Catholic with Evolution Questions!

[bach90]

I did miss this earlier, so I apologize. With that said, I struggle to understand what point you're trying to make and this only makes it harder. If I've missed it, please tell me again your position on how the universe came to be, it's age, and how that relates to current scientific theories.



They do? I've always thought the Genesis 1/2 thing is a phantom - something unbelievers pontificate about even though it has no substance. So you'll need to show me the alternate timeline laid out in Gen 2. I honestly don't see it. Consider the following 2 sentences:

When no zbush of the field1 was yet in the land2 and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man ato work the ground, 6 and a mist3 was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—7 then the Lord God formed the man of bdust from the ground and cbreathed into his dnostrils the breath of life, and ethe man became a living creature. 8 And the Lord God planted a fgarden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. gThe tree of life was in the midst of the garden, hand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It looks to me like this account is saying man was created before the animals. Gen 1 has man created after.

John built a house in May and hired a painter in June. And the painter John hired was named Steve, and John brought Steve to the house he had made to paint it.

Maybe my grammar isn't perfect in this case, but is there a contradiction in those sentences?



I'm quite familiar with different styles for presenting history. I had to study them for my history degree. It is a common feature of the Bible to use a repetitive style. It shows up in the poetry of the Psalms (as I mentioned earlier), and it shows up in the history books: Genesis 1/2 as well as Kings vs. Chronicles.

But here is the point I have tried to repeat several times. Style does not mean one account is true and the other is false; it does not mean a simple version of creation can be false simply because the hearer will understand better that way; it does not mean God would speak something false to Moses. The most basic, fundamental rule of logic is that if two statements contradict, they cannot both be true. This is not a matter of culture where Greeks adopted this rule of logic and Hebrews didn't. To think that is a misunderstanding of the "zen" idea contained in some eastern cultures. Further, as far as I know, the Hebrews never had an idea like that anyway.

Clause 1: No disagreement. Clause 2: I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, you can't make something wrong by telling it a certain way. The truth is objective, the way you tell it is subjective. I'm contending that Genesis is a document of it's time so it's inappropriate to say it either proves or disproves evolution. Evolution was not in the mindset of Moses and I see no way it could have been. I think that's what we're disagreeing on. Clause 3: Totally agree, God doesn't lie.

If (and I emphasize the "if") something like evolution or multi-billion year universe were true, God could simply say: I called the fish up out of the water and after a long time they became birds.

Wouldn't that be true to this "if" scenario? Are you saying Moses wouldn't have understood that?



Again, I don't get it. A "lowly" (i.e. lacking in social status) person can't be handsome or brave? And Samuel had no prophetic ability to declare what David would be? Your example doesn't work for me.

This reminds me of the controversy when the movie Country came out and people criticized the choice of Jessica Lange as the lead because farm wives aren't supposed to be pretty. Seriously? I don't understand why everyone keeps selling the Israelites short.

You are correct that I can't prove Moses was familiar with an idea similar to evolution. But neither can you prove he didn't know it. So, "if" (highlighting that again) a evolutionary or geological theory is actually true, God would have found a way to say it that Moses could understand and that wouldn't be contradictory.

I agree, but I qualify it by saying it's possible, though I don't think that's what was going on here. Like I said above, the Bible is at once the eternal unchangeable Word of God, on the other hand the Bible has many different voices (despite having one author) and it needs to be seen as a product of it's time. Not so much in the historical-critical sense, but definitely in the historical-grammatical, which I believe has contributed positively to the study of scripture.

If you disagree with the bolded statements, please explain why. If you agree, and yet think current biology or geology is correct, please explain to me why Genesis is not contradicting this. And, FYI, I am rejecting the idea that it is merely a stylistic difference or a matter of simplification.

I think that current biology is incomplete and that the theory of evolution as presently taught is definitely incorrect. I think that current geology is probably correct, albeit incomplete. For me Genesis doesn't contradict with an older earth for a couple of reasons. First, the language at the beginning of Gen 1:1 is vague (is it In the beginning God created or In the beginning when God created). Second, we don't know how long A&E were living before the fall, what the impact of such an event could have been. We simply can't look at what happened before the fall, original sin and all.

I wouldn't say it's simplification, that's too basic. I do however think there's a stylistic component, this I suppose, is another disagreement.

 

[DaRev]

For me Genesis doesn't contradict with an older earth for a couple of reasons. First, the language at the beginning of Gen 1:1 is vague (is it In the beginning God created or In the beginning when God created).

The Hebrew is quite clear. The word "when" is neither there nor implied in the construction.

 

[bach90]

The Hebrew is quite clear. The word "when" is neither there nor implied in the construction.

That's good to know, I had heard that the Hebrew was ambiguous...I don't know Hebrew so I rely on what I read about it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Bach, regarding your quote from Gen 2, it doesn't even mention animals. But I'm not sure how much more I should say about it before you answer a few questions. Are you familiar with explanations that resolve Gen 1 & 2? If so, I assume you reject them for some reason.

But I guess it would be unfair to ask you to reply to all explanations without any idea of my position. So, what would be your objection to the idea that Gen 1 is a general account of all creation and Gen 2 refers to a specific area (Eden)? IOW, Eden did not yet have vegetation and so God planted a garden for Adam & Eve to tend.

Clause 1: No disagreement. Clause 2: I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, you can't make something wrong by telling it a certain way. The truth is objective, the way you tell it is subjective.

I agree there can be stylistic differences, but I'm saying this is not an issue of stylistic differences. If it took me an hour to eat dinner, but I say it took me a minute, that is not a stylistic difference. That's a lie.

Evolution was not in the mindset of Moses and I see no way it could have been.

You seem to imply that since Moses didn't know what an allele was, he didn't know evolution. That because he didn't know the details, he didn't know the concept. If so, that's an erroneous conclusion. Per the example I gave earlier, just because he didn't know the physics of light doesn't mean he didn't know what light was. You simply have no basis for saying Moses couldn't have come across a concept of evolution.

You didn't reply to my example, so I'll repeat it:

I called the fish up out of the water and after a long time they became birds.

IMO that would be a rendering of an old earth and the descent of species that anyone could understand. It would not misrepresent.

I think that current biology is incomplete and that the theory of evolution as presently taught is definitely incorrect.

That's an interesting statement. It makes it difficult to say everything I wanted to say about my above example because I don't know where you're coming from. I was going to say that Gen 1 goes against current evolutionary theory that mutations are undirected and that it is events in the environment that select which mutations are passed on. The process is viewed as random, not directed.

So what is it that you think is wrong with current theory, and why do you think it's wrong?

I think that current geology is probably correct, albeit incomplete.

I think it's wrong because it assumes a calibration which no one can possibly verify. It becomes an unfalsifiable "science", and should adopt a relative (comparitive) basis rather than claiming an absolute basis.

For me Genesis doesn't contradict with an older earth for a couple of reasons. First, the language at the beginning of Gen 1:1 is vague (is it In the beginning God created or In the beginning when God created).

This has been answered, but I'm not convinced it actually changed your opinion. Not that I think I have to accomplish that. It's just that we may have reached an impasse.

Second, we don't know how long A&E were living before the fall, what the impact of such an event could have been. We simply can't look at what happened before the fall, original sin and all.

No, but Genesis does give Adam's age when he died. Unless you're going to argue that Eden was timeless, we do know how much time passed for his combined life in and out of Eden.

 

[bach90]

Bach, regarding your quote from Gen 2, it doesn't even mention animals. But I'm not sure how much more I should say about it before you answer a few questions. Are you familiar with explanations that resolve Gen 1 & 2? If so, I assume you reject them for some reason.

I'm not too familiar with explanations to be honest. One of my profs pointed this out to me and I've just learned to accept it as is.

But I guess it would be unfair to ask you to reply to all explanations without any idea of my position. So, what would be your objection to the idea that Gen 1 is a general account of all creation and Gen 2 refers to a specific area (Eden)? IOW, Eden did not yet have vegetation and so God planted a garden for Adam & Eve to tend.

I suppose that is possible, my Bible is downstairs at the moment so I can't open it up and compare the two accounts side-by-side. That's be interesting.



I agree there can be stylistic differences, but I'm saying this is not an issue of stylistic differences. If it took me an hour to eat dinner, but I say it took me a minute, that is not a stylistic difference. That's a lie.



You seem to imply that since Moses didn't know what an allele was, he didn't know evolution. That because he didn't know the details, he didn't know the concept. If so, that's an erroneous conclusion. Per the example I gave earlier, just because he didn't know the physics of light doesn't mean he didn't know what light was. You simply have no basis for saying Moses couldn't have come across a concept of evolution.

You didn't reply to my example, so I'll repeat it:

I called the fish up out of the water and after a long time they became birds.

I didn't catch this. This seems like a possible way of putting it to someone in ancient Israel.Although even as a modern reader it wouldn't convince me of being true. Maybe God just didn't feel like giving man the specifics.

IMO that would be a rendering of an old earth and the descent of species that anyone could understand. It would not misrepresent.



That's an interesting statement. It makes it difficult to say everything I wanted to say about my above example because I don't know where you're coming from. I was going to say that Gen 1 goes against current evolutionary theory that mutations are undirected and that it is events in the environment that select which mutations are passed on. The process is viewed as random, not directed.

So what is it that you think is wrong with current theory, and why do you think it's wrong?

I think the current theory is wrong because it's self-contradictory. If evolution is true we should have no reason to cooperate, feel empathy, anything like that. It creates more questions than it answers, and it's results can't be repeated/demonstrated.



I think it's wrong because it assumes a calibration which no one can possibly verify. It becomes an unfalsifiable "science", and should adopt a relative (comparitive) basis rather than claiming an absolute basis.



This has been answered, but I'm not convinced it actually changed your opinion. Not that I think I have to accomplish that. It's just that we may have reached an impasse.

I'm inclined to believe that the rendering In the beginning God created is correct if the Hebrew doesn't imply the word when.


No, but Genesis does give Adam's age when he died. Unless you're going to argue that Eden was timeless, we do know how much time passed for his combined life in and out of Eden.

I would argue that Adam and Eve, while, strictly speaking, being within time, did not physically age. Death and decay only being prevalent after the fall.

.

 

[Resha Caner]

One of my profs pointed this out to me and I've just learned to accept it as is.

Bad idea. I thought part of college was learning to challenge your profs. In my freshman chemistry class I had the pleasant experience of listening to the TA rant on about the impossibility of a Christian ever being a legitimate scientist.

 

[bach90]

Bad idea. I thought part of college was learning to challenge your profs. In my freshman chemistry class I had the pleasant experience of listening to the TA rant on about the impossibility of a Christian ever being a legitimate scientist.

It's not so much that I accept it from authority, I'm just not sure where to read a critique against evolution. I'd love to read one if anybody knows of one.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's not so much that I accept it from authority, I'm just not sure where to read a critique against evolution. I'd love to read one if anybody knows of one.

I'm not necessarily a good resource for that, and I'll explain why in a bit. Also, it depends somewhat on how deep you want to go. Michael Behe is a good author to get started with. He wrote the classic anti-evolution book, Darwin's Black Box (1996), and also has a recent book, The Edge of Evolution (2007).

If you want to learn about some alternatives done from a scientific viewpoint, there is some information in Of Pandas and People by Davis & Kenyon or you could look at The Design Inference by Dembski.

However, my preferred approach to this discussion is much different than what I have cited above. Those books are good at helping you understand some of the issues with evolutionary theory and to open up your thinking to some of the alternatives - something not enough people are exposed to during their formal education. But, with that said, if you bring up the topics in those books to an experienced evolutionist, they'll be able to quickly knock them down.

The real key to these discussions is to understand the "scientism" such people bring to the table. The above books, IMO, argue by using the self-same mentality that they are trying to defeat - not something that is likely to be successful. A fairly easy-read introduction to that is The Fire in the Equations by Kitty Ferguson, and for the heavy stuff start learning about the work of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn ...

... or ...

... this is a topic I enjoy discussing, so I'd be happy to walk through it with people and answer questions.

 

[LutheranChick]

A few weeks ago, our Pastor provided us with this essay by Dr. Ross Olson, titled "How I Evolved Into a Young Earth Creationist". I thought it was quite interesting. http://tccsa.tc/articles/evolved_to_yec.pdf

 

[Tallguy88]

A few weeks ago, our Pastor provided us with this essay by Dr. Ross Olson, titled "How I Evolved Into a Young Earth Creationist". I thought it was quite interesting.

An interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

 

[swinkler]

Flawed human reason created the idea of a millions of years old earth. The earth is as old as it is. That's all one can say. I will rely on the word of God before I will rely on the word of flawed human reason any day.

Way to inspire the next generation of LCMS scientists and Engineers.

 

[DaRev]

Way to inspire the next generation of LCMS scientists and Engineers.

Absolutely. I would certainly hope that anyone from the LCMS who would be scientists and engineers would already know that human reason is flawed by its very nature. If they don't know that, they haven't been catechized very well.

 

[bach90]

I'm told that in Rev. Fisk's new book, he addresses evolution. I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

snip

Point of fact: Genesis 1-2 doesn't read in Hebrew like we would expect, if it was meant to be taken literally.
I'm not saying that this proves theistic evolution correct. In fact, I see many problems with it, not the least of which being the thought that God somehow decided to create through millions of years of blood, terror and death.

Secondly: It is impossible to deny that some kind of evolution does, in fact, take place. Species change, evolve, adapt. There's a reason for people from my native Denmark, and people native to Africa, look very different: We've adapted to different environments.
What can not, however, be observed, is the idea that one species can evolve into a completely new species.

And all this is coming from a confessional Lutheran

 

[DaRev]

Point of fact: Genesis 1-2 doesn't read in Hebrew like we would expect, if it was meant to be taken literally.
I'm not saying that this proves theistic evolution correct. In fact, I see many problems with it, not the least of which being the thought that God somehow decided to create through millions of years of blood, terror and death.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I've studied the Hebrew text of Genesis and I'm not sure what you mean.

Secondly: It is impossible to deny that some kind of evolution does, in fact, take place. Species change, evolve, adapt. There's a reason for people from my native Denmark, and people native to Africa, look very different: We've adapted to different environments.
What can not, however, be observed, is the idea that one species can evolve into a completely new species.

Micro-evolution is a proven fact. Not only can we see it happen in nature, we can make it happen (artificial selection). The thing is that changes can be seen in as few a two generations. It doesn't take millions of years. This ability to adapt to environments is a God given trait within the genetics of creatures.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is unprovable, and no real evidence even exists to support it. The evidence that exists on the earth today supports the Genesis Creation account and a younger earth.

 

[Red 5]

This is a question about epistemology. I'm a geologist by trade, so my vocation requires me to deal with theories that require an Old Earth. I have to say, when you look at the evidence from a scientific naturalist standpoint, the evidence for an Old Earth is quite convincing and the evidence for a Young Earth is lacking. Every time I read Young Earth geology I scratch my head.

That being said I believe and confess a the biblical account of creation. I understand that fallen human reason is inadequate and the word of God is authoritative. If I am going to trust the Bible eternal salvation, not trusting it for an account of creation would be foolish. God's word does not lie.

My vocation as a geologist requires me to serve my neighbor in helping find aquifers and deal with soils. I find that the best way to serve my neighbor is to use these Old Earth models in my vocation.

I do not try to address this apparent paradox. As a Lutheran I am comfortable with paradox and keeping ideas in tension. I just realize that my human reason is not able to do it.

"Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” Romans 3:4

 

[Tangible]

Rev Bill Cwirla, trained industrial chemist turned LCMS pastor and erstwhile radio talkshow host, has a very interesting perspective on this whole thing. He says if you're doing science, then think like a scientist. If you're doing theology then think like a theologian. As you say, the two don't have to coincide, and in many ways are antithetical.

 

[swinkler]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']That’s it… that they didn’t know about evaporation. They were not idiots.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Using the Bible as a scientific book… we will end up putting Galileo on trial again.[/FONT]

 

[swinkler]

Good point but if you type in "According to fossil evidence" (use the quotation marks) in google at the moment, there are 34,100 hits (.27 seconds) showing that many who claim to be using scientific evidence are not.

So what? That is NOT science. The Laws of Physic do not care what GOOGLE thinks.

 

[bach90]

After reflecting and reading about this topic, I've decided that even though I can't understand it, I have to go with what the Bible teaches on this topic.

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.