Creation, science, and the Nicene creed

[David_M]

Is Theistic Evolution a scientific theory in your opinion?

No, but Theistic Evolutionists who are Scientists don't tend to claim that it is a "Scientific Theory", they see it as a religiously based position about certain aspects of relevant Scientific Theories.

 

[rjs330]

A theory doesn't started as having been tested. Its starts as a hypothesis. So like I said - That God has an intelligent design in time and space starting with the emergence of a singularity. Thats my hypothesis on which im going to test my theory when there is capacity to test it - right now I cant so it will remain an untested theory and Im Ok with that - for now. I say for now because I really wanna know the answer to our universe - the annoying thing is I may never know.

Well if you are a believer someday you will know. As the Bible says we now see through a glass darkly, but in eternity we will see all things clearly. Someday in heaven we all may talk about this topic and laugh on how we got it wrong. It won't matter then and no one will feel bad or be offended about it. We' LL just understand.

Right now however it makes for good debate.

 

[rjs330]

Creationism, as it exists today, is largely a product of mid-20th century Fundamentalism. Most Fundamentalists in the early 20th century, while not evolutionists, didn't subscribe to what we know as Young Earth Creationism, such Fundamentalists such as William Jennings Bryan, the prosecuting attorney at the famous Scope's "Monkey" Trial and avid "anti-Darwinist" was one such Old Earth Creationist.

For the most part most Christians following Darwin's findings and his theory of natural selection really weren't bothered. Darwin, by the way, didn't come up with the theory of evolution, Darwin's contribution was the theory of natural selection; evolution was already fairly established and accepted in Darwin's time, but the mechanism for how evolution worked was still largely missing from the puzzle. That's where Darwin comes in with his theory of natural selection, natural selection was the key to understanding evolution. Opposition to evolution largely came later, while there was opposition to Darwin in his lifetime, the massive anti-evolutionist movement didn't really reach any steam until the birth of modern Creationism in the mid-20th century (specifically the 1960's); where evolution became one of a number of social ills targeted by the emerging Religious Right.

The conflict between religion and science, which seems so prevalent and dominant in our current narrative of Western culture is almost entirely an artificial construct of the modern age, perpetuated by a rather (comparatively) fringe minority of Christians who are very vocal and those who have come to think that all Christians (and religious people in general) have a problem with science. It's a false narrative that serves no purpose except to, ultimately, make religion (and Christianity in general) seem like the dying beliefs of a backward people. The problem is that some of the most important contributing minds to the relevant fields to evolution have been practicing Christians from a diverse array of denominational backgrounds and traditions: Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox alike.

-CryptoLutheran

I could buy the old earth creation idea for sure. But no matter how old the earth is I will not buy evolution as the theory where we all evolved from one organism. It goes directly against Scripture.

I could buy old earth because of Genesis 1:1-2. The Bible does not tell how long the earth was there before God started the creation process of life on the earth. I am willing to concede that the earth could be old. The Bible just doesn't say.

 

[rjs330]

Thanks

I would also look at these.
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?

Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

Genesis contradictions? - CMI Mobile

Genesis does not really contradict itself. The explanation is easy if you really are interested in one. Those that wish to disparage the word of God or need it to be inconsistent in order to support their view will make this claim. But real study and looking at the meanings of the words lead to an understanding that Gods word is not contradictory.

Does Genesis 2 Contradict Genesis 1?

 

[Doveaman]

No, but Theistic Evolutionists who are Scientists don't tend to claim that it is a "Scientific Theory", they see it as a religiously based position about certain aspects of relevant Scientific Theories.

Ok cool.

 

[Doveaman]

Could you please tell me how you get from the emergence of a singularity to a God? why a God and not a magic Unicorn? because neither one of them explain anything at all, you still don't know how it happened all they do is stop you looking for the real answer by making you believe you already have the answer.

I ask a question and you answer with a question? what is wrong with you?
You don't need to answer because everyone knows what is wrong with you,
as do you.

You did not just ask a question.

You were also comparing God to a magic Unicorn and implying that the universe could have come into existence by some other means other than God.

Case in point:

you still don't know how it happened all they do is stop you looking for the real answer by making you believe you already have the answer.

You are implying God is not the real answer to the existence of the universe.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I could buy the old earth creation idea for sure. But no matter how old the earth is I will not buy evolution as the theory where we all evolved from one organism. It goes directly against Scripture.

Being quite familiar with Scripture I can't think of anything in Scripture which should be contradictory to the theory of common descent. The only way I can see this being the case is by insisting that the creation narratives of Genesis 1 & 2 are to be taken literally, and I've already provided one major reason why they shouldn't. There are two creation stories, right next to each other, and if they are taken literally then they are irreconcilably different--and attempts at trying to reconcile them usually amounts to nothing more than adding to the text or engaging in massive eisegesis.

The creation narratives aren't there to give us a scientific-like explanation of material (or human) origins; they are there to communicate important points of theology which become increasingly relevant as the biblical narrative continues. And, if we are Christians, we understand that narrative as reaching its climax in the person of Jesus Christ. Origen makes a pretty solid point when he writes,

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 16

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

I could buy old earth because of Genesis 1:1-2. The Bible does not tell how long the earth was there before God started the creation process of life on the earth. I am willing to concede that the earth could be old. The Bible just doesn't say.

I agree.

The earth is young, but the planet is old.

Genesis 1 is describing the re-creation of the planet's atmosphere (heavens) and the planet's surface (earth) following a series of global catastrophes that wiped out all prehistoric lifeforms and which left the earth formless and void. God then spent six days re-inhabiting the earth with the new lifeforms we see today.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would also look at these.
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?

Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

Genesis contradictions? - CMI Mobile

Genesis does not really contradict itself. The explanation is easy if you really are interested in one. Those that wish to disparage the word of God or need it to be inconsistent in order to support their view will make this claim. But real study and looking at the meanings of the words lead to an understanding that Gods word is not contradictory.

Does Genesis 2 Contradict Genesis 1?

"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being." - Genesis 2:4-7

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

Being quite familiar with Scripture I can't think of anything in Scripture which should be contradictory to the theory of common descent. The only way I can see this being the case is by insisting that the creation narratives of Genesis 1 & 2 are to be taken literally, and I've already provided one major reason why they shouldn't. There are two creation stories, right next to each other, and if they are taken literally then they are irreconcilably different--and attempts at trying to reconcile them usually amounts to nothing more than adding to the text or engaging in massive eisegesis.

It's quite simple really.

Genesis 1 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during Creation Week.
Genesis 2 zooms in on Day Six and shows some of the events of that day.

It's not complicated.

The creation narratives aren't there to give us a scientific-like explanation of material (or human) origins; they are there to communicate important points of theology which become increasingly relevant as the biblical narrative continues. And, if we are Christians, we understand that narrative as reaching its climax in the person of Jesus Christ. Origen makes a pretty solid point when he writes,

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 16

Talk about engaging in massive eisegesis.

"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being." - Genesis 2:4-7

Those verses are describing the state of the earth before man was created without going back into the details already given in Genesis 1. The focus here in Genesis 2 is on the man, not the earth.

Genesis 1 focuses on the earth which was created for man.
Genesis 2 then focuses on the man for whom the earth was created.

It's not complicated.

 

[rjs330]

"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being." - Genesis 2:4-7

-CryptoLutheran

Please read the links I provided they explain it very well. The wording used there clearly explains plants and herbs had not been planted yet "for there was no one to plow the ground." That part came after man was made. Also the verbiage is what the Lord "had made" which refers to all the things God made before man was around. The previous day's.

Genesis 2 prescribes exactly how God made man different from the animals. He did not take an animal and evolve it into a man and then breath into him. He formed him from the dust if the ground and IMMEDIATELY breathes life into him and made him a living soul. He did not make man from an animal.

Evolution is denied in Genesis. As is the millions of years theory which is also denied in Exodus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Please read the links I provided they explain it very well. The wording used there clearly explains plants and herbs had not been planted yet "for there was no one to plow the ground." That part came after man was made. Also the verbiage is what the Lord "had made" which refers to all the things God made before man was around. The previous day's.

Genesis 2 prescribes exactly how God made man different from the animals. He did not take an animal and evolve it into a man and then breath into him. He formed him from the dust if the ground and IMMEDIATELY breathes life into him and made him a living soul. He did not make man from an animal.

Evolution is denied in Genesis. As is the millions of years theory which is also denied in Exodus.

וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִֽהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ

The word I think is relevant is baretz, bolded above. The prefix bet (בָ) is prepositional, "in, with, by"; thus "in [the] earth"; this is not merely a matter of God having created plants already, their seed laying dormant in the ground, but not yet being watered; but instead they were not yet in the earth. For which reason God plants a garden in the east, and then causes plants to grow.

As for yatsar being in the pluperfect, the problem is that yatsar isn't standing alone, but is modified by a vav, it is וַיִּצֶר vayatsar, the role of the vav prefix changes the tense, where in verse 8 it stands alone, "had formed" past tense, the vav changes the tense from past to future, thus it is not the beasts which had been formed already from the earth, but are now, in Eden, being formed so that Adam would not be alone.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Everybodyknows]

Why doesn't God-energy explain anything?
God-energy actually does explain something and gives us some possibilities to investigate which are measurable and testable.

The name you call it is irrelevant we are all describing the same natural phenomenon. So call it God energy, unicorn energy or Ennie McEnergyface.

"I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts." -- (Isa 44:24, 45:12).

Above we have an ancient record of a being called God who claimed to have expanded the heavens. That ancient record can serve as a prediction which has now been verified by our observation of an expanding universe. The accuracy of a prediction is a measurement of the accuracy of a claim -- God-energy did it.

So the bible predicted it, observation confirms it exists. This is where science now begins to explain what it is, how it works, why it exists, does our knowledge of it have any useful technological application, etc.

You cannot claim dark-energy did it without first identifying what dark-energy is, just as you cannot claim the magic Unicorn did it without first identifying what the magic Unicorn is.

Like I said before physicists have no yet explained what it is, but have observed that it exists.

You say dark-energy did it, I say God-energy did it.

What makes your claim more valid than mine?

Did what exactly? I am I no way denying God doing anything. God made the universe to be governed by natural laws and this is just one of those. Investigating it to better understand the nature of our universe is not excluding God from the picture in any way.

 

[Doveaman]

The name you call it is irrelevant we are all describing the same natural phenomenon. So call it God energy, unicorn energy or Ennie McEnergyface.

If it is God-energy it is not natural.

So the bible predicted it, observation confirms it exists. This is where science now begins to explain what it is, how it works, why it exists, does our knowledge of it have any useful technological application, etc.

We already know what it is -- God-energy did it.

If you don't know what it is, you cannot even begin to explain how it works and why it exists.

Like I said before physicists have no yet explained what it is, but have observed that it exists.

Like I said before, the accuracy of a prediction is a measurement of the accuracy of a claim.
God-energy is the prediction and observation is the confirmation:

"I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts." -- (Isa 44:24, 45:12).

When has dark-energy ever predicted anything?

Did what exactly?

Stretched out, or expanded, the heavens.

I am I no way denying God doing anything. God made the universe to be governed by natural laws and this is just one of those. Investigating it to better understand the nature of our universe is not excluding God from the picture in any way.

How do you know it is natural? You are yet to prove it is natural. God said He did it with His own hands, not by natural means. God sometimes set aside natural laws and intervenes supernaturally...the virgin birth for example.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why doesn't God-energy explain anything?
God-energy actually does explain something and gives us some possibilities to investigate which are measurable and testable.

What is "God-energy"? That's not even a theological concept that has any meaning that I'm aware of, it has even less meaning in any possible scientific context.

What makes your claim more valid than mine?

Dark energy is a hypothetical something.
"God-energy" is just word salad, or possibly something one might read in some new agey book.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

What is "God-energy"?

Shekinah energy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Shekinah energy.

The word shekinah in reference to God is His presence. His shekinah dwelt between the cherubim over the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant; and thus His shekinah was in the Holy of Holies. This was His divine presence, the locus of His place and power in the Israelite religion.

What, exactly, then would "shekinah energy" be?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HitchSlap]

Shekinah energy.

Neat.

 

[TLK Valentine]

First Council of Nicea (325) First Council of Constantinople (381)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; by whom all things were made;




To sign up as a Christian on some forums, as I seem to remember I may have done once on this one...people are supposed to agree with this.

Now my question is to Christians and mods who are Christians and mods in training, etc. How can you preach evolution here and claim you are following this little creed?

I see nothing in that little creed that requires a Christian to specify how God did it. Evolution is a possibility.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree.

The earth is young, but the planet is old.

Genesis 1 is describing the re-creation of the planet's atmosphere (heavens) and the planet's surface (earth) following a series of global catastrophes that wiped out all prehistoric lifeforms and which left the earth formless and void. God then spent six days re-inhabiting the earth with the new lifeforms we see today.

That's an interesting opinion, which raises some equally interesting theological questions, don't you think?