Gnosticism and the belief in Evolution

[The Barbarian]

What a coincidence... you believe the earth was gradually developed by naturalistic processes over time, just as virtually every other evolutionist believes.

Comes down to evidence. We both agree that God did it; you just don't approve of the way He did it.

It's almost as if the belief in Evolution extends beyond biodiversity and to the rest of the universe.

No. It's just that the evidence shows how it happened. As you learned, cosmology has nothing whatever to do with evolutionary theory. Most scientists also accept electricity and chemistry. The difference is. they aren't offended if God does things by electricity and chemistry.

Collins refers to a mysterious watchmaker type of deistic god that is ultimately responsible for a kind of generative 'seed' that led to the evolution of the cosmos, but this god has remained completely detached from any kind of interaction with it.

That is a blatant misrepresentation of Collins' beliefs.

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

 

[lifepsyop]

I feel it's important to note that there is a sect of Gnosticism that accepts Jesus as their "savior", but what they mean is that Jesus is an illuminated master teacher who has given them the key of 'gnosis', or the path of self-enlightenment. I see a lot of this flavor of false Christ today, that offers a personal transcendental experience... who preaches "love" for everyone, but is strangely detached from the God of Israel found in the Old Testament. (because a "God of love" would never do such horrible things like flooding the entire earth or wiping out entire nations, or hatred of homosexuality, etc.)

 

[The Barbarian]

I see a lot of this flavor of false Christ today, that offers a personal transcendental experience... who preaches "love" for everyone,

Hmmm...

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Good reason for that. You get that right, and you can't go wrong. Or so Jesus says. I believe Him.

 

[lifepsyop]

No. It's just that the evidence shows how it happened. As you learned, cosmology has nothing whatever to do with evolutionary theory.

Ah your favorite strawman... Of course, biological evolution is a separate focus than say stellar evolution, but they are all part of an overarching evolutionary story of the universe. Of course, you already knew that.

Methodological naturalism can only ever arrive at the conclusion that a structure in the universe evolved from something else. And this is the philosophy imposing itself on all modern science, forcing the same a priori conclusion onto everything.

 

[lifepsyop]

Hmmm...

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Good reason for that. You get that right, and you can't go wrong. Or so Jesus says. I believe Him.

Would that be the God of Israel? We read about His works on the earth in the Old Testament, don't we?

 

[The Barbarian]

Would that be the God of Israel? We read about His works on the earth in the Old Testament, don't we?

Jesus is the God of Israel. I believe what He says. You should, too.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You said that theistic evolution "ultimately becomes a belief in [the] materialistic evolution of the entire universe, the universe as one big alchemical refinery" (Post #1). However, if such a universe is "completely sterilized of any interference or activity of God, a completely naturalistically developed universe operating on universal laws governing all matter" (Post #10), then, by virtue of its theism, theistic evolution generally is not in any danger of becoming that. Deism is more consistent with what you were describing. And evolutionary creationism in particular is in even less danger, given that an "evolutionary creationist is one who has a very firm belief in God's sovereignty over the whole created order, worked out in his plan and purposes for both creation and redemption" (Alexander 2008, 181).

---

Alexander, D. R. 2008. *Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?* Oxford: Monarch.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. It's just that the evidence shows how it happened. As you learned, cosmology has nothing whatever to do with evolutionary theory.

Ah your favorite strawman...

Rather, I debunked your favorite strawman. As you know, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the Big Bang. But you are desperate to make is so. For reasons we all understand.

Of course, biological evolution is a separate focus than say stellar evolution, but they are all part of an overarching evolutionary story of the universe.

No. In Darwin's time, no one had a clue about it. But evolutionary theory didn't need it. IF God had just created the first living things supernaturally (as Darwin suggested) rather than using nature (as God says in Genesis) evolution would still work in exactly the same way.

Methodological naturalism can only ever arrive at the conclusion that a structure in the universe evolved from something else.

Here, you're trying to conflate biological evolution with change. This is why Darwin preferred "descent with modification" to "evolution." Change is a feature of this universe, as God tells us. Why not just accept it His way?

 

[lifepsyop]

You said that theistic evolution "ultimately becomes a belief in [the] materialistic evolution of the entire universe, the universe as one big alchemical refinery" (Post #1). However, if such a universe is "completely sterilized of any interference or activity of God, a completely naturalistically developed universe operating on universal laws governing all matter" (Post #10), then, by virtue of its theism, theistic evolution generally is not in any danger of becoming that. Deism is more consistent with what you were describing. And evolutionary creationism in particular is in even less danger, given that an "evolutionary creationist is one who has a very firm belief in God's sovereignty over the whole created order, worked out in his plan and purposes for both creation and redemption" (Alexander 2008, 181).

well, as far as I can tell there are two main branches of Theistic Evolution.. one is the "intelligent design" camp, where the belief is that God routinely intervened in macroevolutionary events,

and the other camp is far more similar to classical Deism, where the belief is that God stepped completely away from the creation after the initial 'big-bang' type event, and let the universal properties of nature "evolve" the entire universe and everything in it.

of course, both of them are entirely contradictory to scripture...

Theistic Evolution imposes a cosmos where original sin and the fall are just metaphors and literary devices. And this is what opens the door to Gnostic beliefs, where "salvation by Christ" is really just a metaphor for your own personal spiritual transformation and self-empowerment. Sin is no longer a concrete aspect of our fallen world, but a metaphor for negative or selfish emotions that make people do bad things... 'overcoming sin' is then interpreted as learning to become a better person. "Repenting" means shedding yourself of negative thought-loops that keep you down... stuff like that...

As mentioned earlier, it is so important that the central emphasis around the Gospel is the flesh and blood resurrection of Jesus, because there have always been so many people wanting to reduce the Bible down to *only* metaphors and allegories and negate the true concrete reality of the events in scripture.

 

[lifepsyop]

evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the Big Bang. But you are desperate to make is so.

Of course, biological evolution is a separate focus than say stellar evolution, but they are all part of an overarching evolutionary story of the universe.

If we really wanted to force arbitrary distinctions, we could say that the evolution of mammals have nothing to do with the evolution of fish, but you would say "no, no, no, it's all part of one evolutionary continuum"... you're just too embarrassed apparently to recognize the same continuum when it extends to the natural properties that supposedly drove the evolution of the entire structure of the universe...

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you seem so desperate to avoid discussing what you actually believe?

No. In Darwin's time, no one had a clue about it.

There's your problem. Nobody has to "have a clue" about it, because it's a philosophy of naturalism. Philosophies don't need to be proven or demonstrated; they are simply believed. And yes, people believed in the naturalistic evolution of the universe long before Charles Darwin.

Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus was writing about his philosophical belief in the naturalistic evolution of the universe before the younger Darwin was even born.

...Ere Time began, from flaming Chaos hurl'd
Rose the bright spheres, which form the circling world;
with quick explosions burst,
And second planets issued from the first.
Then, whilst the sea at their coeval birth,
Surge over surge, involv'd the shoreless earth;
Nurs'd by warm sun-beams in primeval caves
Organic Life began beneath the waves...

Darwin, Temple of Nature, Canto I (upenn.edu)

 

[The Barbarian]

If we really wanted to force arbitrary distinctions, we could say that the evolution of mammals have nothing to do with the evolution of fish,

That's just weird. They both involve biological descent with modification. Both happen by mutation, recombination and natural selection. C'mon. You know better than that.

but you would say "no, no, no, it's all part of one evolutionary continuum"...

No, I'd point out that they work on the same systems, with the same mechanisms.

you're just too embarrassed apparently to recognize the same continuum when it extends to the natural properties that supposedly drove the evolution of the entire structure of the universe...

See above. You really don't get the differences? Seriously? Perhaps you should ask yourself why you seem so desperate to conflate entirely different things. Your attempt to do so opens a window into the thinking of creationists and explains some of the things they believe.

There's your problem. Nobody has to "have a clue" about it, because it's a philosophy of naturalism.

You know better than that. As we've demonstrated, evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evoultionary theory make testable predictions which have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Do we have to show you some of those again?

Creationism is different. Creationism doesn't need to be proven or demonstrated; it is simply believed, even in the absence of any scriptural support for it. And yes, people believed in the naturalistic evolution of the universe long before Charles Darwin.[/QUOTE]

Here, you're conflating "evolution" (change) with biological evolution (descent with modification. But many scientists before Darwin realized that some kind of descent with modification must have happened. Darwin's great discovery was how it happens.

 

[The Barbarian]

Theistic Evolution imposes a cosmos where original sin and the fall are just metaphors and literary devices.

You must know better than that. I'm not the only one who's corrected you here, about that.

 

[The Barbarian]

well, as far as I can tell there are two main branches of Theistic Evolution.. one is the "intelligent design" camp, where the belief is that God routinely intervened in macroevolutionary events,

Intelligent Design creationism started out a merely a way to repackage creationism in a way that might be allowed in public schools. The Dover Trial pretty much put an end to that subterfuge. Of late some creationists in the ID movement seem to be more and more like deists. See my other thread on this.

 

[lifepsyop]

That's just weird. They both involve biological descent with modification. Both happen by mutation, recombination and natural selection. C'mon. You know better than that.

... and both biological evolution and stellar evolution involve the same laws of nature.

No, I'd point out that they work on the same systems, with the same mechanisms.

and both biological evolution and stellar evolution involve the same mechanics (natural processes)

See above. You really don't get the differences? Seriously?

You really don't get the differences between the environmental pressures acting on mammals and the environmental pressures acting on fish? Really?

We can do this all day... You may not realize it but you are in fact drawing arbitrary distinctions in what is an overarching continuum of the evolution of the entire cosmos... which is what you yourself admit that you believe, but for some reason seem offended by someone else pointing it out.

Here, you're conflating "evolution" (change) with biological evolution (descent with modification.

It sounds like you're saying biological evolution is something separate from 'change'.... which is a strange distinction to be making.

But many scientists before Darwin realized that some kind of descent with modification must have happened. Darwin's great discovery was how it happens.

There are also theories of stellar evolution, and theories on the evolution of all planetary and earth features, origins of the oceans, of the moon, etc. They are all links in the overarching evolutionary creation narrative according to philosophical naturalism.

 

[lifepsyop]

You must know better than that. I'm not the only one who's corrected you here, about that.

What is your view of what 'original sin' is and the banishment from God's presence (Eden) as described in Genesis? What happened?

 

[The Barbarian]

What is your view of what 'original sin' is and the banishment from God's presence (Eden) as described in Genesis? What happened?

Original sin is the disobedience of the first two humans God gave immortal souls. Since God is everywhere, and the Kingdom of God is within us, the banishment was not a spatial one, but an estrangement from God. Whether the disobedience was literally described in Genesis, or if it was a figurative account of their disobedience, is not spelled out in scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

... and both biological evolution and stellar evolution involve the same laws of nature.

No. Genetics does not work the way star formation works. Would you like some details?

and both biological evolution and stellar evolution involve the same mechanics (natural processes)

Hmm... if you can show me genetic mutations and natural selection in stars, and formation of heavy elements in metabolism, maybe you have something. But you'll need to show us some evidence. What do you have?

You really don't get the differences between the environmental pressures acting on mammals and the environmental pressures acting on fish? Really?

Let's see... predation, need for food, need to reproduce,... they seem to be the same things that work in the same way. What do you think is different?

We can do this all day... You may not realize it but you are in fact drawing arbitrary distinctions in what is an overarching continuum of the evolution of the entire cosmos...

I know you want to believe that. But when you show us a rabbit forging new elements and a star mutating new genes, you'll have something to show us. When will we see that?

It sounds like you're saying biological evolution is something separate from 'change'.... which is a strange distinction to be making.

Here, you're trying to conflate biological evolution with any sort of change. This is why Darwin preferred "descent with modification." What you're doing is very transparent; everyone notices.

There are also theories of stellar evolution, and theories on the evolution of all planetary and earth features, origins of the oceans, of the moon, etc.

I know you want to believe that. But we'll see if you can show us those rabbits forming new elements, and the genomes of stars. Good luck.

 

[lifepsyop]

No. Genetics does not work the way star formation works.

You mean the interactivity of subatomic particles in genetics don't obey the same fundamental laws of physics as particles in star formation? .... You do seem to have some strange doctrines. I had always heard that there was some kind of 'standard model of particle physics' that governed natural processes, but apparently you have different beliefs.

 

[The Barbarian]

You mean the interactivity of subatomic particles in genetics don't obey the same fundamental laws of physics as particles in star formation?

I mean that changes in genes in organisms is what biological evolution is. And thermonuclear reactions and production of heavy elements is what stellar evolution is. I see why you desperately want to make the them the same, but as you have learned, they are very different.

I know you want to believe otherwise. But we'll see if you can show us those rabbits forming new elements, and the genomes of stars. Good luck.

God created all sorts of different things in our universe, in spite of your disapproval. You do seem to have some strange doctrines.

It seems likely, from what physicists tell me that at the bottom, there is one rule that governs all the others. But that doesn't mean that God could only make one thing from it. A God that powerful and wise seems to disturb creationists.

 

[lifepsyop]

Original sin is the disobedience of the first two humans God gave immortal souls.

Did God give the first two humans immortal bodies as well?

I'm assuming you believe in the immortality of the human body because after he died, Jesus' physical body was resurrected to a new glorified one.

Since God is everywhere, and the Kingdom of God is within us, the banishment was not a spatial one, but an estrangement from God. Whether the disobedience was literally described in Genesis, or if it was a figurative account of their disobedience, is not spelled out in scripture.

But isn't there at least some 'spatiality' involved in the corruption of their physical human bodies when they sinned?

Isn't the whole point of Jesus physically rising from the dead with a new glorified body, (that his disciples could actually touch), is that he is restoring what was corrupted when man first sinned?