Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

[friend of]

2 Peter 3:8

This verse suggests a day to God is like 1000 years. This doesn't necessarily mean that a day to God is always exactly 1000 years.

 

[Daniel9v9]

This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.

First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.

Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.

Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.

All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.

My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.

Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?

Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.

This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.

This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.

Are you by this suggesting that there were Adam and Eve, the first humans, alongside lesser human beings? I'm not sure if this is where you're going, but if it is, then it's certainly an unorthodox and theologically problematic view.

 

[Colter]

This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.

First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.

Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.

Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.

All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.

My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.

Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?

Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.

This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.

This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.

I like the explanation in the Urantia revelation of 1955. Adam and Eve were incarnate celestials on an evolutionary world that evolved from a preveous life implantation. They were to be the worlds new visible spiritual rulers under the authority of our creator Son Michael, aka the subsequent incarnate Jesus of Nazareth. Adam and Eve were to replace the preveous, fallen administration, "The Prince of this world"

Given human bodies from the existing DNA they also had unique duel circulatory systems which allowed them to partake of the Tree of Life and live indefinitely. But they violated their pre-incarnate mandate, (Gods will) having been outflanked by the fallen beast. Eve conspired to inject her superior genes into the gene pool and speed up reforms of the then backward human races.

* Note that the beast is already fallen.

* Cain, the product of Eves transgression, feared other tribes out in the world. He was "spirit born", given the "mark" which greatly enhanced his stature among his real fathers people, the Nodites. He found a wife there.

But these distant events were some 38,000 years prior to the Hebrews creation narrative that they culled from Mesopotamian lore. They assumed Adam and Eve were the first humans. But there are inconsistencies in the creation narrative as well as the facts revealed in analysis of the fossil record.

 

[AlexDTX]

I'm always puzzled why anyone bothers to cite this as a reason to deny the science. Nobody said God needed anything; but the record shows (the record in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes) that He did use evolution.

No it does not. The interpretation of the records by secular humanists come up with evolution as an answer. There are Creation Scientists that give biblical accounts for those supposed records. Russel Humphreys gives a theory on how starlight and time could be made into long time with a young Earth. Not that I need that answer, because God can create the appearance of age.

No one believed in theistic evolution until Darwin became popular with the secular world. Then theologians to accommodate Darwin at the turn of the 20th century came up with the Gap Theory eisegetically reading between the lines of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

I am always puzzled why so many Christians believe the world instead of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

No it does not. The interpretation of the records by secular humanists come up with evolution as an answer. There are Creation Scientists that give biblical accounts for those supposed records. Russel Humphreys gives a theory on how starlight and time could be made into long time with a young Earth. Not that I need that answer, because God can create the appearance of age.

No one believed in theistic evolution until Darwin became popular with the secular world. Then theologians to accommodate Darwin at the turn of the 20th century came up with the Gap Theory eisegetically reading between the lines of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

I am always puzzled why so many Christians believe the world instead of God.

I dont know why this time dilation talk has become so prominant amongst young earthers. There just isnt any evidence for such a thing, and its pure nonsense. This idea that time on earth has passed extraordinarily slow, while the rest of the universe regularly operates?

Then to cover up the ignorance, the statement is followed up with the fine print qualifier "not that i need answers because God can create the appearance of age" aka in case I have no idea what im talking about, here is my backup.

So you look at the backup and you just have to ask yourself, if youre walking around at sunday service, and you see an elderly person of 80+ years old, does it make more sense to you that he is in fact old, or do you think everything was just made yesterday with the "perception" that it is old? The simple answer is that it is old. No need for bizarre complex time dilation ideas for which there is no evidence. Just nice and simple, it is old.

And lastly, there are many creation evolutionists, and in fact we appear to be in the majority now, so this isnt some outside secular humanist attack. It is your own brothers and sisters in Christ just trying to show you what we have learned about Gods creation since the 1800s.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes, as I had mentioned I do not accept that the early chapters of Genesis explain events in a literal way.

Well, this statement says it all. If you are not going to take the Genesis account in a literal way.....you might as well throw it all out and believe the standard evolutionary tale.

Why do we need another version of an explanation of how both creation and the evolution are true?

Pick a side and get off the fence....... Either the bible is the truth or man's idea of how we got here is true......stop spinning everything and trying to make man's imperfect wisdom mesh with God's perfect truth.

If you cannot accept that God made us, in His Image by forming Adam, breathing His own breath into him and then, later, making Eve from one of Adam's ribs..........then don't.... I don't care......

Go ahead and believe we came from apes.... if you sleep better, knowing that you now make a bunch of egg heads in white coats feel better....and... you don't make evolutionists lose their minds..... go ahead.

As for me:

God has the capability to do it just as He told us He did it......I will hold that in the end, when all truth comes out.... that, in fact, is the way it happened.....

 

[AlexDTX]

I dont know why this time dilation talk has become so prominant amongst young earthers. There just isnt any evidence for such a thing, and its pure nonsense. This idea that time on earth has passed extraordinarily slow, while the rest of the universe regularly operates?

Then to cover up the ignorance, the statement is followed up with the fine print qualifier "not that i need answers because God can create the appearance of age" aka in case I have no idea what im talking about, here is my backup.

So you look at the backup and you just have to ask yourself, if youre walking around at sunday service, and you see an elderly person of 80+ years old, does it make more sense to you that he is in fact old, or do you think everything was just made yesterday with the "perception" that it is old? The simple answer is that it is old. No need for bizarre complex time dilation ideas for which there is no evidence. Just nice and simple, it is old.

And lastly, there are many creation evolutionists, and in fact we appear to be in the majority now, so this isnt some outside secular humanist attack. It is your own brothers and sisters in Christ just trying to show you what we have learned about Gods creation since the 1800s.

I did not want to explain Humphrey's explanation as it took a whole book to explain it. The issue of creating something with age is biblical. God did not make Adam and Eve as infants, but they were fully mature adults.

1Co_3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Again, I am astonished by the number of Christians who put more stock in the wisdom of the world instead of God.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Are you by this suggesting that there were Adam and Eve, the first humans, alongside lesser human beings?

No I wouldnt put it that way. I think itd be more accurate to call them "hominids", not lesser human beings. Like I said the demarcation line between Adam and Eve and the hominids from which they emerged biologically is spirit. I am claiming that it is likely Adam and Eve were contemporaneous with non-human hominids.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Again, I am astonished by the number of Christians who put more stock in the wisdom of the world instead of God.

Yet you yourself trust and use that "wisdom of the world" (science) everytime you drive your car or turn on your computer. Where do you think the technology you rely upon comes from? That's right, science. What about the medical knowledge and techology that preserves life? Oh, yeah, science. In fact a huge chunk of that medical science is grounded in evolutionary biology.

So what youre saying is that you trust science in many different areas every day of your life, but refuse to when it contradicts your narrow literalist interpretation of certain biblical texts. Im sorry but "creation science" is not science. All its claims and models have been soundly and repeatedly refuted by real scientists. You dont try to forecefit data into a preconceived model and call that science. Young earth creationism stems either from ignorance in the vast majority of cases, or from outright intellectual dishonestly, a proverbial burying of ones head in the sand.

Do you honestly believe so called "flood geology" was abandoned by scientists in the 19th century because of some evil conspiracy? I mean come on, most of the geologists studying it were Christians and most of them assumed a global flood and actually went looking for it. You know why "flood geology" is rejeced? Because it is demonstrably untrue, the data in GOD'S CREATION is abundantly clear that the earth has been around for billions of years and has gone through countless epochs of geological change.

Maybe, just maybe, a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 11 is unwarranted. Its not as if this persoective is absent from church history. Augustine and others saw it this way. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem embracing science. Yet for some reason we protestants are having a hard time with this. It boggles my mind.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Well, this statement says it all. If you are not going to take the Genesis account in a literal way.....you might as well throw it all out and believe the standard evolutionary tale.

Why do we need another version of an explanation of how both creation and the evolution are true?

Pick a side and get off the fence....... Either the bible is the truth or man's idea of how we got here is true......stop spinning everything and trying to make man's imperfect wisdom mesh with God's perfect truth.

If you cannot accept that God made us, in His Image by forming Adam, breathing His own breath into him and then, later, making Eve from one of Adam's ribs..........then don't.... I don't care......

Go ahead and believe we came from apes.... if you sleep better, knowing that you now make a bunch of egg heads in white coats feel better....and... you don't make evolutionists lose their minds..... go ahead.

As for me:

God has the capability to do it just as He told us He did it......I will hold that in the end, when all truth comes out.... that, in fact, is the way it happened.....

I did not want to explain Humphrey's explanation as it took a whole book to explain it. The issue of creating something with age is biblical. God did not make Adam and Eve as infants, but they were fully mature adults.

1Co_3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Again, I am astonished by the number of Christians who put more stock in the wisdom of the world instead of God.

I don't understand why creationists insist that a belief in evolution is contradictory to a belief in God's Word.

I believe Genesis is an allegory written for a primitive society. I do, however, accept the underlying lesson from Genesis which is that God created the universe. More important, I believe in the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.

 

[4x4toy]

2 Peter 3:8

This verse suggests a day to God is like 1000 years. This doesn't necessarily mean that a day to God is always exactly 1000 years.

nm

 

[SeventyOne]

I think part of the real problem is that evolution doesn't need to be reconciled, it needs and deserves to be mocked, relentlessly.

It starts out with a guess that there was just some dense speck of matter that poofed itself into a nothingness then nothing acted on it and it blew up. It doesn't get any more logical from there. For some reason some of the matter collected in certain areas and started collecting and decided to spin. Some of those spit out other matter which also collected and started spinning themselves. Then somehow, on a ball of sterilized rock, there came forth the interaction of chemicals, and *POOF* magically, goo life began. Eventually, the goo became monkeys and those monkeys became us. After all, we are 98% genetically identical to monkeys, or so we're told. What we aren't told is that's 98% only if one ignores a large percentage of both human and monkey DNA and compares only a subset (in other words, another lie).

God doesn't need a matter speck to create. He spoke the loaves and fishes into existance to feed the masses, just as He spoke the heavens and the earth into existance. Evolution says no.
He says the earth was made before the sun and stars. Evolution says no.
He says the plants and trees were made before the sun. Evolution says no.
He says the animals were formed out of the dust of the ground. Evolution says no.
He says the first man was made fully fomed out of the dust of the ground. Evolution says no.
He says the first woman was formed out of the rib of the fully formed man. Evolution says no.

Let's face it, not only is it completely absurd, it's an idea designed to contradict God's word directly. It cannot be observed or replicated. It can only be inferred and then assumed to be accurate. In other words, taken on faith. It's a religion, and you can't serve both.

As Paul states, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

 

[4x4toy]

2 Peter 3:8

This verse suggests a day to God is like 1000 years. This doesn't necessarily mean that a day to God is always exactly 1000 years.

I think your verse means that God is outside of time in terms that babes can understand .
From everlasting to the everlasting , The Alpha and Omega but infinite more ..

 

[HeLeadethMe]

Your stated view here conflicts directly with all Scripture ,
mainly in even considering as if mankind's "minds and the ability to reason" could result in anything good - directly contrary to what YHWH says in His Word - His Perfect Word.

Bless you Jeff, no disrespect intended whatsoever, but we are told that what may be known of God can be seen in what He created.....to me science is basically seeing creation, looking at it, studying it, and then sometimes making use of what they find out (see) about it. So God does apparently say that man has the ability to deduce things about Him that are true, from looking at nature.

I don't know enough about genetics and the theory of evolution to have been able to come to a final decision about it personally up to now, but in some respects I don't see it contradicting scripture, so far I am tending to think it is very possible in principle. I am in absolute awe of God just from what I do know of creation and have seen from an airplane high up in the air........mountain ranges squashed together like an accordian......from this He taught me that all power in the universe belongs to God....it is all HIS power.....earthquakes, stars imploding, volcanoes, ocean waves, planets forming, mountains squashing, molten rock, and I gave glory to Him. Another thing I realized from seeing not only the immense power involved in creation, but also the vast incredible amount of time (from man's perspective) that it took to sculpt and form not only the earth and creatures in it, but the whole universe too, is that He is the ANCIENT of DAYS (of days, so this is not talking about eternity)........He is SO ancient.....a day is as a thousand years to God is like a vast understatement. Again I gave glory to God for His incredible greatness.

I am reminded how the church used to persecute the early scientists of Europe.....and those early scientists turned out to be right......the earth really is round after all, hmmm. And I don't want to be of that same spirit that persecuted those scientists. To me the more we know about nature/creation the more we will see God in it and give Him glory. So I do not fear science or evolution, it does not threaten my faith one iota, and I'm willing at least to take a look (see). Others have more understanding of scripture than me, and might be they can blow all this away with a little word........but so far I seem to see things in scripture that evolution does not contradict. That man was made from the dust of the ground for example....is not in opposition to evolution in principle, it could be seen to agree with it. The WATERS BROUGHT FORTH the sea creatures. Let the EARTH BRING FORTH the living creatures. So far so good, it could mainly be a question of how long He took, and putting all the pieces of the puzzle in their right places, as the OP is endeavouring.......and generally He does not do things by magic, generally He makes use of the laws of time and space that HE put into place, isn't that true....I mean this is just another thing I learn ABOUT Him from looking at what He has created, if you see what I'm saying. To me the longer He took and all the powers of God that He sent forth by His word to perform it all......just makes me worship Him the more. He who WATCHES over His word to perform it......we know that He is very patient.

Nevertheless He being the creator of everything we see.....also has power OVER it......and so can also perform miracles that seem to go against the laws of nature, and over rule them when it is His will. We just take everything for granted.......without realizing that everything in what we call nature is an absolute miracle. A whole entire baby fearfully and wonderfully made, completely forming in a few short months, from two tiny cells in the womb and coming forth safely through a mini-cataclysm of tribulation and strength (power).......a flower that opens its petals in the morning and keeps turning its face to follow the sun all day and then closes its petals again at night.......science is more and more still finding out about (seeing) the mechanisms that God has put in place......but wow it doesn't take away one bit from the miraculousness of it all......on the contrary how amazing is He who formed all things to work so perfectly, intricately and well.......and all the more I would think, if it took eons and eons of time with all that much more potential for giant mistakes to happen, if not for all that power being in the hands of a very capable God.......and so here we are, here everything is, exactly as He willed it and spoke it (apart from the mess we made of things through sin, though even that He foreknew).

Adam was a figure of Christ to come....see how patient the Lord is, having already slain the lamb from the foundation of the world thousands of years before Jesus came......Adam was killed in order to bring forth Eve, who was a figure/type of His people, the church, and then resurrected back to life. Up to now I believe this happened literally, a miracle of God, since Adam was a type of Christ.....and that if we have enough time before the return of the Lord it might be possible to also SEE this maybe in the field of genetics to trace mankind back to one male parent (maybe not, I don't understand much about genetics, maybe something about that "Y" chromosome?).......but how awesome a discovery like that would be! So as for me, I don't mind at all if they keep studying and probing, to my mind it will only glorify God....and He wants to glorify Himself. Since it is His word, not mine or anybody's, that what may be known about God can be SEEN in what He has created, amen. I think Christian scientists are in a unique position to try and see how everything fits in light of scripture.......not to mention having the Help of the Holy Spirit in their endeavours.

 

[4x4toy]

You speak as if telomeres were bad for you. They prevent tumors, because cells that start to grow uncontrollably die off when the telomeres are used up in the cell division process. Many a nascent cancer is stopped in its tracks by this means.

Telomeres cannot replicate perfect replications else we would not die . Correct or no ?

 

[AlexDTX]

Yet you yourself trust and use that "wisdom of the world" (science) everytime you drive your car or turn on your computer. Where do you think the technology you rely upon comes from? That's right, science. What about the medical knowledge and techology that preserves life? Oh, yeah, science. In fact a huge chunk of that medical science is grounded in evolutionary biology.

So what youre saying is that you trust science in many different areas every day of your life, but refuse to when it contradicts your narrow literalist interpretation of certain biblical texts. Im sorry but "creation science" is not science. All its claims and models have been soundly and repeatedly refuted by real scientists. You dont try to forecefit data into a preconceived model and call that science. Young earth creationism stems either from ignorance in the vast majority of cases, or from outright intellectual dishonestly, a proverbial burying of ones head in the sand.

Do you honestly believe so called "flood geology" was abandoned by scientists in the 19th century because of some evil conspiracy? I mean come on, most of the geologists studying it were Christians and most of them assumed a global flood and actually went looking for it. You know why "flood geology" is rejeced? Because it is demonstrably untrue, the data in GOD'S CREATION is abundantly clear that the earth has been around for billions of years and has gone through countless epochs of geological change.

Maybe, just maybe, a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 11 is unwarranted. Its not as if this persoective is absent from church history. Augustine and others saw it this way. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem embracing science. Yet for some reason we protestants are having a hard time with this. It boggles my mind.

I have no problem with science in the pursuit of facts, I have a problem with facts interpreted to fit an atheistic world view of secular humanism. And I grieve over Christians who look to the world for answers instead of God. "Broad and wide is the path to destruction, but straight and narrow is the gate to life." I am not suggesting by this paraphrase of Jesus that believing in evolution as a theistic creative method will send Christians to hell. Instead I am saying that the natural tendency of man is to look to other men for confirmation of what they believe. But God is seeking those who do not look to other men for their faith, but to what God has said. The Bible is given to us as our reference point, yet Christians swallow hook line and sinker what the world says. There may be truth in a pile of manure, but it is still a pile of manure.

 

[AlexDTX]

I don't understand why creationists insist that a belief in evolution is contradictory to a belief in God's Word.

I believe Genesis is an allegory written for a primitive society. I do, however, accept the underlying lesson from Genesis which is that God created the universe. More important, I believe in the salvation offered by Jesus Christ

You answered your own question. Because creationists believe that Genesis is the literal truth and you accept evolution because you believe it is an allegory.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I think part of the real problem is that evolution doesn't need to be reconciled, it needs and deserves to be mocked, relentlessly.

It starts out with a guess that there was just some dense speck of matter that poofed itself into a nothingness then nothing acted on it and it blew up. It doesn't get any more logical from there. For some reason some of the matter collected in certain areas and started collecting and decided to spin. Some of those spit out other matter which also collected and started spinning themselves. Then somehow, on a ball of sterilized rock, there came forth the interaction of chemicals, and *POOF* magically, goo life began. Eventually, the goo became monkeys and those monkeys became us. After all, we are 98% genetically identical to monkeys, or so we're told. What we aren't told is that's 98% only if one ignores a large percentage of both human and monkey DNA and compares only a subset (in other words, another lie).

God doesn't need a matter speck to create. He spoke the loaves and fishes into existance to feed the masses, just as He spoke the heavens and the earth into existance. Evolution says no.
He says the earth was made before the sun and stars. Evolution says no.
He says the plants and trees were made before the sun. Evolution says no.
He says the animals were formed out of the dust of the ground. Evolution says no.
He says the first man was made fully fomed out of the dust of the ground. Evolution says no.
He says the first woman was formed out of the rib of the fully formed man. Evolution says no.

Let's face it, not only is it completely absurd, it's an idea designed to contradict God's word directly. It cannot be observed or replicated. It can only be inferred and then assumed to be accurate. In other words, taken on faith. It's a religion, and you can't serve both.

As Paul states, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

Evolution is not designed to contradict God's Word. I accept the underlying truth of Genesis - that God created the universe. I do read Genesis as allegory and believe in evolution, the big bang, etc. I accept the truth of salvation through Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, as you are.

What I do know is that my faith faltered when I thought a literal interpretation was required to be a true Christian. Not only does this contradict observable evidence (of evolution, cosmology, etc), but there are internal inconsistencies in the story. In Genesis 1, God creates mankind (adam) on day 6, after plants, animals, etc. In Genesis 2, God creates man before He creates plants. In Genesis 6, God instructs Noah to take 2 of every kind of animal, male and female. In Genesis 7, God instructs Noah to take 7 pairs of all clean animals and birds and 1 pair of each unclean animal.

With study, the Holy Spirit led me to understand that these stories can be understood as allegories. They teach true lessons even if they are not literally true. As a result, my faith has been strengthened.

 

[bangmegafan]

Evolution is false! Evolution can only explain about matter and matterial but not about soul. There is no chance that process of evolution brought existannce of animals on this earth. God has created first soulful creature whose name is Adam, and God created him in his own image.

If evolution could create human from matter, then human is made up of matter and energy. If that is true, modern science would have created human with matter.

Evolution will not explain soul. Hence, it is false theory

 

[4x4toy]

Evolution is not designed to contradict God's Word. I accept the underlying truth of Genesis - that God created the universe. I do read Genesis as allegory and believe in evolution, the big bang, etc. I accept the truth of salvation through Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, as you are.

What I do know is that my faith faltered when I thought a literal interpretation was required to be a true Christian. Not only does this contradict observable evidence (of evolution, cosmology, etc), but there are internal inconsistencies in the story. In Genesis 1, God creates mankind (adam) on day 6, after plants, animals, etc. In Genesis 2, God creates man before He creates plants. In Genesis 6, God instructs Noah to take 2 of every kind of animal, male and female. In Genesis 7, God instructs Noah to take 7 pairs of all clean animals and birds and 1 pair of each unclean animal.

With study, the Holy Spirit led me to understand that these stories can be understood as allegories. They teach true lessons even if they are not literally true. As a result, my faith has been strengthened.

And my faith does not rely on leaning on my own understanding , Starting with Genesis 1 and saying ''God you must be mistaken'' ? No, coming from being a staunch Atheist and firm believer in evolution to born-again Christian, Jesus has added concrete to his Word in me . I cannot and will not go back to where you are . And don't feel sorry for me because I've seen and experienced the power of God as it is written .. What do you have besides a man made excuse to nullify God's Truth .. You've loaded yourself down with man-made baggage, now what ?