Creationism and Theology

[SavedByGrace3]

Why would say that He’s fooling?

Well He is not trying to fool or deceive anyone. They are just fooling themselves. IMHO

 

[SavedByGrace3]

As the scripture says,He has Not revealed everything about everything. Mysteries abound.

 

[Hammster]

Well He is not trying to fool or deceive anyone. They are just fooling themselves. IMHO

Why would you say that? Does scripture state that things must be the way you perceive them? In other words, why you you consider it deception?

 

[Resha Caner]

And just how could there be "kinda, sorta, maybe" to a first mann and first woman with evolution?

I'll be explaining an idea I don't agree with, which is fraught with difficulty, but I'll do my best. Just be aware TEs may jump in and correct me.

In short the answer would be: evolution is based on individual organisms, not species. Species, while an accepted and useful biological category, is man made. The DNA of every organism (of every human) is different. There is no single DNA sequence that uniquely identifies a human as human. Rather, it is largely our morphology that is used to identify us as homo sapiens.

Of course the DNA of humans is all very similar, but never exactly the same. As it happens, our DNA is also similar to other species. So, there is no absolute method for saying where homo sapiens DNA starts and where it ends. Of course, due to the similarities and differences, a biologist could quite easily distinguish human from ape using DNA and be confident the observed differences in DNA would correlate with observed differences in morphology, but there is no hard and fast rule.

In the end, if two organisms can mate and produce viable, fertile offspring, there is a 99.999999999% chance biologists would classify them as the same species. They would also classify their children as the same species. It would be extremely rare and controversial (as far as I know, it's never happened) for a biologist to claim two organisms from different species mated and produced fertile offspring … or to call that offspring a different species.

To illustrate how the term "species" is somewhat fluid, consider the revelation that Neanderthals likely mixed with other homo species. Rather than declaring two species mated to produce a new species, Neanderthals were downgraded (or upgraded, depending on how you look at it) to being called a human sub-species.

So, when two humans mate, it is always two organisms with differing DNA and they always produce an organism with yet another unique DNA sequence. Therefore, to identify one of those organisms as the first human male or first human female is not really possible within the evolutionary framework. And, to be honest, I don't think it's a detail evolutionists care about. About all a biologist will say is that at some point in the past, the organisms in the reproductive chain are not called humans. Then, at some point they are called humans. Where exactly the dividing line lies … no one knows … or cares.

 

[hedrick]

In short the answer would be: evolution is based on individual organisms, not species.

As far as I know (and I'm not a biologist) what you say is correct. But I believe most would say that evolution is based on populations that interbreed. Certainly boundaries are fluid. But individuals don't evolve. Characteristics that persist are positive to the population but not necessarily to every individual.

 

[klutedavid]

I would say evolution creates theological problems. Of course TEs disagree. So, I'm curious ... do TEs think creationism creates theological problems? If so, what?

Disclaimer: I'm rarely in agreement with the typical YEC, so these issues may not apply specifically to me, but we can talk through that as the discussion unfolds.

I believe there was actually a first man and woman in Eden and that Noah and Abraham actually existed.

Yet I am also aware that Genesis was assembled into a written text by the Jews after the Exodus event. Hence we find the creation narrative occurred over a number of days and even has a seventh day. This is a legal text written by Jews under the law.

What is more obvious from the Genesis text is the generations are listed, showing that the Jews are the legitimate descendants of Abraham.

This Genesis text is a legal document justifying the claim of Israel as the chosen nation.

Of course this does not mean a young earth rather, that Genesis is simply a stretched history of Israel.

Truth exists within Genesis but the text reflects the Jewish authorship.

 

[Resha Caner]

As far as I know (and I'm not a biologist) what you say is correct. But I believe most would say that evolution is based on populations that interbreed. Certainly boundaries are fluid. But individuals don't evolve. Characteristics that persist are positive to the population but not necessarily to every individual.

Thanks for the clarification. You are correct. I knew when I mentioned organisms some might think I was saying the organisms itself evolved, which is not correct. The evolutionary change occurs from one generation to the next. So, "population" is the more accepted term. Again, thanks.

It's just that my epiphany came during a discussion with a biologist about individual organisms, and I realized I had misunderstood evolution up to that point. So, that's how I remember it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I believe there was actually a first man and woman in Eden and that Noah and Abraham actually existed.

As do I. I was simply noting that evolution (as I understand it) wouldn't denote a first human.

Truth exists within Genesis but the text reflects the Jewish authorship.

I agree, but I would make a stronger statement that all of Genesis is true.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I would say evolution creates theological problems. Of course TEs disagree. So, I'm curious ... do TEs think creationism creates theological problems? If so, what?

Disclaimer: I'm rarely in agreement with the typical YEC, so these issues may not apply specifically to me, but we can talk through that as the discussion unfolds.

Yes it does create a problem . Evolution is not included in "after their own kind". There is no room for the theory that all species are related and morph into other kinds. In fact,DNA is so minute that it would be impossible to break down that theory leaving some to wonder why Darwinism is still held. Evolution only leaves room for one to hypothesize a relation between species through time and natural selection while creationism already has the answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course, liberal and Neo-Orthodox Protestants have never understood original sin in an historical sense. And it is possible to understand Jesus death in other ways, other than satisfaction for human sins to an angry God.

Yes, I understand.

 

[trophy33]

Whether it was by evolution or direct creation, there were still a first male and first female Homo sapiens, right?

Its hard to imagine that evolution would produce just two individuals of a new species... It would have to be a larger group.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Its hard to imagine that evolution would produce just two individuals of a new species... It would have to be a larger group.

Did i say there were just two?

But there still would be a FIRST two.

 

[trophy33]

Did i say there were just two?

But there still would be a FIRST two.

Its practically impossible for a natural evolutionary process to produce just (FIRST) two individuals of a new species.

How do you imagine that? A pair of homo erectus had suddenly two homo sapiens children?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Its practically impossible for a natural evolutionary process to produce just (FIRST) two individuals of a new species.

How do you imagine that? A pair of homo erectus had suddenly two homo sapiens children?

Or maybe there were two pair, right?

 

[trophy33]

Or maybe there were two pair, right?

Two pairs of homo erectus having the same mutated babies in the same time and in the same place, one male and one female...?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Two pairs of homo erectus having the same mutated babies in the same time and in the same place, one male and one female...?

Why not?

 

[trophy33]

Why not?

It would be a miracle

 

[DamianWarS]

I would say evolution creates theological problems. Of course TEs disagree. So, I'm curious ... do TEs think creationism creates theological problems? If so, what?

Disclaimer: I'm rarely in agreement with the typical YEC, so these issues may not apply specifically to me, but we can talk through that as the discussion unfolds.

I'm agnostic to what happen during creation except that I believe God did it, I, however, don't think the early Genesis accounts tell us literal accounts. But I think a problem of YECs is when they begin to reconcile the accounts with science, begin to fill in the blanks in the text, or ignore all conflicts in the text. This can create nuanced ways of how we approach God when we use the stuff we make up to reconcile the text.

The text is the text and we cannot responsibly use something like the historical grammatical method to interpret the stuff going around it to establish the context because we don't know that information. When the text was written (post-exodus) this would place the flood about 1000 years removed and the creation account about 2500 years removed. So we cannot "guess" what is not mentioned in the text and the text must be taken simply as is.

If it is interpreted literally nothing can be added or guessed in between the words and even with conflicts they must be taken exactly as is without explanation. For example in Gen 1 light is created before the sun. I have heard people say a lot of explanations like the light was Christ/God or that the sun was there but it just wasn't at its full strength but none of this can be supported in the text so all we can accept in a literal vacuum is that God spoke light and the sun was created on the 4th day and nothing else. So even in a literal view in practice, the account should be understood like a non-literal account since in non-literal accounts the only details that exist are what the account tells us and all other details are unimportant and out of scope of the text.

For example, where did dinosaurs come from? Maybe the 4th day? maybe the 5th or 6th. I have heard many examples and many favour the gap theory but none of this is supported in the text. in the text, there is no mention of dinosaurs or 1,000,0000 year gaps so it is irresponsible to suggest this, we must either say the text cannot support dinosaurs or that dinosaurs are inclusive in day 6th. all conflicts and questions this presents cannot be responsibly answered and must be left alone, so, in practice, this is exactly how a non-literal account is understood. in non-literal accounts there are many holes, but no one cares because the holes are not the important parts of the account, instead the details given and the goal they point to are the only important details and this is exactly how the early Genesis accounts read.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah. It always seems to me the "God buried dinosaur bones to test us" line is given out of fear.

However, this does somewhat relate to my biggest struggle in this debate. I think there is a reasonable creationist answer to the data.

I also think it's fascinating that, scientists who are exceptionally rigorous in the particulars, think sweeping extrapolations are acceptable on bigger scales, e.g. Sagan's "billions and billions" or Tyson's pontificating about God. It's their own version of "God buried dinosaur bones".

But that's a digression. As I was saying, my struggle is that I want to be able to relate to evolutionists. The problem, though, is their refusal to move beyond the mechanistic. IMO it's an implicit claim that humans can comprehend everything. But the problem is that if I meet their mechanistic demand, I've conceded the argument from the get-go. That's not a theological problem, but it is a problem.

I don't know that you can throw all evolutionists into the same basket like that, Resha. Even if two evolutionists are atheist, for instance, this is no guarantee that they both hold to the same views on what constitutes proper scientific praxis; and then you add in someone like myself to the mix, along with maybe one or two other approaches to how we understand and apply our respective views on the Nature of Science as an embedded part of the overall field of Philosophy of Science, and you have a menagerie classification rather than a clear and distinct categorization.

We might want to be careful in differentiating who means what when they say "what" about evolution.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't buy that argument. Ancient people weren't naive children. In some ways they understood the natural world better than a city-dwelling 21st century person. Evolution is a very ancient concept, which, like many ancient concepts, didn't get a scientific footing until recently.

Had God wanted to express evolution to Moses, he could have simply said something like, "And on the 6th day the fish crawled out of the water and God made it a beast of the land." Not too hard.

That might to be to assume too much conceptual similarity between the ancient Hebraic/Mesopotamian mind and the modern scientifically literal Western mind. It might also be a little to easy going in trying to find similarities between, say, someone like Lucretius on the one hand and Darwin on the other. I don't think we should Con-Fuse them together like that, and I mean this in the most semantically nuanced sense of the term "confused" one can think of.

While the Bible has a fascinating array of such things, it's risky to take that line of thought too far - to make the existence of cultural symbols the sole explanation for their presence in the Bible. For example, each plague of Egypt attacked a specific Egyptian god, showing God's power was greater than the supposed Egyptian deities. That doesn't serve as proof the plagues never happened.

... well, this is why I differentiate the 'level' of historical representation that is expressed in the essentially 1st person account of the Exodus with the 3rd person account of the Creation, or the Flood, or the Tower of Babel, etc.

I, therefore, kind of expect the Exodus account to be telling me something just a little bit more concrete, however still representational it is, than does the Garden of Eden narrative. Besides, Rabbinically speaking, in the Jewish mindset, the cardinal event is often seen to be the Exodus, not the Creation.