Esther and Evolution

[Papias]

I have no problem if God intervenes the evolution process by supernatural means.

All well and good then. That is the Pope's position that God makes some or all of the many beneficial mutations we see. We can both accept the historical evolution, and both see God in it, with you explicitly having God intervene supernaturally, and I being unsure of that, mostly because it doesn't matter to me if God's intervention is solely supernatural or not.

But if God only "supports" evolution through the natural laws, then we do not need to mention God in the whole processes of evolution.

Well, that's up to you. If you choose to not mention God, you don't have to. Just as with the motion of the planets, pregnancy, the seasons, and so on, the Bibles do mention God. I do mention God and see God there too. The atheist, like you, chooses not to mention God in those cases.

The problem with that is that we can not see His support either.

Why is that a problem? Can you always see the Hand of God? I cannot always see it, and have faith that it is there even if I can't see it.

In contrast, we do see the support of God in the story of Esther.

Where? Can you identify even one verse where it shows the support of God? This is one question I'll ask again if you don't answer, because you made an easily verifiable claim.

TE is reluctant to give up either one of these two incompatible choices.

How could they be incompatible? They are no more incompatible than myself being both a father and a brother.

The Psalm you quoted says: Creation !

The psalm is describing the process of pregnancy. So you are saying that babies are supernaturally poofed into existence inside every woman's uterus? So the stages of pregnancy described by chemistry and physics are not really happening?

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

So, God says: let there be gravity.

And, God also says: let life evolve.

Is that what TE to you?

If not, then when did God do anything "special" to the evolution? If there is no need for that, then how do you know if God does anything to evolution since it began?

They believe that God is responsible for mutations. Well, they don't actually believe that, but they entice creationists with it anyways. The point is it doesn't matter. The ends justifies the means.

Detrimental mutations far surpass any benefit from a mutation. It is dished to creationists that natural selection weeds out the detrimental mutations, and what you are left with is a spick-and-span genome impervious to any degradation. But natural selection is unable to weed out what it cannot touch. Not all detrimental mutations are severely felt at the phenotypic level and what you have is an accumulation of deleterious effects. This is genomic version of "wear and tear". One example given was the case of the "princess and the peas" but another is the fact that you car doesn't just break down on the spot. If it does break down, it is a problem felt at a level which impairs normal functioning. You would then you bring it to the mechanic to amend it, but during the time when you have no problems with it, it is still degrading.

One of the chosen outlets is beneficial mutations. They have been used against Creationists as the source of bacteria to man, but as outlined in Behe's paper, it is not as simple as that. Beneficial mutations actually contribute to depreciation. The predominant force at play is Loss-of-function and modification of function mutations which then lead to a beneficial effect. But all you see is the beneficial effect, the molecular basis is not explained. In the case of Lenski's long term E-coli experiments we see the same thing. Behe writes,

The new paper continues the grand experiment that Lenski has been publishing about lo these many years — allowing a culture of the bacterium E. coli to continuously grow and evolve under his close observation. The only really new thing reported is a technical improvement — these days one can have the entire genome of E. coli “re-sequenced” (that is, determine the sequence of the entire DNA of the particular E. coli you’re working with) done for an affordable cost. (There are companies which will do it for a fee.) So Lenski and collaborators had the whole genomes — each and every nucleotide — sequenced of the E. coli that they have been growing for the past twenty years. Since they froze away portions of their bacterial culture at different times along the way, they now have the exact sequences of the evolving culture at many time points, from inception to 2000 generations to 10,000 to 40,000. Thus they can know exactly which mutations appeared when — an almost-complete paper trail. Very very cool!


From that information they identify a couple score of mutations which they say are likely beneficial ones. That is almost certainly true, but what they don’t emphasize is that many of the beneficial mutations are degradative — that is, they eliminate a gene or its protein’s function. About half of the mutations they initially identified in previous work, but some they report here for the first time. They don’t discuss what the new ones do (they may not yet know), but odds are high that most of them also are degradative, causing proteins either to stop working or to work less well. In any event, there is no indication that any of these are on their way to building some complex new system.
​

They say that God is responsible for beneficial mutations, but this only serves to digress from the fact that beneficial mutations do not do the things Darwin imagined.

 

[shernren]

I have no problem if God intervenes the evolution process by supernatural means.

I would.

I've always wondered what it would be like to live in the ID world - in the world where genetic variants drop from heaven. Imagine if, starting from Christmas last year, every horse on earth gave birth to a baby unicorn instead of a normal horse foal. That would be very supernatural. It would be completely inexplicable to science. Evolution would immediately be discarded by all but the most ardent of biologists.

And Christians wouldn't be one bit more secure in their faith.

The example I gave isn't really so far-fetched. That, on some level, is what ID proponents have to believe. One day, after a mummy lobe-finned fish and a daddy lobe-finned fish had fish sex, God genetically-engineered their little lobe-finned fish eggs and took out the lobe-fin genes and put in land-leg genes and voila! the first amphibians. Evolution couldn't possibly have done such a thing, good Christian boys and girls, so only God could have done it, and you now have one more thing to thank God for as your daddy tucks you into bed tonight. (And lest the YECs laugh, the only real difference in the YEC version of the story is that the lobe-finned fish couple don't even get to have sex and the whole shebang is over in a few seconds instead of a few million years.)

Really? Is that an apologetic argument for Christianity? That lobe-finned fish magically gave birth to amphibians, or that a bacterium without a flagellum suddenly found itself swarmed by flagellated neighbors poofed into existence? I might as well believe that my faith in God and my confidence in the Bible would be strengthened if after Easter this year every piglet was born with little wings. Sure, it would be supernatural. It would also be utterly meaningless to me.

My faith in God is strengthened when I observe how the beauty of creation contrasts so powerfully with the depravity of the human heart. I see how no system of thought founded on human ideas can go very far without curving in on itself and becoming just a circular argument, without hope or chance of ever aspiring to absolute truth. I see how sometimes the saints' sufferings are swiftly avenged, and how at other times that same suffering, when prolonged, purifies their character to incredible godliness. And I see God working in the book of Esther through natural circumstances surrounding entirely natural people, giving me the hope that, though I am just as boring and natural as the next person, still God may use me in a way that will affect the shape of the world at its final judgment.

My God is a magnificent God who has woven the tapestries of history and biology, who has used subtle processes over billions of years to create a species which carries His image and is capable of considering itself. (What other species has sequenced its own genome?) Against that, am I really supposed to be impressed by the ID portrayal of God as a genetic magician who pulls irreducibly-complex structures out of a black hat and throws them onto the table of biology willy-nilly?

 

[theFijian]

How does God work in TE?

John 1:3 - Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Col 1:16 & 17 - For by him all things were created,in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created(D) through him and for him. [sup]17[/sup]And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Heb 1:3 - ...and he (Christ) upholds the universe by the word of his power

So how does God work in creationism? Does it demand that God disrupt the natural processes that he himself ordained to fulfill his creative will?

If Jehovah God is not in the background of Esther story, would it make any difference?

Difference to what?

If God is not in the background of evolution, will the evolution be any different?

Difference to what? The science of evolution or it's outcomes?

 

[mark kennedy]

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 ... )

I'm beginning to think that the purpose of these arguments is to distract from the other books of the Bible but let's see what you have.

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.

At the risk of wasting time on a foregone conclusion there are a few things that you are not including. Esther is one of a number of people during redemptive history that God used to deliver the Hebrews. There is Job, Joseph in Genesis, Moses in Exodus, Danial and others who testified in the courts of kings, rose to high positions and saw God's power demonstrated in ways that can only be described as miraculous. Some times it may seem more naturalistic but who's to say? Guess it depends on what you consider a miracle.

I won't get into the narrative since this inevitably proves to be useless in these discussions. I can tell you that I am very familiar with the book and what it has to do with evolution should prove edifying.

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).

Not bad...

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.

I run into the same thing with Song of Songs, even though it's not a dramatic book it has profound theological significance. For me at any rate. Esther is not a dramatic book but it is an amazing narrative. In Esther God's promise to Abraham (Gen 17:1-8) were threatened. There is nothing in the Scriptures that says His people have to be delivered by miracles, sometimes they were and sometimes it was more divine providence.

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.

You know what that sounds like to me?

And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea.

And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?

For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed. (Esther 10:1-3)​

Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. (Danial 2:48)

Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. [v. 41] And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. (Gen 41:40-43)

The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers. (Job 42:12-15)​

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

Ask yourself this question, do you believe the Gospel, have you been indwelled by the Holy Spirit, do you look with anxious expectation for the soon return of Christ in power and glory?

That's a miracle.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Why would you expect it to have a role in scientific argument? TE is not about deviating from science. It is thinking about the science of evolution theologically. So it doesn't need to be part of a scientific argument. Its place is in discussions of theology.

It is viable in evolution because nothing in the theory of evolution displaces the creator. However, more importantly TE is a viable concept in regard to creation.

That is exactly what I do not understand. An example of it would be very appreciated.

 

[juvenissun]

John 1:3 - Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Col 1:16 & 17 - For by him all things were created,in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created(D) through him and for him. [sup]17[/sup]And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Heb 1:3 - ...and he (Christ) upholds the universe by the word of his power

So how does God work in creationism? Does it demand that God disrupt the natural processes that he himself ordained to fulfill his creative will?

Difference to what?
Difference to what? The science of evolution or it's outcomes?

God creates everything in Six-Days. Then God quits creation. Everything go from there according to the laws He set up. He may intervene to change the situations, but no more creation. This is somewhat like: since the creation was done, then things changed around just like energy/matter changed around. Be born again is not a creation either.

 

[gluadys]

God creates everything in Six-Days. Then God quits creation. Everything go from there according to the laws He set up. He may intervene to change the situations, but no more creation. This is somewhat like: since the creation was done, then things changed around just like energy/matter changed around. Be born again is not a creation either.

IOW Deism. The world is a machine God left to run on its own--except for occasional visits.


As one early Christian supporter of evolution said: "Supporters of God's occasional presence fail to note that it implies God's normal absence."

Do you really think Jesus taught God's normal absence from his creation? Is that what you find in scripture?

 

[juvenissun]

IOW Deism. The world is a machine God left to run on its own--except for occasional visits.


As one early Christian supporter of evolution said: "Supporters of God's occasional presence fail to note that it implies God's normal absence."

Do you really think Jesus taught God's normal absence from his creation? Is that what you find in scripture?

What was created AFTER Day Six?
You may put the time of Day Six to Pleistocene, or even Holocene. It does not matter.

 

[gluadys]

What was created AFTER Day Six?
You may put the time of Day Six to Pleistocene, or even Holocene. It does not matter.

You were.

 

[juvenissun]

You were.

Very interesting. I am pondering on this issue for a while.

I like to think I am newly created. But I am not sure. Because of one thing, and it is a very important reminder: God says He rested from creation (Gen 2:2). If every human being were God's new creation, then He can never rest. And that seems not be good.

Because of this consideration, I am constructing another idea (hypothesis) on the origin of human spirit. I like to share it with you, but it seems not appropriate in this thread. [can't resist: the key is on that God "recognizes" us (Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee before we were even conceived (in general, the predestination). How would that work? That is it. If I have chance, I will talk about it in another thread.]

 

[Assyrian]

Very interesting. I am pondering on this issue for a while.

I like to think I am newly created. But I am not sure. Because of one thing, and it is a very important reminder: God says He rested from creation (Gen 2:2). If every human being were God's new creation, then He can never rest. And that seems not be good.

I don't think Jesus had a problem with it. John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

 

[gluadys]

Very interesting. I am pondering on this issue for a while.

I like to think I am newly created. But I am not sure. Because of one thing, and it is a very important reminder: God says He rested from creation (Gen 2:2). If every human being were God's new creation, then He can never rest. And that seems not be good.

I don't see a problem with that. "He who keeps you will not slumber. He that keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121:3b-4

Because of this consideration, I am constructing another idea (hypothesis) on the origin of human spirit. I like to share it with you, but it seems not appropriate in this thread. [can't resist: the key is on that God "recognizes" us (Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee before we were even conceived (in general, the predestination).

LOL. You are asking a Presbyterian if predestination works? Is the Pope Catholic?

 

[shernren]

I like to think I am newly created. But I am not sure. Because of one thing, and it is a very important reminder: God says He rested from creation (Gen 2:2). If every human being were God's new creation, then He can never rest. And that seems not be good.

Indeed, God says this of Israel as well:

​​​​​​​​But now thus says the Lord,
he who created you, O Jacob,
he who formed you, O Israel:
“Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine. (Isa 43:1, ESV)
​

"Created" and "formed" are bara and asah respectively in the Hebrew, two words used extensively in Genesis 1. Looks like God's still in the business of creating.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think Jesus had a problem with it. John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

It has been a while, but you are still mixing the two: God's creation and God's other works. I never say God is not working on you or me. But I say (He says) God rested on His creation.

 

[juvenissun]

Indeed, God says this of Israel as well:

​​​​​​​​But now thus says the Lord,
he who created you, O Jacob,
he who formed you, O Israel:
“Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine. (Isa 43:1, ESV)
​

"Created" and "formed" are bara and asah respectively in the Hebrew, two words used extensively in Genesis 1. Looks like God's still in the business of creating.

The creation/form in this case means: rename.
Abram already existed. God only calls his name.

 

[shernren]

​​​​​​​​“You have heard; now see all this;
and will you not declare it?
From this time forth I announce to you new things,
hidden things that you have not known.
​​​​​​​​They are created now, not long ago;
before today you have never heard of them,
lest you should say, ‘Behold, I knew them.'

(Isa 48:6-7, ESV)

 

[Assyrian]

It has been a while, but you are still mixing the two: God's creation and God's other works. I never say God is not working on you or me. But I say (He says) God rested on His creation.

Don't think you can separate the two that easily, the context is Jesus healing, a miracle of creation, on the Sabbath when Jew were commanded to stop working because God stopped working on the seventh day of creation, Jesus reply is he working because his Father never stopped working. And as s shernren has pointed out the bible does not limit God's work of creation to Genesis 1. Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy.

 

[mark kennedy]

Don't think you can separate the two that easily, the context is Jesus healing, a miracle of creation, on the Sabbath when Jew were commanded to stop working because God stopped working on the seventh day of creation, Jesus reply is he working because his Father never stopped working. And as s shernren has pointed out the bible does not limit God's work of creation to Genesis 1. Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy.

I don't mean to overemphasis the obvious but the reason God stopped working on the seventh day is because he was done. I'm not being sarcastic, the Sabbath rest is tied to the completed work of Christ with regards to salvation. That's why for the hearer to harden their heart against the Gospel is fatal spiritually, there is nothing else that can be done.

So, as the Holy Spirit says:

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the wilderness,
where your ancestors tested and tried me,
though for forty years they saw what I did.
That is why I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.’
So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ”

See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. (Hebrews 3:7-12)

As far as miracles, did you ever notice they didn't make that much difference in the Exodus or the Gospel. I mean the Egyptians saw God's judgments and still Pharaoh hardened his heart. When the children of Israel were in the desert and saw one miracle after another, in their hearts they still turned back to Eqypt. In the New Testament when Jesus does the feeding of the 5,000 the crowd follows him across the Sea of Galilee and want to make him king, by force if necessary. Jesus tells them that they only followed him because they ate and had their fill. Then he tells them that he is the bread of life and they must believe in him.

At that point many of them turned away. Don't get me wrong, miracles matter but how much difference they make all depends. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, received the Holy Spirit and live in anxious expectation of the soon return of the risen Savior that's a miracle. Perhaps the most important one in redemptive history, to you at least.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

I don't mean to overemphasis the obvious but the reason God stopped working on the seventh day is because he was done. I'm not being sarcastic, the Sabbath rest is tied to the completed work of Christ with regards to salvation.

That is very true, but the connection is a figurative one. Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. The Sabbath was a metaphorical picture pointing to Christ and his completed work of salvation.

That's why for the hearer to harden their heart against the Gospel is fatal spiritually, there is nothing else that can be done.

So, as the Holy Spirit says:

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the wilderness,
where your ancestors tested and tried me,
though for forty years they saw what I did.
That is why I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.’
So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ”

See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. (Hebrews 3:7-12)

If God only rested for 24 hours, and that was thousands of years ago, how are we supposed to enter his rest?

As far as miracles, did you ever notice they didn't make that much difference in the Exodus or the Gospel. I mean the Egyptians saw God's judgments and still Pharaoh hardened his heart. When the children of Israel were in the desert and saw one miracle after another, in their hearts they still turned back to Eqypt. In the New Testament when Jesus does the feeding of the 5,000 the crowd follows him across the Sea of Galilee and want to make him king, by force if necessary. Jesus tells them that they only followed him because they ate and had their fill. Then he tells them that he is the bread of life and they must believe in him.

At that point many of them turned away. Don't get me wrong, miracles matter but how much difference they make all depends. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, received the Holy Spirit and live in anxious expectation of the soon return of the risen Savior that's a miracle. Perhaps the most important one in redemptive history, to you at least.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Personally I'd go for the resurrection as the most important. Everything else flows from that.