Esther and Evolution

[juvenissun]

​​​​​​​​“You have heard; now see all this;
and will you not declare it?
From this time forth I announce to you new things,
hidden things that you have not known.
​​​​​​​​They are created now, not long ago;
before today you have never heard of them,
lest you should say, ‘Behold, I knew them.'

(Isa 48:6-7, ESV)

You are taking it out of context. The "created" here means: "happened".
God arranges the situation, so "new" things/situations happened. For example, the nation called USA is new. It is so-called created. It is not a creation of material/energy/life talked about in Gen 1:1.

If you want to demo God's creation in the process of evolution, then you need to show something or some process which is accomplished by God, but not everything or every processes that are all done/supported by God.

I believe I can easily demo God's role in Esther's story, very specifically (such as: without God, this could not happen). I think that is why the Book is included in the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't think you can separate the two that easily, the context is Jesus healing, a miracle of creation, on the Sabbath when Jew were commanded to stop working because God stopped working on the seventh day of creation, Jesus reply is he working because his Father never stopped working. And as s shernren has pointed out the bible does not limit God's work of creation to Genesis 1. Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy.

Yes, what Jesus did could be said as exceptions.

But, I am expecting things similar to what the Jesus did, illustrated in the process/history of evolution.

 

[shernren]

You are taking it out of context. The "created" here means: "happened".
God arranges the situation, so "new" things/situations happened. For example, the nation called USA is new. It is so-called created. It is not a creation of material/energy/life talked about in Gen 1:1.

If you want to demo God's creation in the process of evolution, then you need to show something or some process which is accomplished by God, but not everything or every processes that are all done/supported by God.

I believe I can easily demo God's role in Esther's story, very specifically (such as: without God, this could not happen). I think that is why the Book is included in the Bible.

So when in the Bible does "created" actually mean created?

So much for a literal interpretation ...

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, what Jesus did could be said as exceptions.

What Jesus did should teach us about God, but your bigger problem is what Jesus said.

But, I am expecting things similar to what the Jesus did, illustrated in the process/history of evolution.

You do. Fish evolved the ability to walk.

 

[theFijian]

God creates everything in Six-Days. Then God quits creation

Wow does Mark Kennedy know there are deists in the Creationist camp? What would John Macarthur think! :weep:

Col 1:17 - And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Heb 1:3 - ...and he (Christ) upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Thankfully Juvie God has not 'quit Creation'.

 

[juvenissun]

What Jesus did should teach us about God, but your bigger problem is what Jesus said.


You do. Fish evolved the ability to walk.

Exactly. Science does not know how did it happen. If it did happen, we have to call God for help. The problem is that TE won't do that in any circumstance.

 

[juvenissun]

So when in the Bible does "created" actually mean created?

So much for a literal interpretation ...

Good question. So far, I don't have a single definition of creation. Even in Gen 1, there are two types of creation.

This is the trouble for literalism, not enough word.

 

[juvenissun]

? (never mind. I was checking what is deism)

For those who accused me as a deist, it is impossible for a creationist be a deist at the same time.

 

[Assyrian]

Exactly. Science does not know how did it happen. If it did happen, we have to call God for help. The problem is that TE won't do that in any circumstance.

Sounds like God of the Gaps to me Juv.

 

[theFijian]

? (never mind. I was checking what is deism)

For those who accused me as a deist, it is impossible for a creationist be a deist at the same time.

So are you saying you aren't a creationist?

 

[Mallon]

? (never mind. I was checking what is deism)

For those who accused me as a deist, it is impossible for a creationist be a deist at the same time.

How are you not a deist if you believe that God only occasional involves himself in the world? That's the definition of deism.

 

[juvenissun]

How are you not a deist if you believe that God only occasional involves himself in the world? That's the definition of deism.

I think that is only a part of it.
If I am wrong, please show me where the definition is given.

 

[Melethiel]

Deism

2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

 

[Mallon]

I think that is only a part of it.
If I am wrong, please show me where the definition is given.

You believe that God created the earth and everything in it up front, and that He now lets the earth run on its own, apart from Him. You believe that God does not sustain natural processes like evolution (at least, that's what you've told us). That's deism. If you want to look up the definition, google it.

 

[Hairy Tic]

I did say (post #3) the analogy in the OP is not that appropriate.

To accept a historical story which bears an implication of God is different from accepting a theory which does not need God. (I never know how to put God in the evolution process, except saying: Let it Start! )

## Surely the point about God is that He is totally unnecessary - historical explanation does not need God; if it did, God would be included in the method of historians. The OP has hit the nail on the head - nice analogy

God is not "in the evolution process" - He is not in the universe at all.

 

[Hairy Tic]

If you are talking about scientifically observable phenomena, then you shouldn't stop there. Don't forget the part where adaptation is conserved to within set parameters, the effects of random mutations, the fossil record in its completion, etc. The common denominator for reality is not naturalistic processes but evidence- wherever that evidence leads.

The origin, and the multi-faceted composition of the material is governed by the make up of reality as a whole. The perspective that reality as a whole is purely material is what drives materialism. So life, with its origin and its composition, has to be materialistic. This isn't science, just materialism. Hence adaptation is tasked, whether it be its will or not, to provide a naturalistic explanation against all evidence.

Empty conjectures notwithstanding, the adherents to a materialistic persuasion will learn to accept this boundary that is life. That the perseverance and eager anticipation for a materialistic utopia is squelched. The anti-religion rhetoric is inconsequential. "The show must go on" attitude has only turned science into a perversion. And pure inquiry has been substituted for googly-eyed achievement points. In reference to your above quoted appeal, the sun is the sun. Man is man. Man did not descend from a rising sun.

## Materialism may or may not be valid - even it is, what sort of barrier is that to God ? God can survive very well in an atheistic universe - He is not dependent on man. So God can be at work even in a totally random universe (assuming for argument's sake that a TRU is possible).

 

[Hairy Tic]

Good point. When I say thanks, one of the gratitude is that God who sets up the environment so my food can grow and mature. I don't think God is doing anything special (intervening) to the very food I eat everyday.

Aha, I know now. Does TE attribute all the hard questions of evolution to God's intervention? For example, while it becomes hard to support the mechanism of human evolution (from chimp), the solution is that God says: LET IT HAPPEN ! So the critical difficulties were solved by God and the natural process can continue. Thus, the evolution is mostly natural process plus God's critical intervention (by supernatural action). Is this the major idea of TE?

## All things are God's work - not just the showy stuff. And someone who is the Creator of all things, is no stranger to any detail of them, so cannot be said to "intervene" in them; that they are His, is already His "intervention". Cosmogony is a question more about the God Who created the cosmos, than about the cosmos.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Please make corrections. Or, do you think it is all wrong?
I really really do not know how would TE work.

After all, I think the OP has its point: What is the role of God in the story of Esther?

## Last question: to be at work, though unrecognised.

 

[Greg1234]

## Materialism may or may not be valid - even it is, what sort of barrier is that to God ? God can survive very well in an atheistic universe - He is not dependent on man. So God can be at work even in a totally random universe (assuming for argument's sake that a TRU is possible).

Materialism is not a barrier to God. In materialism, the material is God.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Creationists see God either intervening miraculously, or leaving the universe to carry on according to the laws he gave it. It is basically the 18th Century Rationalist view of the universe, only with God poking his head in every now and again. But the biblical view, and the view of Christianity throughout church history, is that God not only operates through supernatural action, but providentially, through natural processes themselves. As I pointed out before, Rom 8:28 in all things God works for the good of those who love him or for those who love God all things work together for good. Now I don't profess to understand how God works, or how he ensures that all things works together according to his purpose, just that he does, and seeing God at work behind the story of Esther, or evolution, is a deeply biblical understanding of how God works.

Apart from the question would the universe itself exist if God had not created it and if Christ did not sustain it by the word of his power? I am sure the God who feeds the young lions and the ravens probably fed some of our ancestors along the way too. Evolution would have happened but humans would probably not have emerged.

I like to think that God was responsible for Chicxulub, without it mammals would still be scurrying around and hiding in holes, but maybe some descendant of dromaeosaurs would have developed sentience and technology and you would have internet chatrooms filled with highly evolved velociraptors. Not much difference really

## And a nice example of election: "Homo sapiens sapiens have I loved, & Uintatherium have I hated".