Francis Collins/Original sin?

[Havilah]

I'm new here and I've been trying to read old threads, but I have a crisis so maybe someone could point me to some links that would help.

I never studied the evolution/creation debate intensely, and I guess as a result I was a creationist without knowing it (just by reading the scriptures, I always assumed that Noah's flood was a historical account)

Now that I'm actually investigating this and realizing it can't be true, this is causing me all kinds of crises...plus I read Collin's book and felt like jumping off my roof - because he seemed to completely destroy the whole faith by making the account of original sin impossible.

So how am I supposed to reconcile these things? If I take Noah's ark as a myth, fine. But what about millions of years of dying and suffering (through evolution) that apparently happened long before man even arrived???? THIS is the point that I can't understand!

Dinosaurs being wiped out by a meteor? Before God even made man? What? How does this square with the reasons given by our Lord, as to WHY we live with the condition of death and decay???

Nothing makes sense right now. Absolutely nothing. I have no problem with science - but I see no way to reconcile the faith with science at this point. Collins did not convince me - he actually had me halfway convinced that the Christian faith is based on a huge lie!

:o

 

[gluadys]

So how am I supposed to reconcile these things? If I take Noah's ark as a myth, fine. But what about millions of years of dying and suffering (through evolution) that apparently happened long before man even arrived???? THIS is the point that I can't understand!

Dinosaurs being wiped out by a meteor? Before God even made man? What? How does this square with the reasons given by our Lord, as to WHY we live with the condition of death and decay???

Nothing makes sense right now. Absolutely nothing. I have no problem with science - but I see no way to reconcile the faith with science at this point. Collins did not convince me - he actually had me halfway convinced that the Christian faith is based on a huge lie!

:o

I sympathize. But have patience. Many people have been where you are now--where nothing seems to make sense--and they have come through it without sacrificing faith on the altar of science or vice versa.

I can appreciate that Collins was not the right guide for you. He was coming at it the other way around: "How can I reconcile science with faith?"

You need a different kind of guide, one who understands your faith first and then shows you how to understand science in the light of that faith--and, where necessary, how to come at faith differently.

You have hit on an important question. Death before man, before sin. Wasn't it Adam's sin that brought death into the world?

Some ideas that need pondering here. Was death in this context ever intended to refer to animal death? Or is it only human death we are speaking of? You may have been taught that it refers to all death, and even that there were no carnivorous animals (or plants) before the fall. But does scripture actually say that? Or is this an addition to the testimony of the written word?

Why does God in some texts take glory in providing prey for the lions? If their need for prey is a consequence of the fall, it seems strange that God would connect his creation of them with their predatory habits--and present them as token of his power and majesty.

Or consider what Paul says in Romans 5. He tells us that through man's disobedience sin entered the world and death through sin. Then he immediately follows up by saying that "death spread to all for all sinned."

Who sinned? The plants, the animals or humans? It seems clear that Paul is speaking in a human context and is not saying anything one way or another about the natural death of animals.

IOW there is not a hard and fast consensus on the meaning of the biblical text. So you have options you may not have thought of in dealing with this question.

For a fairly extensive examination of the whole question of evolution and original sin, you might like to read the recent series on this topic at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/search/label/original sin

Here is another view on the issue, just for interest.
http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Phillips.pdf

 

[Havilah]

You may have been taught that it refers to all death, and even that there were no carnivorous animals (or plants) before the fall. But does scripture actually say that? Or is this an addition to the testimony of the written word?

Oh wow. Yes I was taught that. I never questioned it...because it seemed to make sense...like, if death is not God's plan, and He hates death, then why would he make animals that ate each other before the fall? ---oh Lord, I feel a serious life crises coming on. LOL (BTW, I have an engineering degree, so I can handle topics involving physics -I was fascinated by the Big Bang and didn't think it conflicted with Genesis... it's just that when it comes to biology and geology I feel lost)

Why does God in some texts take glory in providing prey for the lions? If their need for prey is a consequence of the fall, it seems strange that God would connect his creation of them with their predatory habits--and present them as token of his power and majesty.

I don't know where that verse is right off the bat, I'll have to go find it...

Or consider what Paul says in Romans 5. He tells us that through man's disobedience sin entered the world and death through sin. Then he immediately follows up by saying that "death spread to all for all sinned."

Who sinned? The plants, the animals or humans? It seems clear that Paul is speaking in a human context and is not saying anything one way or another about the natural death of animals.

This is very hard to envision....that death was only meant for animals until man sinned? (You see why this feels like I have just woken up on Mars when I thought I went to sleep on Earth) -

I was *just* writing the other day about something I witnessed in nature...a goose had her gosling snatched by an eagle by the lake where my family lives...and the goose spent the next 3 days wandering by the shore, screeching, and attacking any squirrel or bird that came near her...it seemed to us like this goose was in serious mourning - we'd never heard a goose make a screaming sound quite like that. She was acting very abnormal and I thought to myself "if this goose has been evolving for millions of years, why is she mourning? she should just think to herself 'better luck next time' - and go make some new eggs or something. Why is she behaving this way?"
Because animals *do* grieve when they lose babies. I've seen apes mourning dead infants too. How do I reconcile this???

oh - and thank you for the links, I will start there!

 

[gluadys]

I was *just* writing the other day about something I witnessed in nature...a goose had her gosling snatched by an eagle by the lake where my family lives...and the goose spent the next 3 days wandering by the shore, screeching, and attacking any squirrel or bird that came near her...it seemed to us like this goose was in serious mourning - we'd never heard a goose make a screaming sound quite like that. She was acting very abnormal and I thought to myself "if this goose has been evolving for millions of years, why is she mourning? she should just think to herself 'better luck next time' - and go make some new eggs or something. Why is she behaving this way?"
Because animals *do* grieve when they lose babies. I've seen apes mourning dead infants too. How do I reconcile this???

Indeed, animals that form a parental bond with their young do mourn their loss. Also the loss of a mate if they pair-bond. Domestic animals who have formed a bond with a specific human will also mourn if they are separated from them.

You don't find this in animals that don't parent their young. If it had been a turtle instead of a goose, she would just have laid more eggs.

 

[Havilah]

You don't find this in animals that don't parent their young. If it had been a turtle instead of a goose, she would just have laid more eggs.

so does this explain dinosaurs probably not caring about death?

But...sea creatures like dolphins...whales... ?

and, there's one other thing that makes me wonder if I should be trying to force the evolution/faith marriage. When I was in school I learned in science class that it was a FACT that Pluto was a planet in our solar system.
My daughter is now learning that Pluto is not a planet.

Now - Pluto hasn't changed. But the scientists' knowledge of Pluto has changed. Does this makes sense?

 

[gluadys]

so does this explain dinosaurs probably not caring about death?

Not necessarily. Some dinosaurs were much more like geese than like turtles. There is fossil evidence that some types of dinosaurs practiced parental behaviour in much the same way birds do: tending a nest, incubating eggs, etc. (Of course, there also some birds that act more like turtles. The ostrich leaves its eggs in the warm sand for incubation, just as the sea-turtle does. Just as described in the book of Job 39:13-16)

Interesting side-note here in that God is saying the ostrich's foolishness and cruelty toward its young is God's doing. It's all part of the creation God is spreading out before Job's eyes---and not a consequence of any change in nature due to the fall.

But...sea creatures like dolphins...whales... ?

Sea mammals. i.e. not fish, not amphibians. All mammals bond with their young through nursing them.

and, there's one other thing that makes me wonder if I should be trying to force the evolution/faith marriage. When I was in school I learned in science class that it was a FACT that Pluto was a planet in our solar system.
My daughter is now learning that Pluto is not a planet.

Now - Pluto hasn't changed. But the scientists' knowledge of Pluto has changed. Does this makes sense?

Some "facts" are a matter of definition. What is the distinction between a planet and an asteroid of the sort in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Both of them are chunks of matter that orbit the sun.

So the difference is mostly one of size. But asteroids come in all sorts of sizes, ranging from bits small enough to hold in your hand to the size of Pluto or greater. When astronomers began discovering some fairly large bodies orbiting the sun out beyond Pluto, the question arose: should we call these planets too? How many more of these near planet-size bodies will we find?

They had a choice to make:

1. Keep the definition of planet we have been using and add to the number of planets as we find more that fit the definition, or

2.Change the definition of planet--which would result in taking Pluto off the list.

They decided for option 2. None of this makes any actual change to Pluto of course.

Changing definitions is fairly common. We shouldn't confuse it with changing nature. It's really more like switching from a Fahrenheit thermometer to a Celsius thermometer. Your Fahrenheit thermometer may say 95 while my Celsius thermometer says 35, but either way its hot, hot summer day.

 

[Mallon]

Welcome, Havilah.

Now that I'm actually investigating this and realizing it can't be true, this is causing me all kinds of crises...plus I read Collin's book and felt like jumping off my roof - because he seemed to completely destroy the whole faith by making the account of original sin impossible.

You know, I've read many books about evolution and creation, but I still haven't read Collins' book. What does he say, exactly, that contradicts original sin?
Collins is primarily a scientist, with little training in theology. Have you tried reading the works of evolutionary creationist theologians on this matter? You've come at a good time because there's a discussion going on over at the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution blog right now:

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/

They're discussing the paper by George Murphy found here:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf

So how am I supposed to reconcile these things? If I take Noah's ark as a myth, fine. But what about millions of years of dying and suffering (through evolution) that apparently happened long before man even arrived???? THIS is the point that I can't understand!

Yes, it's quite the pickle for someone new to thinking about these things. Does the Bible clearly teach there was no animal death before the Fall, though? I often find myself asking why, if man was created immortal, did he have to eat from the Tree of Life to stay alive? Why did he have to eat at all, for that matter? And why does God glorify himself through the animal death depicted in Job 38 and 39? I don't think the answers to these questions can be glossed over as easily as some YECs might like.

Nothing makes sense right now. Absolutely nothing. I have no problem with science - but I see no way to reconcile the faith with science at this point. Collins did not convince me - he actually had me halfway convinced that the Christian faith is based on a huge lie!

:o

I think you would do well to read some more beyond just Collins. His is but one voice among many. Why not try checking out some of the recommendations in the links below?
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/evolution-and-faith-from-evangelical.html
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/evangelicals-and-evolution-selected.html
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/evolution-from-evangelical-perspective.html

I hope you'll stick around, Havilah. We're here to support you during your struggle. I've come through a mid-faith crisis of my own, recently, but the Lord saw me through it. I don't doubt He might use some of us to help you through yours.

 

[Havilah]

I read those links and that was interesting. I am probably going to be thinking about this for the next few months, I can tell.

Here's why I'm still a Christian, though. I've read enough NT scholarship to fully believe in the evidence for Jesus and his resurrection. (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Bauckham last year was really great.) There's too much evidence for God. I won't be suddenly becoming an atheist.

My problem is with Biblical interpretation now, obviously. I was just praying recently that God would expand my understanding of Him, but of course I forgot to tell Him that I only want more knowledge if it's comfortable, non-scary, and doesn't challenge any of my preconceived notions. How silly of me.

The problem with Collins wasn't his science - it was his theology. I was not the only person to see this, since I checked his Amazon reviews and sure enough, there was another guy on there saying his "already shaky" faith was shattered by Collins - and I'm sure that's not what Collins was trying to achieve. But for those of us who have no issues with "believing" scientific evidence, but need theology to match it, it was not good.

Collins made the mistake of hovering over C.S. Lewis and ignoring the people who are past Lewis and need more Biblical dissection. (i.e., most Christians who are reading a book like that in the first place.)

As to the Fall of man/original sin/evolution problem, I was doing some more surfing and wondered if anyone here is anticipating the book The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil (WJK, 2008) - it's not out yet but I saw it on another blog. I can't post the link because I'm a newbie!

 

[Mallon]

Here's why I'm still a Christian, though. I've read enough NT scholarship to fully believe in the evidence for Jesus and his resurrection. (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Bauckham last year was really great.) There's too much evidence for God. I won't be suddenly becoming an atheist.

I wouldn't put too much stock in finding evidence for God. Christ taught us the importance of coming to Him in faith, which is a conviction despite a lack of evidence. I agree that there's evidence (not proof) of God in nature, but we shouldn't let that obfuscate the importance of faith.

The problem with Collins wasn't his science - it was his theology. I was not the only person to see this, since I checked his Amazon reviews and sure enough, there was another guy on there saying his "already shaky" faith was shattered by Collins - and I'm sure that's not what Collins was trying to achieve. But for those of us who have no issues with "believing" scientific evidence, but need theology to match it, it was not good.

Again, what did Collins say that specifically denied original sin?

As to the Fall of man/original sin/evolution problem, I was doing some more surfing and wondered if anyone here is anticipating the book The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil (WJK, 2008) - it's not out yet but I saw it on another blog. I can't post the link because I'm a newbie!

I haven't even heard of it, but it looks interesting. I also hear Original Selfishness is supposed to be excellent, too.

 

[Havilah]

I wouldn't put too much stock in finding evidence for God. Christ taught us the importance of coming to Him in faith, which is a conviction despite a lack of evidence. I agree that there's evidence (not proof) of God in nature, but we shouldn't let that obfuscate the importance of faith.

Of course God cannot be proven, but there must be evidence for Jesus - else our faith is no more justified then a Hindu's faith in Kali. There is evidence to justify my faith in Christ. That is all I meant. I'm sure you would agree that we are not called to have "blind" faith.

Again, what did Collins say that specifically denied original sin?

I took the book back to the library so I am not able to paste direct quotes here. From what I remember, he spent most of the book discussing the proof of evolution, etc. Which was fine. But then, as I was reading, all the questions I had about original sin, noah's flood, etc etc etc - they were all popping into my head, and as I turned each page I expected to --finally!-- read Collin's theology regarding this apparent contradiction.

It never appeared. He gave a rather weak argument toward the end, something to the effect of "we don't have to take Genesis 1 & 2 literally" - and that was it. No specific explanation as to the rest of Genesis, which I found shocking, as well as no mention of the problem of evolutionary death before Adam/original sin.

I had these questions at the end of his book, that were left dangling and unanswered:
1. what about original sin? death and decay before man?
2. is there no evidence for a flood then, either? (he never mentions it)
3. what about the rest of genesis? (Collins says that most people can make reasonable judgments about what parts of scripture are parables and which are historical - and yet gives no parameters for this)
4. Is ANY of the OT historical, then? What about Moses and Exodus and all of that? Is it just Genesis that's not literal history??


you see all of these questions were brought up by Collin's book, and yet he never answers them. That's what I was shocked by.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Of course God cannot be proven, but there must be evidence for Jesus - else our faith is no more justified then a Hindu's faith in Kali. There is evidence to justify my faith in Christ. That is all I meant. I'm sure you would agree that we are not called to have "blind" faith.

Why do you feel that your choice of what deity to accept should be easier than any one else's choice?

Why do you feel that you should have an easier choice than Paul, Moses, Abraham, or any other figure in the Bible that had to make a choice?

In the end there is no sure justification to any choice we make about our faith in God, that is why it is called faith.

 

[Havilah]

Why do you feel that your choice of what deity to accept should be easier than any one else's choice?

Why do you feel that you should have an easier choice than Paul, Moses, Abraham, or any other figure in the Bible that had to make a choice?

In the end there is no sure justification to any choice we make about our faith in God, that is why it is called faith.

whoa. I'm confused by what forum I've stumbled into here. lol

I disagree. There is evidence to justify my faith. If there wasn't, there would be absolutely no way of knowing which God is real. God does not say "I am the only way" - and then leave us with no evidence of that. How cruel would He be, to say "I am the only way" - and then let us flounder around trying to figure out if Muhammed or Joseph Smith were true prophets?

If you read the evidence for Joseph Smith (just as an example here) - it is mind boggling how bad it is. When faced with all the facts about Joseph Smith and the errors in his writings, Mormons are forced to fall on their "blind faith".

Yes, there absolutely is a difference. Faith is not blind - else Jesus would not have had to spend so much time raising people from dead, healing the sick, etc.

 

[OHCAC]

The narrative concerning 'adam and his Fall specifically is an aetiological saga; that is, it is an account that seeks to explain current reality. One could argue it functions as a basic theodicy providing an answer to the question, "If God is a loving creator why is there so much suffering etc?" The answer is that whilst God has given mankind ('adam) his law, the obedience of which results in blessing, mankind ('adam) chose and chooses another path. Ultimately, the account in Genesis describes an historical reality presented through the eyes of an inhabitant of the ancient Near East. I hope that helps.

 

[shernren]

Though really, other than narratives constructed purely for the purpose of entertainment, are there ever any narratives that are not in part (if not in whole) aetiological or pseudo-aetiological?

 

[OHCAC]

Though really, other than narratives constructed purely for the purpose of entertainment, are there ever any narratives that are not in part (if not in whole) aetiological or pseudo-aetiological?

Within the Hebrew Bible there are a plethora of narrative forms; aetiological, historical and ethnographic. The 'adam narrative seemingly finds its climax with the curses in Gen. 3:14-19.

 

[gluadys]

I disagree. There is evidence to justify my faith. If there wasn't, there would be absolutely no way of knowing which God is real. God does not say "I am the only way" - and then leave us with no evidence of that. How cruel would He be, to say "I am the only way" - and then let us flounder around trying to figure out if Muhammed or Joseph Smith were true prophets?

But that is exactly what God does. Otherwise no one would end up following Mohammed or Joseph Smith.

And according to the letter to the Hebrews, evidence is not the basis of faith. Faith IS the evidence.

I think the term "blind faith" is tossed around too freely without thinking through what it means.

All faith involves things not seen. So there is always an absence of tangible evidence in matters of faith. This cannot be the essence of "blind faith".

"Blind faith" to me, means unreasonable faith. An example would be a so-called faith that asks more than believing in what is not seen, but asks for one to disbelieve what is seen.

It is one thing to believe in the absence of evidence; there can be reasonable hope that such faith will be rewarded. It is quite a different thing to try and believe in spite of evidence to the contrary or as Mark Twain phrased it "to believe what you know ain't so."

Another thing to note in the passage from Hebrews 11 is the connection of faith with hope. Faith is the evidence (or substance) of things hoped for. The present to future orientation of faith is important.

Faith is trusting in the present that the hope presented by God will come to pass in the future. And this faith is expressed in action; acting with confidence that what is promised/hoped for will really come to pass although there is no physical evidence today that it will.

How very different from the concept of faith that identifies it with mental assent to a set of propositions.

 

[MattLangley]

What your facing is very common for people in all sorts of circumstances. It's looking at something that has been crystalized for so long in your perspective from a different perspective.

Imagine what someone who was raised in an "uncivilized" location things of Jesus when an evangelical Christian tells them they must know "Jesus" to go to heaven... Like Marcus Borg puts it, virtually salvation by syllables, imagine how weird that perspective must be for such a person.