Evolution and Creationism

[000]

I have, for the longest time, had trouble understanding what the debate is between these two topics. As far as I can tell, Creation as told in the Christian Bible involves a spontaneuous generation of pure quanta (as when God created Light) to the physical manifestation of energy (in creating the Earth) and finally the creation of living and organic creatures capped off with the creation of a reasoning creature (man). This type of spontaneuous generation produced such things as mountains, rivers, oceans, plants, trees, stars, and other such geographical and cosmological items. All of those things involve long and intense process to be created.

Mountains, for example (and put rather simply), are created when tectonic plates crash into each other. Stars are created when extremely massive chunks of matter pull in surounding gases from space and begin to combust. The point I'm trying to make here is the way in which the Bible tells Creation involves God creating things that are and can be created by means of the physical universe. When God created the cosmos, the light from the stars was already reaching the Earth, something that would take anywhere from thousands to billions of years depending on the distance of the stars. When God created the first people (Adam and Eve) He created animals that had "existing" genetic codes - Adam and Eve must have had differing genetic codes, otherwise they would've been the same gender. This means that their genetic codes could be traced back to a theoretical "common ancestor" that never "actually" existed but could still be inferred from the apparent physical reality created by God.

What all this amounts to is that God would've created a Universe with "age," or a world in which a past that never "actually" ocurred still happened in theory.

How, then, are some (I know not all) Christians able to assert that Evolution should not be taught in schools? There is not a single element of the Christian Creation story that would go against the theory of evolution - the two ideas are not incompatible. Creation would just be something that "occurred" along our line of the continuum.

 

[PhilosopherD]

I have, for the longest time, had trouble understanding what the debate is between these two topics. As far as I can tell, Creation as told in the Christian Bible involves a spontaneuous generation of pure quanta (as when God created Light) to the physical manifestation of energy (in creating the Earth) and finally the creation of living and organic creatures capped off with the creation of a reasoning creature (man). This type of spontaneuous generation produced such things as mountains, rivers, oceans, plants, trees, stars, and other such geographical and cosmological items. All of those things involve long and intense process to be created.

Mountains, for example (and put rather simply), are created when tectonic plates crash into each other. Stars are created when extremely massive chunks of matter pull in surounding gases from space and begin to combust. The point I'm trying to make here is the way in which the Bible tells Creation involves God creating things that are and can be created by means of the physical universe. When God created the cosmos, the light from the stars was already reaching the Earth, something that would take anywhere from thousands to billions of years depending on the distance of the stars. When God created the first people (Adam and Eve) He created animals that had "existing" genetic codes - Adam and Eve must have had differing genetic codes, otherwise they would've been the same gender. This means that their genetic codes could be traced back to a theoretical "common ancestor" that never "actually" existed but could still be inferred from the apparent physical reality created by God.

What all this amounts to is that God would've created a Universe with "age," or a world in which a past that never "actually" ocurred still happened in theory.

How, then, are some (I know not all) Christians able to assert that Evolution should not be taught in schools? There is not a single element of the Christian Creation story that would go against the theory of evolution - the two ideas are not incompatible. Creation would just be something that "occurred" along our line of the continuum.

Some Christians believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are literal in the sense that only a young earth can be implied. However, evolution = old earth.

As for myself, I take it metaphorically. The earth, and the universe it inhabits, are very, very old.

 

[000]

I believe you have missed the point I'm trying to make and have also failed to answer my question. Those "some Christians" you are speaking of are also the ones I am referring to. The analysis I made was of the literal interpretation of Genesis. It is in no way incompatible with evolution to say God created the world in a mere 6 days.

I would like you, however, to expand upon this "metaphorical" view of Christian Creation. It seems as though science would be a greater threat to that stance than a spontaneous creation.

 

[PhilosopherD]

I believe you have missed the point I'm trying to make and have also failed to answer my question. Those "some Christians" you are speaking of are also the ones I am referring to. The analysis I made was of the literal interpretation of Genesis. It is in no way incompatible with evolution to say God created the world in a mere 6 days.

I would like you, however, to expand upon this "metaphorical" view of Christian Creation. It seems as though science would be a greater threat to that stance than a spontaneous creation.

Actually, the metaphorical view is fairly compatible with science. I take Conrad Hyers view that the creation account is contrasting a Jewish theology against pagan creation stories. It is not attempting to describe an empirical, chronological account of biological development.

Evolution, on the other hand, requires millions of years of biological development. Christians who hold to the literal 6 day view see a contradiction and do not want their kids taught otherwise.

Of course, in the educational system, there is at present a contest between teachers of evolution and those Christians who would like to install 'Intelligent Design' into public schools. But that is a different structure of debate.

 

[000]

I don't believe I understand. Are you saying Conrad Hyers' view is, or at least is very similar to, the metaphorical view of creation? If so, you state that the Conrad Hyers' view is somehow an amalgmation of Jewish theology and Pagan mythology. Theology and Mythology have very little to do with the science we're talking about here.

Also, as long as I'm still assuming your meaning of the metaphorical view is reflected by Conrad Hyers, you say this view not meant to be empirical. Empiricism happens to be a very important principle when it comes to science.

And, now that I look back, my original question has only been half answered. I tried to show in my first post that the 6 day Creation story is not a contradiction of evolution, yet many Christians do see it as so. I guess the question I should be asking is, why don't Christians see that the 6 day Creation story is, in fact, completely compatible with evolutionary theory?

 

[PhilosopherD]

I don't believe I understand. Are you saying Conrad Hyers' view is, or at least is very similar to, the metaphorical view of creation? If so, you state that the Conrad Hyers' view is somehow an amalgmation of Jewish theology and Pagan mythology. Theology and Mythology have very little to do with the science we're talking about here.

Also, as long as I'm still assuming your meaning of the metaphorical view is reflected by Conrad Hyers, you say this view not meant to be empirical. Empiricism happens to be a very important principle when it comes to science.

And, now that I look back, my original question has only been half answered. I tried to show in my first post that the 6 day Creation story is not a contradiction of evolution, yet many Christians do see it as so. I guess the question I should be asking is, why don't Christians see that the 6 day Creation story is, in fact, completely compatible with evolutionary theory?

They don't see it compatible for the same reason that many atheistic evolutionists don't see it compatible. As I was saying, they take the text of Genesis 1 literally, meaning 1 day is 24 solar hours. Now, if you see it as compatible because you take a 'Day Age' view, you are taking Genesis in a different kind of metaphor than the one of Conrad Hyers. This is not to say that you are wrong, or whatever, but that we are talking about different metaphors.

 

[000]

I think you need to read my first post. I show, very logically, that a literal 6 day Creation is not incompatible with evolution. I should clarify, however, this only counts for Christians. When you say Christians see evolution incompatible with 6 Day creation for the same reason atheists see 6 Day creation incompatible with evolution you are making a false assertion. Belief in a 6 day creation requires only belief and needs no empirical evidence. Belief in evolution, however, requires proof in the form of science. A Christian can believe in evolution as a theory without violating their belief in a literal 6 day creation; an atheist cannot believe in creation whatsoever because an atheist does not believe in a god or God.

You are right, though, when you say we are not taking about the same metaphor. I'm not talking about metaphors at all.

I encourage you to read my first post again, I don't think you realize what I'm trying to say/ask.

 

[PhilosopherD]

I have, for the longest time, had trouble understanding what the debate is between these two topics. As far as I can tell, Creation as told in the Christian Bible involves a spontaneuous generation of pure quanta (as when God created Light) to the physical manifestation of energy (in creating the Earth) and finally the creation of living and organic creatures capped off with the creation of a reasoning creature (man). This type of spontaneuous generation produced such things as mountains, rivers, oceans, plants, trees, stars, and other such geographical and cosmological items. All of those things involve long and intense process to be created.

Mountains, for example (and put rather simply), are created when tectonic plates crash into each other. Stars are created when extremely massive chunks of matter pull in surounding gases from space and begin to combust. The point I'm trying to make here is the way in which the Bible tells Creation involves God creating things that are and can be created by means of the physical universe. When God created the cosmos, the light from the stars was already reaching the Earth, something that would take anywhere from thousands to billions of years depending on the distance of the stars. When God created the first people (Adam and Eve) He created animals that had "existing" genetic codes - Adam and Eve must have had differing genetic codes, otherwise they would've been the same gender. This means that their genetic codes could be traced back to a theoretical "common ancestor" that never "actually" existed but could still be inferred from the apparent physical reality created by God.

What all this amounts to is that God would've created a Universe with "age," or a world in which a past that never "actually" ocurred still happened in theory.

How, then, are some (I know not all) Christians able to assert that Evolution should not be taught in schools? There is not a single element of the Christian Creation story that would go against the theory of evolution - the two ideas are not incompatible. Creation would just be something that "occurred" along our line of the continuum.

ok...simply put, some Christians would see the theory of existing age as implying that God is deceptive. He could have made everything with the appearance of age, but now...you would be reading something into the text that is not even implied. I'm fully aware that someone came up with that theory some time back, but most Christians don't buy into it...there are seveal other views that have more coherence.

 

[000]

All right, I see. I don't understand why a Christian would not "buy into" this idea though. To suggest that God created a completely "new universe" would mean there were no oceans or trees or people or stars simply because these things require time to be made, whether or not that time "actually" occurred or only happened in theory. I suppose, though, that this would imply that God is, in some way, deceptive, but that's really arbitrary toward belief in God. I was under the impression that the "logic" of the Christian God is somehow incomprehensible by people. Because of this, it doesn't seem as though it makes sense to use a word like "deceptive" to describe God.

You seem to contend that my analysis of Genesis is, in some way, less coherent than a metaphorical view. I am always open to new belief, so I would like it if you could show me where exactly in my analysis I lack coherency.

I don't want you to think I'm trying to prove something. I do nothing but seek the truth through inquiry.

 

[Calminian]

What all this amounts to is that God would've created a Universe with "age," or a world in which a past that never "actually" ocurred still happened in theory.

This actually a good point although only those with naturalistic presuppositions would see it as looking old.

Here's an article that may interest you. Methods of the Creator. Many of Christ’s miracles would have had the same traits.

 

[Calminian]

I would take the opposite view that creation is compatible with science. Science can give us some insight, but ultimately, an ex nihilo creation would be considered a miracle. Miracles, by definition, cannot be verified nor falsified by science. Ultimately, science must start with the assumption of methodological naturalism. I think the metaphorical view of Genesis is the result of a misunderstanding of the philosophical foundations of science. Science is limited to the natural, repeatable, testable realm. This would exclude miracles. Genesis is filled with enormous explicit and implicit miracles that are vast in extent and scope. Trying to use a naturalistic methodology to extrapolate back from the current evidence to a libertarian supernatural act of God is quite irrational. I'm amazed the church as fallen for this to the extent it has. At no time in church history has Genesis ever been interpreted as a metaphor. Even the allegorists of the early church believed it to be an historical narrative account, with literal genealogies, a literal Adam and Eve, Flood, etc.. The metaphorical approach is a recent attempt to harmonize the Bible with science and has no basis in exegesis of the actual text.

 

[000]

I think the metaphorical view of Genesis is the result of a misunderstanding of the philosophical foundations of science.

Thank you, I suppose this is the answer I was looking for. For the sake of the Christian church it seems that this should be taught by their religious leaders. A metaphorical view of Genesis seems like an attempt to reconcile religion with science, which is very paradoxical when Christianity asserts itself to be the "one true faith." From the stance of Christianity, science should have to harmonize with religion. This explains why the Evolution vs. Creation debate is so heated - the participants of the debate don't realize both of those concepts exist in completely independant realms of thinking.

 

[Key]

All right, I see. I don't understand why a Christian would not "buy into" this idea though. To suggest that God created a completely "new universe" would mean there were no oceans or trees or people or stars simply because these things require time to be made, whether or not that time "actually" occurred or only happened in theory. I suppose, though, that this would imply that God is, in some way, deceptive, but that's really arbitrary toward belief in God. I was under the impression that the "logic" of the Christian God is somehow incomprehensible by people. Because of this, it doesn't seem as though it makes sense to use a word like "deceptive" to describe God.

Well, there is the "Water to Wine" idea, where wine takes time to ferment, but Jesus made fermented wine in a matter of hours, or even minuets, what should have taken months at least. So the wine would appear "Old" even when it was "Brand New". I see what you are saying.

So, God could have made a "New Universe" that just seems old by our standards, because that is the nature of the laws that God has set forth upon his creation.

You seem to contend that my analysis of Genesis is, in some way, less coherent than a metaphorical view. I am always open to new belief, so I would like it if you could show me where exactly in my analysis I lack coherency.

Well I take a literal view myself, so I really do not have much to offer you, however, I also do not subscribe to the 6 day literal, as I subscribe to the 6 day "Yom" as in 6 "Time Frames" as opposed to solar cycles, or rotations of the earth, I always thought it a bit foolish to bind God to the speed by which our plant turns, when it was God that set our planet in motion.

I don't want you to think I'm trying to prove something. I do nothing but seek the truth through inquiry.

I have enjoyed your post so far, and it has given me things to think about.

I hope that I have provided you some insight into this as well.

However, forgive me, but hat exactly was your question?

God Bless

Key

 

[Calminian]

....From the stance of Christianity, science should have to harmonize with religion.

Actually I wouldn't quite agree with this. I don't think we should try to harmonize science with supernatural acts of God. Science necessarily presupposes methodological naturalism, but I believe this is the way it should be. It won't work otherwise. What we as christians need to understand is that science is not the ultimate epistemology. It has limitations. It cannot verify, falsify nor even detect miracles. It must assume a priori, they have not occurred in the area of study. The wine Jesus created at Cana would have looked old from a scientific framework. Had a doctor examined the blind man that Jesus healed, he never would have detected, from the physical evidence alone, that a miracle took place. He merely would have assumed the man was never blind. Miracles and science don't mix and never should. I have no problem with the notion that ex nihilo creationism is not scientific. Nor is the resurrection of Christ. Our God is a miracle-working God, meaning He has violated scientific understandings throughout history. Since God works within the confines of logic, we can understand Him theo-logically. But since He often does not work within the confines of science, we can't understand Him theo-scientifically.

This explains why the Evolution vs. Creation debate is so heated - the participants of the debate don't realize both of those concepts exist in completely independent realms of thinking.

I essence I agree with this. Creationists are starting with a theistic presupposition, while evolutionists are starting with a naturalistic presupposition. Ultimately creationism can never be harmonized with science, while naturalism must be presupposed by science. The former is guilty of ignoring an essential component of science, while the later is guilty of circular reasoning—basing a conclusion on its premise. As a result we have a nice mess!

All we as creationists need to show is that creation is logically possible. Of course it is scientifically impossible. That's why God is necessary!

 

[PhilosopherD]

Ok, you guys have misunderstood my definition of 'metaphorical'. Probably because there is more than one idea of it. Again, I'm going with Conrad Hyers point. Maybe he would more aptly state that the opening chapter of Genesis is an apologetic theology, specifically written for the purpose of refuting the competing myths of pagan religions of Moses' time, and earlier. The point in the Bible is to assert that creation comes from God. In the pagan myths of creation, the gods come typically come from the universe. For Christians, God is the creator, and everything else is subservient. There, I hope I'm clearer.

I would recommend Conrad Hyers book, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science.