said. This strategy was so successful that Satan has consistently used it on humanity ever since, with evolution being one of his best examples.

The problem TEs have however is what to do with Adam and Eve. If they were created as God said then everything else they believe about Genesis falls apart. So by making these first humans mythological figures or allegorical TEs are then able to side step this obvious problem and justify their disobedience.

What do other creationists think about this theory?

So, like you are reading my lips or what?

Note the exception: the resurrection is accepted by a portion of TEs with these values you identified reversed. Other TEs don't really believe in the resurrection at all or that Christ came in the flesh (as God).

Edited to add: Many TEs, however, do offer the view that the resurrection is well supported by testimony, and thus is different. It has evidence for its occurrence, despite the fact that it is completely unnatural and not observed in the consensus view of science or medicine.

 

[vossler]

So, like you are reading my lips or what?

Actually your thread inspired me.

Given that you neither refuted or concurred with my theory, what should I make of that?

 

[busterdog]

Actually your thread inspired me.

Given that you neither refuted or concurred with my theory, what should I make of that?

I think you are right on. There was some frank discussion of this with some TEs several months ago.

Remember the oft-cite TE principal that God would never lie to us by making wascally wocks that look old but arent. ALl the appearances used to build evolutionary theory would to TEs represent (possibly unforgiveable) deception if we were to have all of this appearance of macro-evolution, but none of the reality. Ancient starlight presents essentially the same problem.

The scriptural basis for this TE idea is Romans 1. To the TE Romans 1 says that God speaks of an old earth through his creation.

If you really dig into Romans 1, I think you a different. Things seen and unseen are both evoked as proof.

Now the TE view of Romans 1 is a rational (but wrong IMHO) reading of God speaking. What it seems to avoid is the issue of man as receiver as opposed to God as transmitter. The context is also pretty problematic on the issue of whether this really is about God communicating the age of creation through his creation. What it really says, at least, is that God whooped up on the disobedient, and that is in fact what is evident in creation.

Now the notion of a bad receiver is not attributed to the lust of the eyes (peering through a micro or tele scope) but to the readers of the Word.

As God Himself says, however, faith comes by hearing. We of course believe that God designed His Word to reach man.

THis is the Amplified Bible version:

17For in the Gospel a righteousness which God ascribes is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed through the way of faith that arouses to more faith]. As it is written, The man who through faith is just and upright shall live and shall live by faith.(A)
18For God's [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.
19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)
21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.
22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
23And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],
25Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).(C)
26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [d]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
28And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,
29Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,
30Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents.

 

[huldah153]

So by making these first humans mythological figures or allegorical TEs are then able to side step this obvious problem and justify their disobedience.

This is exactly what I did when I converted to TE not so long ago. I kept thinking, since Adam and Eve never existed, and there were billions upon billions of Homo sapiens who lived a sinful life millions of years before me, God is not going to care if there is one more who disobeys Him. As a consequence, I fell into sin more than any other time since I became a Christian. TE did a lot of spiritual harm to me. This may sound silly to you, but for me it was important that I returned to belief in Creationism.

Nice thread.

 

[juvenissun]

With that as my introduction, Genesis 3:6 becomes the basis for my theory on evolution.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.​

Here we have the first humans, Adam and Eve, failing their test of faith. They trusted in what they "saw" rather than believing what God said—His words—and became the first example of man choosing to walk by sight rather than by faith.

I agree with what you said. However, I guess you like to hear something different. So, here it goes. It is not an argument (yet), but is a discussion.

Science is based on observation. Now we can see almost anything we know directly or indirectly. What we could not see is something we do not know. This is the reason that science deceived many many people and pulled them away from God.

But, how about theoretical science which has a system extends from things observable to things not observable? Observable science could not see God. Could theoretical science see God? Personally, I think the answer is yes. In fact, there are only a handful of fundamental issues in science we still could not put our hands on them. I speculate that they belong to the secret of heaven.

I hope you do not agree with this idea so the discussion could continue.

 

[vossler]

This is exactly what I did when I converted to TE not so long ago. I kept thinking, since Adam and Eve never existed, and there were billions upon billions of Homo sapiens who lived a sinful life millions of years before me, God is not going to care if there is one more who disobeys Him. As a consequence, I fell into sin more than any other time since I became a Christian. TE did a lot of spiritual harm to me. This may sound silly to you, but for me it was important that I returned to belief in Creationism.

Nice thread.

Thanks, it is good to hear from someone who has actually been there and come through the experience. Trust me, there was nothing silly in your post. Thanks for sharing!

Science is based on observation. Now we can see almost anything we know directly or indirectly. What we could not see is something we do not know. This is the reason that science deceived many many people and pulled them away from God.

Science doesn't deceive, the deception lies with man's interpretation of his environment which has been clouded by the enemy.

Thanks for the input.

 

[cleminson]

Is there room on your thread for the coments from an OE Creationistwho believes in a God driven evolutionary process?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Is there room on your thread for the coments from an OE Creationistwho believes in a God driven evolutionary process?

So in other words a TE view....

 

[RecentConvert]

This is exactly what I did when I converted to TE not so long ago. I kept thinking, since Adam and Eve never existed, and there were billions upon billions of Homo sapiens who lived a sinful life millions of years before me, God is not going to care if there is one more who disobeys Him. As a consequence, I fell into sin more than any other time since I became a Christian. TE did a lot of spiritual harm to me. This may sound silly to you, but for me it was important that I returned to belief in Creationism.

Nice thread.

I'm not a creationist so I apologize if this is inappropriate but this post really struck me...

I can appreciate your dilemna, here, but aren't you scapegoating evolution for your sins? I mean, shouldn't you take responsibility for your sins instead of saying "that made me do it!"

This is just a thought but I'm hoping responsibility will help your spiritual health...

 

[huldah153]

I'm not a creationist so I apologize if this is inappropriate but this post really struck me...

I can appreciate your dilemna, here, but aren't you scapegoating evolution for your sins? I mean, shouldn't you take responsibility for your sins instead of saying "that made me do it!"

This is just a thought but I'm hoping responsibility will help your spiritual health...

I don't blame evolution for my sins any more than I would blame my right hand. But Christ said "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away". This isn't about scapegoating, it is about doing all I can to prevent sin from breaking out. If that means I have to stop believing in evolution, then so be it. And thus far, it has worked for me.

 

[cleminson]

No, I have written a paper that was transfered from the TE site to the Creationist site - My Genesis Enigma. I am not a pure TE because I do not agree that change happened throiugh mutation. I also believe that every word in Genesis tells of an accurate picture of Creation. However, I also believe that "traditional" creationists are NOT reading the Genesis scriptures correctly.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

No, I have written a paper that was transfered from the TE site to the Creationist site - My Genesis Enigma. I am not a pure TE because I do not agree that change happened throiugh mutation. I also believe that every word in Genesis tells of an accurate picture of Creation. However, I also believe that "traditional" creationists are NOT reading the Genesis scriptures correctly.

Not to get to far off track from the topic but I would still consider you a TE according to my definition. I would define a TE as a person that believes God used evolution to eventually turn goo into humans. You could then put TEs into various camps. One that believes God just got everything in motion and then nature did the rest and another camp having God involved with every evolutionary change. I would guess you fall into the second camp by what you have been saying. If you believed God didn't have anything to do with evolution then you would be a N.E. - Naturalistic Evolutionist. My most basic defintion of a creationist would be one that believes humans were a special creation and are in no way related to any other type of animal. I would even go as far as saying they need to believe God created animals after their kind and that one kind never came from another kind which a TE or a NE would reject.

 

[Seve]

For me, Creationism is accepting God's Truth as told in the book of Genesis. It is True to every true discovery of Science. It is the manner in which God Created His Perfect Heaven -- it is a work in progress.

But that's just my humble biblical opinion.

God Bless

 

[vossler]

After allowing myself to become sidetracked by the thread in OT I'm now going to come back to this thread and hope to revive it somewhat with some additional thoughts.

Could theoretical science see God? Personally, I think the answer is yes. In fact, there are only a handful of fundamental issues in science we still could not put our hands on them. I speculate that they belong to the secret of heaven.

I wanted to go back and touch on this thought for a moment because I believe it is appicable to the discussion. I believe the mistake we are making in the world today is putting too much value into what science can do for us. Science like most things has its place and provides value, but its when we take it and allow it to go beyond what it is meant to do we end up with theories like evolution or common descent. Because we recognize all the good that in the past has come from scientific enquire it then becomes easy to place more on its shoulders than was intended. Science, at least good science, must be empirical and most of evolutionary theory is, at best, semi empircal. Like anything else in life if something becomes polluted, even by just a little bit, we end up polluting it all. Science is no different. The minute we allowed conjecture and speculation to be presented as true science, all of science now became polluted. It has now become very difficult to discern good science from bad.

Applying what I said to the quote above then helps me to state that I would much rather we not attach anything to the word science that would deminish its purpose or counter its definition. Having said that though, your idea has merit in that science can be used to demonstrate or point to the power of God, His awesome love and His all encompassing nature.

Is there room on your thread for the coments from an OE Creationist who believes in a God driven evolutionary process?

Given how easy it is to take a discussion and veer off into another direction I would say no. If this is something you and others wish to discuss it is best suited to be in OT probably.

For me, Creationism is accepting God's Truth as told in the book of Genesis. It is True to every true discovery of Science.

I like the simple to describe the complex and this is most certainly true. Science is an incredible tool for man to use that draws attention to just how wonderful and awesome our God really is. Thanks!

What my diversion into OT has once again demonstrated to me is that evolutionists are a very difficult bunch to get through to. I think to a certain extent they realize the shaky ground upon which they tread and that's why they become so defensive by twisting and contorting what's been said about them in order to portray it in a manner that takes the focus off of the true issues. Then in an attempt to inpart some of the guilt they feel of being wrongly judged, the conversation then goes off in another direction where we can divert the focus from the real issue. The discussion now becomes a personal attack rather than the loving rebuke it was.

A Scripture came to mind as I was thinking about all this. It is 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
​

I believe evolution fits this description as well as anything does. People want to hear what pleases them, they will not want to have their sin exposed. I know I certainly didn't when I was trapped in my own sin. They will only listen to those with whom their desires agree. They will set themselves up with their own standard and then find others to validate them instead of the Wod of God. When that doesn't work they will even find ways to twist God's Word to support what it is they wish believe.

So what are we to do? Many here have left this forum to the evolutionists. I can certainly understand that. I myself to a certain degree am one that has. Some have taken a more concilliatory approach and decided not to confront what they know not to be true or at least soften their approach. Is that the example we find in Scripture? Hardly, so what are we to do? I personally won't get involved with the in depth scientific aspects of the discussion. My focus will remain on God's Word and when it is abused or misused. I will attempt to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct my words so that they will focus not what glorifies God and not man. God's Word is too precious and important not to.

What about you? What is God wanting you to do?

 

[Seve]

Each Christian has his own measure of information. I do not question the work of the Holy Spirit, for His ways are above my ways. Each Christian learns what he should know, as the Holy Spirit leads him. That's why I seek the agreement of every other discovered Truth, to measure against God's Holy Word. There is Only 1 Truth, and every other discovered Truth MUST agree with God's Truth or we have Not found the 1 Truth.

I love to see other Christian's views, for that is the way we learn. The Holy Spirit reveals one thing to me and something else to another. Listen to the Old Songs, and read the words, and you will see the Holy Spirit in action.

When we all get together, in Heaven, we will come to know All of the Truth. Jesus told us "I am the Truth". I can hardly wait to know God's Truth, face to face. How bout you?

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm posting this here in an effort to test my theory with other creationists, so please if you are not a creationist pleas do not post on this thread. Thank you! Obviously you're more than welcome to start your own thread in OT.

As most of you here know TEs are all over the map on their theology and doctrine. As a group it’s actually rather difficult to pin them down on much. This got me to thinking (to the point I couldn't sleep, hence this thread ) what single thing, theologically speaking, binds them together.

That's simple enough, their ideology reflects a modernist world view. The ambiguity of their doctrinal position is actually a telling sign. I have never been able to nail them down on doctrine and all TE would seem to be is an attack of Creationism. My views on the other hand are inextricably linked to essential doctrine. The most important would seem to be the subject of this thread.

Where is the link or thread that provides the fabric of the TE belief? This is something I've given a lot of thought to over the past few years and my theory came together while studying Genesis and reading a commentary. I came to the realization that almost without exception everything that is visible or scientifically explainable has more value to a TE than what is not. If there is any chance of something being scientifically explainable or viable, they as a general rule believe it. In other words, for the TE, seeing is believing.

Indeed that empirical mindset does set out to make observations and demonstrate principles, no question about that. Still, the only link I see with TEs is an overt hostility to Creationism, plain and simply. Seminaries were inundated with floods of psuedo theological philosophy in the wake of the modernist movement, starting about 150 years ago. Now they not only dominate the secular science and academics these agnostic views have become the norm in seminaries that train our professional clergy. Jesuits, Anglican ministers and virtually all the leading denominations have made dramatic compromises with the spirit of the age.

The only thing I see them having in common is a hostility to taking the Scriptures literally, at least in the early chapters of Genesis. They follow a Liberal tradition where the supernatural is not attacked so much as it is simply ignored. When it comes to Genesis in the early chapters they are simply beating the supernatural convictions out of fence sitters.

This way of thinking works quite well within their belief system. Jesus, who isn't easily proven or disproven scientifically, is much easier to ascent to and ‘believe in' because His deity and claims cannot be scientifically challenged. At least not without stepping out into an area where science doesn't play well, therefore their faith in Him cannot be easily empirically contested. However, God’s own Word, wherever possible is open to scientific interpretation and validation.

You have always seemed like a fair minded and nonjudgmental person so it pains me to say this. Many of them are probably not Christians in any real sense, they have just put their philosophy into theological terminology. Think about it, did you ever get more then a passing remark with regards to supernatural events in Scripture. The New Testament actually has credibility in academics as being historically verifiable, bibliographical testing being the single strongest scientific/academic line of evidence. TEs could care less and that tells me that their focus is not Christian, it's secular.

With that as my introduction, Genesis 3:6 becomes the basis for my theory on evolution.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.​

Here we have the first humans, Adam and Eve, failing their test of faith. They trusted in what they "saw" rather than believing what God said—His words—and became the first example of man choosing to walk by sight rather than by faith.

We can wonder if we would not have listened to the Serpent but at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ Satan is released from the Abyss. Want to know what happens? The whole world surrounds the Holy City in hostility. We are not that different from Adam and Eve, in fact, apart from a genuine miracle we are progressively getting worse, much worse.

Humanity has had no problem since then following their example, thereby proving that Adam and Eve's faithlessness was not an aberration but a trait of every human heart, including ours. We’re constantly, each and every one of us, looking for ways or things that either put us in control or promote the idea we are knowledgeable. Rather than submitting ourselves to our Creator and putting our faith in Him, we’re always looking for ways to gain ‘control’ over our lives and our surroundings. I myself can attest to that.

Actually they say we have three drives, sex, food and knowledge.

So Adam and Eve chose to follow the faithless Satan rather than the faithful God. Satan was able to persuade them to focus on what they could see rather than what God said. This strategy was so successful that Satan has consistently used it on humanity ever since, with evolution being one of his best examples.

The problem TEs have however is what to do with Adam and Eve. If they were created as God said then everything else they believe about Genesis falls apart. So by making these first humans mythological figures or allegorical TEs are then able to side step this obvious problem and justify their disobedience.

What do other creationists think about this theory?

Treating the Fall of Adam and Eve as myth is either nonchristian or heresy. They are historical figures, our first parents, and the reason for the sin of humanity, or Moses and Paul both lied. You could say they were mistaken or misunderstood but skepticism about Adam and Eve being our original parents and the source of original sin was unknown in Christian theism until 150 years ago with the modernist movement, aka Liberal Theology.

Vossler the truth is that they are not promoting a Christian world view. They claim they do but I have seen too many of them ruthlessly and relentlessly attack Christians and side with atheists without flinching. In five years I have heard the Gospel from only one and he was clueless about the scientific issues involved.

Your theory is fine, it squares with the Scriptures nicely. You are wondering why it does not square with TE and the answer is simple and obvious. They simply don't have a theology to measure their views against. Secular humanism never does, that's why I don't post on here much anymore. I have given up the hope that TE is a Christian Theology, it's a red in tooth and claw Darwinism in sheep's clothing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Van]

I am new to this forum and so am unfamiliar with the accepted definitions for Theistic Evolutionists (TEs) or Creationists. I assume only Young Earth Creationists are accepted as Creationists on this forum.

Your theory, and pardon me if I am in left field, seems simply to say those who do not accept a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 are lacking in faith. So at its core, it seems simply to be an ad homenim argument. Tell me where I went wrong.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Vossler,

I think this was a good theory. I definitely believe that satan is a part of the equation in that he has lied to some people who have accepted and continued the lie of evolution and TE. However, what it does come down to is "You shall have no other gods before me." (Ex 20:3, ESV) What the TEs are doing is making a god to form their idea of what they want God to be. They end up committing idolity thus breaking this commandment.

 

[vossler]

Your theory, and pardon me if I am in left field, seems simply to say those who do not accept a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 are lacking in faith. So at its core, it seems simply to be an ad homenim argument. Tell me where I went wrong.

As I'm familiar with the term ad hominem, it is an argument or attack against a person rather than their ideas or evidence. If so, then this was most definitely is not such an argument.