Esther and Evolution

[shernren]

Understanding how Christians can accept evolution is a little like understanding how the book of Esther can be in the Bible. I am starting to be convinced that this is the book that creationists need to read more often. (Actually, I'd be very happy if creationists ever regularly quoted the Bible outside of Genesis 1-3 and Romans 5, but I digress ... )

At first glance, and for those who are familiar with the story, there is nothing questionable about its inclusion. Bad guy puffed up with pride wants to slaughter the Jews, righteous queen and her moral uncle fast and pray and get the edict overturned, and God's people are saved. Wonderful edifying story, isn't it? Except that nowhere in the book are the Jews called God's people. Indeed, nowhere in the book is God even mentioned.

That struck me as deeply disturbing, almost heretical, when I started reading the book two weeks ago (as part of my New Year resolutions, to read parts of the Bible that I wasn't very familiar with). It bears comparison with the books of Daniel and Nehemiah, both of which refer to roughly the same period in history. Daniel is stuffed with miracles from end to end; Nehemiah intersperses prayers with narrative, and the enemies are forced to acknowledge God's hand when the wall is completed (6:16).

But God is never mentioned in the book of Esther. The enemy of the Jews is purely human, with a human (if caricatured) cast of supporters, acting to destroy the Jews out of purely human motives. Nothing that the Jews have done to deserve this fate is mentioned, as compared to the Prophets where Jewish troubles were squarely blamed on idolatrous practices. Most tellingly, when Esther decides to brave death and meet the king, she tells the Jews to fast (4:16), but she never mentions prayer. The king decides to honor Mordecai not through a dream (which often has divine portents) but because of sleeplessness. And when Mordecai warns Esther that salvation might arise for the Jews "from another place" (4:14), or Haman's family warns him that he may not succeed in his plans (6:13), there is no mention of the power of God at work.

What does it mean for a book like this to be in the Bible? Why does Holy Scripture include an account of unpraying Jews and naturalistic salvation? To me the lesson is simple: we can discern God at work even when there are no supernatural miracles involved.

And that applies just as well to "naturalistic" evolution.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

To be fair, the LXX version of Esther contains mention of God and prayer. But, arguably, the vast majority of YEC's don't accept Greek Esther, but instead the smaller Hebrew Esther which doesn't mention God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

Understanding how Christians can accept evolution is a little like understanding how the book of Esther can be in the Bible.

Except Esther is a historical person, but evolution is a theory with many problems. This is enough to separate the two.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I'm with juvenissun. I fail to see a connection between the two ideas. God is behind many events that we see as being purely natural, but to make the conclusion that Creation appeared purely natural because of that is illogical.

 

[Assyrian]

Except Esther is a historical person, but evolution is a theory with many problems. This is enough to separate the two.

So you agree with shernren's post apart from that?

 

[juvenissun]

So you agree with shernren's post apart from that?

It is an interesting way to imply things I did not say. His post has many ideas. I only reflected on a major one.

 

[Assyrian]

It is an interesting way to imply things I did not say. His post has many ideas. I only reflected on a major one.

That is the thing, shernren did not mention evolution being a coherent theory explaining the vast weight of evidence. His post was nothing to do with that at all. My post was a bit tongue in cheek but it did highlight the fact you were no able to come up with a single point in reply to the actual post.

 

[juvenissun]

That is the thing, shernren did not mention evolution being a coherent theory explaining the vast weight of evidence. His post was nothing to do with that at all. My post was a bit tongue in cheek but it did highlight the fact you were no able to come up with a single point in reply to the actual post.

I did say (post #3) the analogy in the OP is not that appropriate.

To accept a historical story which bears an implication of God is different from accepting a theory which does not need God. (I never know how to put God in the evolution process, except saying: Let it Start! )

 

[Assyrian]

I did say (post #3) the analogy in the OP is not that appropriate.

Must have missed that.

To accept a historical story which bears an implication of God is different from accepting a theory which does not need God.

I am pretty sure an atheist would say the story of Esther does not 'need' God either. Why is is alright for you to see God behind the book of Esther, but not for a TE to recognise the hand of the Creator in the history of evolution?

(I never know how to put God in the evolution process, except saying: Let it Start! )

Probably says more about how deeply creationists think about God and evolution, than about evolution itself. Do you ever thank God for the food you eat?

 

[Mallon]

I'm with juvenissun. I fail to see a connection between the two ideas. God is behind many events that we see as being purely natural, but to make the conclusion that Creation appeared purely natural because of that is illogical.

I'm not sure that's the point shernren is trying to make, though. He's simply saying that there's nothing anti-theistic about natural processes. God is as much involved with natural processes as supernatural ones. Therefore, evolution -- as a natural process -- is in no way anti-theistic.
I suspect he's making this point in light of the fact that many YECs view God as acting only via supernatural processes, and that He is largely absent from natural ones. Take juvenissun's statement above, for example:

"I never know how to put God in the evolution process, except saying: Let it Start!"

He can't fathom how God works through a natural process like evolution, subscribing instead to the deistic view that God only ordains natural processes and is otherwise uninvolved with them.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Young Earth Creationists don't seem to be bothered by such ordinary natural phenomenon such as the sun rising and setting or the metabolic processes turning food into energy and the rest into poop.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Greg1234]

Young Earth Creationists don't seem to be bothered by such ordinary natural phenomenon such as the sun rising and setting or the metabolic processes turning food into energy and the rest into poop.

-CryptoLutheran

If you are talking about scientifically observable phenomena, then you shouldn't stop there. Don't forget the part where adaptation is conserved to within set parameters, the effects of random mutations, the fossil record in its completion, etc. The common denominator for reality is not naturalistic processes but evidence- wherever that evidence leads.

The origin, and the multi-faceted composition of the material is governed by the make up of reality as a whole. The perspective that reality as a whole is purely material is what drives materialism. So life, with its origin and its composition, has to be materialistic. This isn't science, just materialism. Hence adaptation is tasked, whether it be its will or not, to provide a naturalistic explanation against all evidence.

Empty conjectures notwithstanding, the adherents to a materialistic persuasion will learn to accept this boundary that is life. That the perseverance and eager anticipation for a materialistic utopia is squelched. The anti-religion rhetoric is inconsequential. "The show must go on" attitude has only turned science into a perversion. And pure inquiry has been substituted for googly-eyed achievement points. In reference to your above quoted appeal, the sun is the sun. Man is man. Man did not descend from a rising sun.

 

[juvenissun]

Must have missed that.


I am pretty sure an atheist would say the story of Esther does not 'need' God either. Why is is alright for you to see God behind the book of Esther, but not for a TE to recognise the hand of the Creator in the history of evolution?

Probably says more about how deeply creationists think about God and evolution, than about evolution itself. Do you ever thank God for the food you eat?

Good point. When I say thanks, one of the gratitude is that God who sets up the environment so my food can grow and mature. I don't think God is doing anything special (intervening) to the very food I eat everyday.

Aha, I know now. Does TE attribute all the hard questions of evolution to God's intervention? For example, while it becomes hard to support the mechanism of human evolution (from chimp), the solution is that God says: LET IT HAPPEN ! So the critical difficulties were solved by God and the natural process can continue. Thus, the evolution is mostly natural process plus God's critical intervention (by supernatural action). Is this the major idea of TE?

 

[shernren]

Good point. When I say thanks, one of the gratitude is that God who sets up the environment so my food can grow and mature. I don't think God is doing anything special (intervening) to the very food I eat everyday.

So why say grace? Is there anything to thank God for?

 

[Greg1234]

Good point. When I say thanks, one of the gratitude is that God who sets up the environment so my food can grow and mature. I don't think God is doing anything special (intervening) to the very food I eat everyday.

Aha, I know now. Does TE attribute all the hard questions of evolution to God's intervention? For example, while it becomes hard to support the mechanism of human evolution (from chimp), the solution is that God says: LET IT HAPPEN ! So the critical difficulties were solved by God and the natural process can continue. Thus, the evolution is mostly natural process plus God's critical intervention (by supernatural action). Is this the major idea of TE?

There is no reason for such an intervention. As already outlined http://www.christianforums.com/t7523023-3/#post56437641 the vast majority of mutations are deleterious to a given population and degrades the genome over time. A beneficial mutation would go towards offsetting long term degradation before it begins to provide overall long term improvments. In essense, you keep accumulating a debt of 1000 dollars per month, but at the end of every month you pay 300 dollars. Although 300 dollars is "beneficial", the long term effects of the accrued debts are still chipping away. Although the given mantra from Darwinism is "millions and millions of years are needed", this only increases the the amount of time, thus increasing the net total.

Behe's new paper sheds even more light on the issue outlining that the overwhelming majority of 'adaptive mutations', or the mutations which have a beneficial response to the environment actually are the result of a loss of function or modification-of-function. In extremely rare cases is there an actual Gain-of-function. And within these rare cases, it is theorized that due to the high number of LOF and MOF before a GOF occurs, the GOF mutations only ameliorates the state of a previous loss of function. In either case, over a long period of time there will be a net loss with a gain of function most likely rectifying a previous LOF, or amidst the massive accumulation of LOF and MOF(some of which degrade the element affected) does nothing to overall improvement.

Darwinists will have you believe that things improve overtime, but depreciation is also to be taken into consideration. When random mutations are not wearing down the genome, even simple adaptations to the environment degrades overall function.

 

[Assyrian]

Juv: I never know how to put God in the evolution process, except saying: Let it Start!

Assyrian: Do you ever thank God for the food you eat?

Good point. When I say thanks, one of the gratitude is that God who sets up the environment so my food can grow and mature. I don't think God is doing anything special (intervening) to the very food I eat everyday.

So you are saying God just started it in the beginning?

Aha, I know now. Does TE attribute all the hard questions of evolution to God's intervention? For example, while it becomes hard to support the mechanism of human evolution (from chimp), the solution is that God says: LET IT HAPPEN ! So the critical difficulties were solved by God and the natural process can continue. Thus, the evolution is mostly natural process plus God's critical intervention (by supernatural action). Is this the major idea of TE?

No that is Old Earth Creationism.

 

[Mr Dave]

Subscribing

 

[juvenissun]

So why say grace? Is there anything to thank God for?

The one always in my mind: Thanks to God that I still can eat.

 

[juvenissun]

Aha, I know now. Does TE attribute all the hard questions of evolution to God's intervention? For example, while it becomes hard to support the mechanism of human evolution (from chimp), the solution is that God says: LET IT HAPPEN ! So the critical difficulties were solved by God and the natural process can continue. Thus, the evolution is mostly natural process plus God's critical intervention (by supernatural action). Is this the major idea of TE?

No that is Old Earth Creationism.

Please make corrections. Or, do you think it is all wrong?
I really really do not know how would TE work.

After all, I think the OP has its point: What is the role of God in the story of Esther?

 

[Assyrian]

Do you ever pray "give us this day our daily bread"?