That whole thing is unBiblical. First, in Genesis 1 creation is "very good", not perfect. Nothing is said in Genesis 2 about Eden being perfect. That is something people have read into it. In fact, since the serpent was there, Eden could not have been "perfect".
Did you ever think that this play of semantics is nether here nor there? God saw that it was good. What does that amount to? Organisms dying and suffering through the ages, and only the modern human is worthy of attention?
TE is unbiblical. You know why? Because there is not one verse out of the entirety of the Bible that supports the idea even remotely. In fact, there are verses that flat out tell you that scientific oppositions are wrong.
One would think that if God made life in such an elegant and systematic way, there would be at least a scrap of an idea pointing toward it. Saying the Bible isn't a science book is a non-answer.
Second, the punishments for Adam and Eve's disobedience is given in Genesis 3. Those punishments are very specific. "Everything turned dark" is inaccurate. Very few things happened, and nothing "turned dark". For someone so concerned about the Bible, you seem to be ignoring the Bible and making it up as you go along.
What exactly does this have to do with anything? They became enlightened on good and evil. God gave them these things that sin induces rather then them dying, which is what he stated beforehand.
Context. I know it requires time and thought, but it is effective in understanding.
Third, "microevolution" does not refer to microorganisms. It refers to changes within a population. The changing proportion of light and dark colored peppered moths in England with changing levels of pollution are an example of microevolution.
Macroevolution is speciation (formation of a new species) and higher taxa (groups of species). As it turns out, microevolution produces macroevolution. This has been shown both in the lab and the wild many times in real time. It is also demonstrated in the fossil record.
Did i ever imply that? No, I implied that it has only been noticed in micro-organisms. Sorry if I didn't spell it out.
Microevolution has only largely been seen in microorganisms. Since we have not actually seen macro-evolution, we cannot conclude that it even fits into ToE at all. So the terms are loosely thrown around by people who believe in evolution whole-heartily.
In evolution, "random" has a specific meaning here: the variations are random with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. In a climate growing warmer, just as many deer will be born with longer fur than shorter fur. IOW, we don't see the majority of variations being favorable for the individual or the population, nor do we see the majority being unfavorable.
Now, selection is nonrandom. In fact, it is pure determinism.
Everything is nonrandom in a Deistic universe. Everything boils down to cause and effect. We do not have free will in this respect. Everything we do is just the natural coursing of the universe. This puts the entire construction of the Bible at risk.
I can hammer nails into TE all day.
Yersinia pestis is here to "
support life"? That is a micro-organism and it causes Bubonic Plague! There are many other examples.
Sin. The plague was not just a result of dominance, nor any other form of parasites. It is caused by uncleanliness. God's will? No. Our transgressions? Yes.
God gave His creatures the ability to adapt. Parasites just outdid our ability to adhere to what we should have been doing. Why should that amount to our common ancestor being a microscopic jelly at the bottom of an ocean?
Micro-organisms are life. Most of them are independent of mult-cellular organisms. For instance, we all have the bacteria Step aureus growing on our skin. It is indifferent to us and we are indifferent to it. Or consider the micro-organisms in the hot springs in Yellowstone. They don't support any multicellular life because the hot springs are too hot for any life except these thermophiles.
Thermophiles give beauty to hot springs. God did, after all, have a knack for such things, given the stars and the universe.
The bacteria on our skin obviously is there for a reason. Otherwise, it wouldn't be there. It also can produce minor infection. You will notice whenever you get a shot, an alcohol pad is swiped. This is because of that and other bacteria as well.
Again, because we didn't adhere to God's will, these things become problems. Notice that the Levites never fell victim to illness with the
harsh Old Covenant. They made strides to rid of it, and
alas, it was effective.
Clearly, liberalism doesn't always equate to righteousness.
As it happens, natural selection is also unintelligent. But it produces design. It is
very good at doing that. The proof is that humans turn to it when the design problem is too hard for us.
The odds of life developing naturally are less then 0.01% over every 4 billion years. Such precision an unintelligent thing has, right?
How is it that God did it.,
but not the way He said it? At the bottom of logic, TE is no more likely then anything else.
Rub it off on ambiogenesis and you will have sufficiently proved that mixing evolution into Abrahamic theology is just a loose, convenient way to exclude
critical thinking.
Think about it., what in science cannot be countered? In what way does science show anything to be more then a Desitic account on the history of life and matter?
