Does God's use of evolution equal "God making mistakes"?

[Vance]

There are two groups which raise the same point: if God created through evolution, this means He is not omnipotent since the process is one of trial and error. Ironically, the two groups are YEC’s and atheists. My feeling is that this concept was probably originally floated by the atheist side and was fully believed by the Creationists with the result that it persuaded them that evolution, then, must be false.

I would like to open a discussion of this point in particular: must "creation through evolution" require an imperfect Creator?

I would propose that the answer is no. I think it is our own bias which views a process such as evolution as "trial and error". I think we need to step back and consider that, to God, a system which allows for the rise and fall of species, growth and modification, success and failure based on the rules He, Himself, established, might not be "full of mistakes" after all. He did not create a single species and then see it fail. He simply could have created a *system* which *allows* for success and failure. The system He created would not be mistaken at all. It would be happening EXACTLY how He created it to happen: life and death, success and failure, modification and development.

Why would He do this rather than just wave it all into existence? I have no idea, I am not God. Even if you look at the YEC position: why would it take Him six days? Could He not have done it all with a single wave of His hand? If God could *choose* to create over six days when He did not *need* to, why not create over billions of years even though He did not *need* to? Six days or a billion years are exactly the same to God since He is beyond time.

And this idea does not mean that God couldn’t also choose to step in with a special creation action for Man at some point. It could have all been part of His plan. One thing is certain is that the Genesis account does not tell the whole story by a long shot

 

[SBG]

There are two groups which raise the same point: if God created through evolution, this means He is not omnipotent since the process is one of trial and error. Ironically, the two groups are YEC’s and atheists. My feeling is that this concept was probably originally floated by the atheist side and was fully believed by the Creationists with the result that it persuaded them that evolution, then, must be false.

I don't know of a creationists that says if evolution is true, God is less than God. It is a theological debate that is incompatible with Scripture. It is not about who God is.

I would like to open a discussion of this point in particular: must "creation through evolution" require an imperfect Creator?

I would propose that the answer is no. I think it is our own bias which views a process such as evolution as "trial and error". I think we need to step back and consider that, to God, a system which allows for the rise and fall of species, growth and modification, success and failure based on the rules He, Himself, established, might not be "full of mistakes" after all. He did not create a single species and then see it fail. He simply could have created a *system* which *allows* for success and failure. The system He created would not be mistaken at all. It would be happening EXACTLY how He created it to happen: life and death, success and failure, modification and development.

Why would He do this rather than just wave it all into existence? I have no idea, I am not God. Even if you look at the YEC position: why would it take Him six days? Could He not have done it all with a single wave of His hand? If God could *choose* to create over six days when He did not *need* to, why not create over billions of years even though He did not *need* to? Six days or a billion years are exactly the same to God since He is beyond time.

And this idea does not mean that God couldn’t also choose to step in with a special creation action for Man at some point. It could have all been part of His plan. One thing is certain is that the Genesis account does not tell the whole story by a long shot

Simple. The Bible states six day creation. Exodus follows and repeats this to be true in a literal setting. Jesus refered to it as literal. Paul preached it.

There is God's word, Jesus Christ, and the Apostles who agree with a historical and literal Creation in Genesis 1-2. That is why I believe it is as well.

Here is your soap box back --> /----\

 

[Maccie]

Simple. The Bible states six day creation. Exodus follows and repeats this to be true in a literal setting. Jesus refered to it as literal. Paul preached it.

Er, there is an awful lot of Bible between Genesis 1-11, and Exodus! Some of it is historical, handed down by oral tradition, and possibly embroidered on the way, some of it is verifiable in some degree (i.e. the story of the flood) and some is poetic myth, which tells us, in a totally non-scientific way, why things happened.

I do sometimes wonder if YEC's realise that there are actually 50 chapters in Genesis, the way they seem to concentrate on the first 11 chapters. We can learn a lot from the other 39 chapters! Not just about God, but about ourselves, the world, and man and woman in it.

To say nothing of the rest of the Bible, of course!! I presume you (plural) actually read the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, etc.???

 

[SBG]

Er, there is an awful lot of Bible between Genesis 1-11, and Exodus! Some of it is historical, handed down by oral tradition, and possibly embroidered on the way, some of it is verifiable in some degree (i.e. the story of the flood) and some is poetic myth, which tells us, in a totally non-scientific way, why things happened.

I do sometimes wonder if YEC's realise that there are actually 50 chapters in Genesis, the way they seem to concentrate on the first 11 chapters. We can learn a lot from the other 39 chapters! Not just about God, but about ourselves, the world, and man and woman in it.

To say nothing of the rest of the Bible, of course!! I presume you (plural) actually read the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, etc.???

Yes, there is a lot of Bible between Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20. It seems by theistic evolutionary standard, Genesis 1:1 is all that is needed move on to Genesis 3, allegorize that, and continue to move on. Evolutionism is rather interesting because it is a rather new philosophy. And the proponents of it state it is old, and I have shown by early Church writings this is incorrect and a young earth belief, six day creation, and global flood were the norm.

It reminds me of when the Church was just beginning and so many people said to the Apostles and Church Fathers that Christianity was not a legitament religion because it was new. All of them defended against this saying it was and is the first religion, using the OT.

So, yes I personally am aware that there are 50 chapters, after all I do own a few or more Bibles, just like you or someone else.

I wasn't aware that there were books called Psalms, Proverbs, Eccesiastes, or Song of Solomon/Song of Songs in the Bible. Thanks for letting me know I will have to check them out. (just a joke)

 

[Purple Haze]

I personally don't believe that evolution works with the bible. This is why:

- God created woman from man. how did a million years of evolution of mankind take place without the woman. Adam named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all living.

- Adam was alive a mere 6000 years ago. Were we really some different species of apemen a mere 6000 years ago?

- In the garden was the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam was allowed to freely eat of any tree but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At the end of Genesis 3 we learn that the tree of life gives life sustaining fruit. They would have lived forever had they not sinned. That is not typical of an evolutionary God who wants things to change and die off and change and die off. Why didn't God wait for the NEXT human evolution for a counterpart to commune with- this one still screwed up.

- It was told to me once that Adam was the first homosapien and thats the evolutionary status that God was waiting for for friendship/communion ect. What were Adam's parents then?? Every teen thinks they're smarter than their parents but with Adam, he was an entirely different species altogether?? When God called the creatures for Adam to name, were his parents there?? God commands us to honor our parents. We don't honor lesser species, we EAT lesser species. If it is possible through evolution to evolve to be greater than our fathers, what then of our heavenly father? do we suppose to one day be greater than Him?? If God is always the same yesterday today and forever, and we are in a constant state of evolving into greater beings... is God to fear us??! Its a horrible thought, but it is a door of thought opened by believing that Christianity and evolution can coexist.

- Something curious... In Genesis God gives Adam a list of curses that he had brought upon himself and those to come - "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Isn't it curious that God should have to explain death to Adam?? These are things that happened as a result of Adam and Eve's sin. Why is death included here if it was already a normal part of existance. Adam is a type of Christlike figure, a parallel figure to Jesus(Romans 5:14). Adam brought death into the world. Christ redeemed the world and brought life. Christ conquered death AND the grave. If Christ is a figure/parallel of Adam and Christ conquered both spiritual and physical death, it only makes sense that Adam brought both types of death, spiritual and physical to mankind. 1st Corinthians 15:23 says Christ is the firstfruit, the first example of the end of physical death, the rest will be at his second coming. verse 26 states that the last enemy to be destroyed will be death(meaning physical because our souls are already redeemed). If God views physical death as an enemy, why would he subject us to a million years of it to evolve into what he could have created in an instant???

Well those are just my thoughts. Take them as you will

Peace

 

[gluadys]

Evolutionism is rather interesting because it is a rather new philosophy. And the proponents of it state it is old, and I have shown by early Church writings this is incorrect and a young earth belief, six day creation, and global flood were the norm.

I think you are confusing two different things. Evolution and non-literal readings of scripture. People have not been saying the ToE is older than Darwin or that the early Church believed it.

They have been saying that the early Church was open to non-literal interpretations of scripture and sometimes even favoured them over a literal reading.

A person can read scripture non-literally and yet not accept evolution. And Glenn Morton, once he gets set up in Beijing will tell you that you can accept evolution while adhering to a literal reading of Genesis 1-3.

 

[SBG]

And for that I really don't have a problem with Morton's view point on creation. I am rather surprised by most theistic evolutionists here. I though for sure you all would be able to see how Genesis can be literal history and evolution can be true. I guess I gave you all way too much credit in being able to think of that.

BTW, I disagree with Morton's view on the flood.

 

[Vance]

Does that mean you agree with him that evolution IS how God created?

 

[SBG]

haha, come on Vance do you think I share that belief with you? I thought you could understand where I stood.

I have said I don't have a problem with evolution - I disagree with it - I have problems with people who like to try and say if the Bible was meant to be understood as such then the Bible is in error. You know such as the many times it talks about six day creation, global flood etc.

Again, I am rather disappointed with theistic evolutionists. I thought they would all be smart enough to be able to see how both a literal Genesis and evolution could be presented. Guess not.

 

[Vance]

Now wait a second. Did you just say that DON'T have a problem with evolution? I know you don't think it is actually how God did it, but are you saying that you agree with Billy Graham that it would make no difference if God chose to create via evolutionary processes?

 

[SBG]

Well it depends on a few things. I am rather surprised you haven't figured these things out on your own.

First the Genesis is correct literally, historically and allegorically when look to the greater message.

After that, it isn't really that hard to see how evolution could fit in there as something God used. But, Genesis shouldn't be altered in understanding from the early Church. I disagree with the earth being billions of years old as well.

But really, I am rather disappointed that the so many self-claimed enlightened on evolution are unable to think of this, understand this, and comprehend this.

 

[Remus]

I though for sure you all would be able to see how Genesis can be literal history and evolution can be true.

Could this work? I would think time would be a problem. I suppose there is room for some time to be added, but there would have to be some limit, not sure what that limit would be though. There are going to be other problems that would have to be dealt with, but it may solve other problems.

 

[SBG]

There is serious damage done when people who are Christians go around claiming that parts of the Bible are incorrect if they are read how the early Church read them and preached them to be. There are serious implications to this.

Evolution has yet to prove some things about itself. Other hand it claims to have evidence on animals. Genesis doesn't have to be incorrect literally and historically to see this.

 

[Vance]

So, you think that God could have used evolution as part of His creative process. Now, I am talking about macro-evolution, like Morton does. You think that this is not inconsistent with Scripture? Again, I know you may not accept it as how God did it, but think that it is more likely that He did it via special creation, but you think that it is not inconsistent with Scripture that God could have created all life on this planet, including Man, through the natural process of evolution from earlier species?

As for knowing about Glenn's theory, well sure. I read his site many years ago, and found it intriguing. I know exactly what he is saying and I think it is possible. But you keep forgetting that I don't think that the Creation acccounts were ever meant to be read literally. This has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for an old earth or for evolution. I see HOW evolution could fit with a literal reading, I just don't see any reason to accept this "fit" because I don't think Genesis was meant to be read literally regardless. I think evolution also fits with a figurative reading, as it happens.

I think you are working on the assumption that everyone starts with literal as the preferred "default", the position you only move FROM when some scientific evidence forces you to do so. I just don't see why anyone should do that. I start off accepting that God has a wide variety of literary genres to work with, and literal/historical is just one of them. So, I start with no assumption of what genre it should be, and then let the literary style, the cultural/historical setting, and the theology involved factor in to determine how God wants us to read a particular text.

I would read Genesis 1 and 2 figuratively no matter what the scientific evidence said.

 

[Remus]

Genesis doesn't have to be incorrect literally and historically to see this.

So, what you have in mind is God created everything in 6 days and then the different creatures/plants evolved since then?

 

[SBG]

So, you think that God could have used evolution as part of His creative process. Now, I am talking about macro-evolution, like Morton does. You think that this is not inconsistent with Scripture? Again, I know you may not accept it as how God did it, but think that it is more likely that He did it via special creation, but you think that it is not inconsistent with Scripture that God could have created all life on this planet, including Man, through the natural process of evolution from earlier species?

I never said all life. If one is to keep with the teachings of Genesis, then one must realize man is a special creation.

As for knowing about Glenn's theory, well sure. I read his site many years ago, and found it intriguing. I know exactly what he is saying and I think it is possible. But you keep forgetting that I don't think that the Creation acccounts were ever meant to be read literally. This has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for an old earth or for evolution. I see HOW evolution could fit with a literal reading, I just don't see any reason to accept this "fit" because I don't think Genesis was meant to be read literally regardless. I think evolution also fits with a figurative reading, as it happens.

Well that is your belief. I believe that the Church preached a literal creation in six days and that the earth is not old as so many have claimed since the time of Greeks. With God the earth doesn't have to be old and He is not a liar if it is young and looks old. He cursed the ground for one, and Paul talks about how sin affects the earth.

I believe a non-literal Genesis is inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible.

I think you are working on the assumption that everyone starts with literal as the preferred "default", the position you only move FROM when some scientific evidence forces you to do so. I just don't see why anyone should do that. I start off accepting that God has a wide variety of literary genres to work with, and literal/historical is just one of them. So, I start with no assumption of what genre it should be, and then let the literary style, the cultural/historical setting, and the theology involved factor in to determine how God wants us to read a particular text.

Science doesn't force me to do anything of the sorts. I have many ways that I go about understanding the Bible. First and foremost, the Holy Spirit leads me. I feel that I should look to how the early Church taught, this includes the Apostles and the early Church Fathers. This way I stay in good theology and sound doctrine, because Jesus Christ taught the Apostles and the Apostles passed on the teachings to the very early Church Fathers.

The literary style of Genesis is very much obvious, the Church Father believed it, the Apostles believe it, Jesus taught it, why shouldn't you believe it as well? They all believed Adam was real, the fall was real, the creation in six days were real, the earth is young, etc. I just cannot see why now it must change, other than science dictates so.

Tell me have you ever wondered what would be said if the flood was only a local one? People could have escaped the judgement of God. Is that what you want to preach to people when telling them that even if they don't accept Christ, they can still escape the judgement?

I believe you really have no idea the implications of what you preach on these boards about Genesis not being able to be literal and historical. Because if I did, I would be lead to believe that you personally seek harm upon Christianity and I rather believe that you do not seek to do so.

I would read Genesis 1 and 2 figuratively no matter what the scientific evidence said.

And you have also said that science must change our interpretation as science changes.

Anyways, it is my view point that theistic evolutionists have really missed the ball on this. Genesis doesn't have to allegorical for parts of evolution to be true.

 

[Vance]

While there may have been a TE saying that if evolution is true, then Scripture is false, but I have not seen it. This tends to be what YEC's say, actually, although they express it in the reverse. They say that because Scripture is true, evolution is false. This leaves open the corollary that if evolution is true, then Scripture is false. I agree, this is hugely dangerous, which is the point I have been making all along.

Now, what some TE's may say is that if Scripture is meant to be read literally, and that literal reading is that the earth is young and evolution is false, then this would mean Scripture is wrong. Their point, every time I have seen this presented, is that Scripture is NOT wrong, so either that literal reading is wrong, or (like Morton), a literal reading does not require a young earth and no evolution. Very few TE's assert that Scripture can be plain wrong in this area.

I will also point out that AiG also uses the "if that were true then God would be a deceiver, and since God is not a deceiver then that can't be true" argument, exactly as TE's use it, although on a different point.

 

[SBG]

This whole attributing God to a liar junk, whether te or yec or whoever is basically calling Him one anyways. For if your understanding is wrong, the result is not that you are wrong but that God is a liar instead. That is Garbage.

sorry didn't know you can't say the cr*p word.

 

[Remus]

I would read Genesis 1 and 2 figuratively no matter what the scientific evidence said.

Shouldn't this be all of Genesis, Kings, and Chronicles?

 

[SBG]

Shouldn't this be all of Genesis, Kings, and Chronicles?

lol