Death, evolution and the fall of man.

[KTskater]

I consider myself on the TE side of the creation-evolution debate, and have for the last year or so. I have a close friend who is a staunch YEC, and he and I like to have friendly debates from time to time.
Typically, I stump him on the science end of the debate. This is probably simply because I'm majoring in biological anthropology, and he in international business. The odds aren't stacked in his favor as far as knowledge in that field goes.
However, he routinely brings up some valid theological points that I cannot answer to my nor his satisfaction. The most basic one is the idea of original sin and death. He formulates the argument something like this:
"Before the fall of man, we see no death and no disease. There is no competition between man and animals for food. It is only after the fall of man that we see death and destruction and competition for survival. How then can man be a product of evolution, and then bring about the original sin, if the products of sin were what produced him?"
Now, even with an allegorical understanding of Genesis, I feel TE may run into theological problems with original sin. Unless my understanding is wrong, it's the reason why all men are sinful by nature, it was "inherited" in a way from the first man and woman.
I'd like for some older, wiser TE's to attempt to address this and defend our position, so perhaps I can start to answer this question satisfactorily. YEC or OEC (or anyone else really), are welcome to further expand on this argument or (kindly) poke holes in the defense that TE's may present.

Above all, let's remember that's we're brothers and sisters in Christ, and that love comes before all else.

 

[Papias]

OK, where to start?

The idea that there was no animal death before the fall is unscriptural. I've heard that from YECs, and I'd guess that's where he got it, but it's a universal Christian doctrine - I'm not even sure if it is very common. There are a lot of problems with the idea that animals didn't die before the fall.

First, let's look at scripture alone. No scripture ever says that animals didn't die before the fall - it's just an idea made up by YECs. The closest one could come is in Romans, where Paul says that sin came to all people through Adam - but there is nothing to indicate there that other animals are affected. Also, in Gen 2, before the fall, Adam and Eve are both clearly familiar with what death is (they understand God's statement about it, and use the term themselves), so animal death had to be happening all the time. So even a strictly literal reading of Genesis and the rest of one's chosen Bible shows that the "no animal death" idea can't be right.

Next, the present day animals that God created clearly show that death has always been around because many creatures are clearly designed head to toe to be predators. A few examples:

• Spiderwebs - I suppose those were for catching seeds to eat?
• Poison - literally thousands of animals have poison for predation (snakes, spiders, wasps, etc.) or for defense against predation (arrow-frogs, toads, monarch butterflies, etc.).
• deep sea anglerfish - Why would anything be attracted to their "bait"? and look at the anglerfish's teeth!
• Alligator snapper turtle "worm" tongue bait - same thing.
• many other deepsea fish.
• Sharks - what did they eat?
• A cheetah's speed - why be designed fast if you only have to catch a squash? Did squash vines grow really fast back then?
• A chameleon's tongue - gotta snatch those mexican jumping beans!
• and on and on........

That's not to mention past creatures, like a T-rex, etc. There is also tons of evidence for disease, predation, death, and so on from the fossil record. Limestone - one of the most common types of stone on earth - is literally made up of many trillions of compacted marine fossils. The oceans of hundreds of earth's couldn't hold that many creatures if there were all alive at once, so they couldn't have all been killed in a flood on earth.

Not only is the "animals didn't die before the fall" idea bad theology, but even many creationists reject it. You can see that from this thread in the creationism section: http://www.christianforums.com/t7519515-4/. No wonder, either, because as see above, it really makes Christianity an easy target for ridicule.

In a theistic evolution view, the fall works quite well, as do all other core Christian doctrines.

There are many theistic evolution ways to see the core doctrines of Christianity, just as there are many creationist descriptions, depending on the person and denomination. However, these may at least be common, if not exclusive.

The Garden: The Garden of Eden can be a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think. It need not have happened as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The Fall:The fall of man can be what happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequence was alienation from God. This view is explicitly supported by the Pope, and many other Christian leaders.

Adam: Note that many theistic evolution supporters (including apparently the Pope) believe in a literal, real, single human Adam, the father of us all, who was the first transitional ape-human to cross the line to being human, who sinned and brought about original sin (not the first death). This fits with the above mention of the Fall.

The Flood: The flood can be a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It need not have happened as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables while on earth as Jesus, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These can be figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the ~2 million Jews at the Exodus in a short number of years.


I hope all that helps.

Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ-

Papias

 

[elopez]

The most basic one is the idea of original sin and death. He formulates the argument something like this:

"Before the fall of man, we see no death and no disease. There is no competition between man and animals for food. It is only after the fall of man that we see death and destruction and competition for survival. How then can man be a product of evolution, and then bring about the original sin, if the products of sin were what produced him?"

I tend to think the no death pre - fall is one of the more problematic arguments for the YEC. There must have been animal and plant death before the fall, and there is even Scriptural evidence to point to such.

I would argue that as Adam named all of the animals, he did so on account of observing their behavior. For instance, "Horse" in Hebrew is "as leaping," and "Lamb" as "pushing out to graze." Yet when we notice the carnivorous animals like a lion which means "in the sense of violence," or a vicious predator like the eagle which is "large bird of prey," we begin to notice that Adam named these animals on account of their violent and 'survival' nature.

This is not to say that Adam spoke Hebrew and named these animals in that language, but there is no reason to assume the meaning of the word would change from whatever language Adam may had spoken to Hebrew. Nor is there really any evidence of animals being vegetarian, especially the lion or eagle, neither Biblical or scientific. That is what the YEC would usually argue from that point, is that animals pre - fall ate nothing but plants.

It is only human death that came after the fall, since sin is only applicable to man.

Now, even with an allegorical understanding of Genesis, I feel TE may run into theological problems with original sin. Unless my understanding is wrong, it's the reason why all men are sinful by nature, it was "inherited" in a way from the first man and woman.

Original sin is the sinful nature that is passed down to all of humanity through conception. It is hereditary in all of man as a result of the fall. Though this is a sin contracted and not committed, so we are affected by the fall not held accountable for it. Reasoning from TE, I would think it more reasonable to seem valid with the concept of original sin as heredity, as heredity is very relevant to evolution.

 

[KimberlyAA]

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy.

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:

1. Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
2. In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
3. In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
4. Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men’ (Philippians 2:5–7).

The idea of evolution undermines the foundation of our salvation. Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus’ incarnation with evolutionary thought: “Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review … of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the ‘incarnation’ of God … The absoluteness with which the event in Bethlehem has up to now been regarded in Christian philosophy, is contrary to the identification of this man who personifies this event (= Jesus), with man having the nature of homo sapiens.”

The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16–18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:

1. The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
2. The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
3. The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
4. Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
5. The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

1. God created matter without using any available material.
2. God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:

1. Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
2. Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’ Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

 

[theFijian]

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

Sorry but that is incorrect, that is the kind of category error which Creationists are more likely to make. God is not 'added' into TE, he is immanent over all Creation and whatever happens happens according to his will. When your fundamental suppositions are wrong you need to reassess all your conclusions, which I'm sure you'll address in due time.

 

[barryrob]

I consider myself on the TE side of the creation-evolution debate, and have for the last year or so. I have a close friend who is a staunch YEC, and he and I like to have friendly debates from time to time.
Typically, I stump him on the science end of the debate. This is probably simply because I'm majoring in biological anthropology, and he in international business. The odds aren't stacked in his favor as far as knowledge in that field goes.
However, he routinely brings up some valid theological points that I cannot answer to my nor his satisfaction. The most basic one is the idea of original sin and death. He formulates the argument something like this:
"Before the fall of man, we see no death and no disease. There is no competition between man and animals for food. It is only after the fall of man that we see death and destruction and competition for survival. How then can man be a product of evolution, and then bring about the original sin, if the products of sin were what produced him?"
Now, even with an allegorical understanding of Genesis, I feel TE may run into theological problems with original sin. Unless my understanding is wrong, it's the reason why all men are sinful by nature, it was "inherited" in a way from the first man and woman.
I'd like for some older, wiser TE's to attempt to address this and defend our position, so perhaps I can start to answer this question satisfactorily. YEC or OEC (or anyone else really), are welcome to further expand on this argument or (kindly) poke holes in the defense that TE's may present.

Above all, let's remember that's we're brothers and sisters in Christ, and that love comes before all else.

Evolution and sin do not mix in any way and they never will.

Sin is because of Adam's disobedance toward his creator, eating the fruit he was told not to touch, etc..


Evolution does away with sin as it has no creator.


rob

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Evolution and sin do not mix in any way and they never will.

Sin is because of Adam's disobedance toward his creator, eating the fruit he was told not to touch, etc..


Evolution does away with sin as it has no creator.


rob

I see Adam and Eve as symbols of mankind. When God created Eve, He created matrimony- man had evolved to make a distinction of marriage, seeing it as better then what unintelligent animals do, consisting of fights to the death and such over mating.
This is reinforced by the fact that Eve was made from Adam's rib- it is symbolical in that Eve becomes close to Adam's heart, and protects it all the same.

The Tree of Knowledge is a metaphor for the completion of man. They finally reach the evolutionary stage where they can comprehend good and evil in a way more superior and complex way. This is where we are made in the image of God.
Young Earth creationists will automatically point out that they were made in God's image beforehand, but that is only if you believe the two accounts of creation were two different events and NOT two accounts of the same.
Interestingly enough, if you cross-reference each account, them eating from the Tree actually lands right around the time God created them in His image.
After all, one cannot possibly be made in His image if they don't even have knowledge of good and evil. It is precisely what separates us from animals, from which we transcended from.


There is also the Big Bang in Genesis- God created light before the Sun and stars. Without the Big Bang, this would be inherently fallacious because, well, what are the light sources of the universe?
You see, YEC does not stand to these things. I have seen people of all sorts of educations, including those in the field of physics, argue for a young earth and they leave these things out because it puts them in checkmate. Why these simple observations are not made is beyond me, because it would put YECism to bed just as it should have been from the get go. Common sense and biblical unity with evolution is simply game over for any position on a young earth.

 

[sisak]

The Bible does point to " evolution ".


Genesis 4:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Who are the people in the land of Nod and where did they come from ?

 

[Schroeder]

The Bible does point to " evolution ".


Genesis 4:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Who are the people in the land of Nod and where did they come from ?

did it say how long he dwelt in the land of nod. Didnt say she was of Nod either. I am sure adam and eve had girls and they married their brothers at some point and they had kids etc. Sounds bad but how would it have happened in evolution, same way right. until there was a more abundance of people on earth there was no use of certain social rules.

 

[Schroeder]

I see Adam and Eve as symbols of mankind. When God created Eve, He created matrimony- man had evolved to make a distinction of marriage, seeing it as better then what unintelligent animals do, consisting of fights to the death and such over mating.
This is reinforced by the fact that Eve was made from Adam's rib- it is symbolical in that Eve becomes close to Adam's heart, and protects it all the same.

of course this is all subjective to your own personal reasoning so its not really evidence of anything. there are plenty of animals that dont fight the court like we do.

The Tree of Knowledge is a metaphor for the completion of man. They finally reach the evolutionary stage where they can comprehend good and evil in a way more superior and complex way. This is where we are made in the image of God.
Young Earth creationists will automatically point out that they were made in God's image beforehand, but that is only if you believe the two accounts of creation were two different events and NOT two accounts of the same.
Interestingly enough, if you cross-reference each account, them eating from the Tree actually lands right around the time God created them in His image.
After all, one cannot possibly be made in His image if they don't even have knowledge of good and evil. It is precisely what separates us from animals, from which we transcended from.

same here. image does not mean understanding. they looked like US as scripture says. as john 1 says.

There is also the Big Bang in Genesis- God created light before the Sun and stars. Without the Big Bang, this would be inherently fallacious because, well, what are the light sources of the universe?
You see, YEC does not stand to these things. I have seen people of all sorts of educations, including those in the field of physics, argue for a young earth and they leave these things out because it puts them in checkmate. Why these simple observations are not made is beyond me, because it would put YECism to bed just as it should have been from the get go. Common sense and biblical unity with evolution is simply game over for any position on a young earth.

not really. God is light. It is stated that he made the moon and sun to govern the day and night. He made plants before the sun so thats more an issue i think. BUT god is light so they grew from his light. HE is God so how he makes it is his doing. also says animals where made according to its KIND. this would only make room for evolution through the different kinds or amphibians create amphibians or reptiles created reptiles. ANd that is what we see in evolution. "kinds" evolving into other kinds of the same class. As in reptiles evolve into other reptiles. So its either go with the scriptures or dont believe at all. read hebrews 11:3 it says the things made were made with things not visible.

 

[lesliedellow]

To say that Genesis 3 does not give a historical account of original sin's origin is not to say that original sin is unreal; it is only to say that we have no historical account of its origin. In Genesis 3 we have an archetypal story about man's endemic and flagrant disobedience to God, and it desrves to be taken very seriously as a description of original sin in action.

As for death, I think we should look to physics and biology for an account of why we die - not to theology.