Evolution and how God acts

[JMC309]

I was just thinking about the whole creation/evolution debate in terms of how God normally acts. In evangelism terms, most people are converted by a process and not a crisis. The twelve are a good example of this, and this has been the experience of many Christians through time. In terms of revelation, God did not simply dictate the entire Bible to one person in an afternoon (as per the Muslim model of revelation) but revealed himself gradually, first to Israel, and then to all humanity. Again, we have here a gradual process. Furthermore, when it comes to miracles, God does not use massive displays of miraculous power all the time, but only at certain important times. This shows that God does not make his presence obvious to everyone at all times by means of miracle. He reveals himself -this cannot be doubted by Christians- but is not constantly intervening to prevent every evil act, for example.

So, which of the two options is more compatible with such an image of God: sudden, complete creation, or the simple, gradual process of evolution? How is God more likely to go about creating life?

 

[Assyrian]

Reminds me of what Jesus said about his Father.
And my Father is the gardener.
God can do things instantly, but he loves to take his time (and we know what the Eternal God's time is like) and watch the flowers and trees grow.

 

[JMC309]

Taken this way, evolution could even be considered support for belief in the Christian God, given how he does other things the same way.

 

[Jadis40]

Taken this way, evolution could even be considered support for belief in the Christian God, given how he does other things the same way.

This is exactly the thought I have too in regards to the manner in which our Savior Jesus Christ came into this world. The supernatural element with this is that the Virgin Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Holy Spirit. It still took 9 months for Jesus to develop within the womb, just like any other baby.

To me, this is a clear sign that God sets the processes in motion, but then allows things to function on their own, through evolution and the laws that govern the universe.

 

[HypnoToad]

I was just thinking about the whole creation/evolution debate in terms of how God normally acts. In evangelism terms, most people are converted by a process and not a crisis. The twelve are a good example of this, and this has been the experience of many Christians through time. In terms of revelation, God did not simply dictate the entire Bible to one person in an afternoon (as per the Muslim model of revelation) but revealed himself gradually, first to Israel, and then to all humanity. Again, we have here a gradual process. Furthermore, when it comes to miracles, God does not use massive displays of miraculous power all the time, but only at certain important times. This shows that God does not make his presence obvious to everyone at all times by means of miracle. He reveals himself -this cannot be doubted by Christians- but is not constantly intervening to prevent every evil act, for example.

So, which of the two options is more compatible with such an image of God: sudden, complete creation, or the simple, gradual process of evolution? How is God more likely to go about creating life?

So, by your theory alone, what's to prevent creation from being one of the "certain important times" when God did use a miracle?

 

[busterdog]

So, by your theory alone, what's to prevent creation from being one of the "certain important times" when God did use a miracle?

Right, we are back at square one.

 

[archaeologist]

it also denies the book of exodus where it says, God created in 6 days.

 

[Assyrian]

Right in the middle of a passage describing God as if he were a weary labourer refreshed after a days rest Exodus 20:11 & 31:17. It is a metaphor, an anthropomorphism. God did not literally use 'a mighty hand and an outstretched arm' to rescue the Israelites as it says in the same commandment in Deuteronomy 5:15.

Again it is an anthropomorphism. The Israelites were not literally all held in a single prison even though the comandments start Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. God uses metaphors and the six days are in the middle of a metaphor.

So, by your theory alone, what's to prevent creation from being one of the "certain important times" when God did use a miracle?

Well the Big bang was pretty instantaneous, but the 13.7 billion years old universe that followed shows God worked a lot more slowely after that, though he is not slow... as some count slowness, but is patient.

 

[Dannager]

it also denies the book of exodus where it says, God created in 6 days.

Contradiction is not denial. If it were, the Bible would deny itself.

 

[JMC309]

So, by your theory alone, what's to prevent creation from being one of the "certain important times" when God did use a miracle?

Of course God used a miracle to create, but the point is that when he does use miracles, the overwhelming precedent is that he does not use more miraculous intervention than necessary. Take the Exodus, for instance. It would have been possible for God to simply wrap his entire people in a cloud and spirit them away to the promised land, while moving the inhabitants elsewhere. In fact, God used the plagues to make the Egyptians release his people, and after forty years in the desert they reached the promised land, and had to fight for every inch of it. The precedent is here, which must have some contribution to the 6 day creation/evolution debate. It seems much more likely that God works by a more subtle, gradual process. Also, I heard somewhere that the Hebrew verbs for 'create' in the passage actually imply a more gradual process.

 

[Iosias]

Taken this way, evolution could even be considered support for belief in the Christian God, given how he does other things the same way.

Theistic evolution is completely wrong. Some helps:

1. Creation or Evolution?
2. The Framework Hypothesis & Genesis 1
3. Genesis 1-11: Myth or History?
4. Evolution, Long Periods...or Days?

FYI: Our church hosted a debate on this issue:

Chester Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship Debate, 5th June 2007

- The Mechanism of Creation (large 16Mb download)

Also found here.

 

[Dannager]

Hey-hey, AV's back everyone!

 

[JMC309]

A moment while I sift through all the information!

 

[Iosias]

A moment while I sift through all the information!

My advice would be to print them out and read thoughtfully

 

[artybloke]

My advice would be to not bother. You'd only be wasting trees as you sifted though another set of PRATTS.

 

[Iosias]

My advice would be to not bother. You'd only be wasting trees as you sifted though another set of PRATTS.

Glad to see we are able to have an adult conversation here

 

[JMC309]

My advice would be to not bother. You'd only be wasting trees as you sifted though another set of PRATTS.

As it is, I read through them on my computer screen.

In them, I identified four main lines of criticism against theistic evolution:

1. 'Key doctrinal and ethical statements (concerning marriage and the Fall, for example) are bound up with a literal interpretation of Genesis and cannot be held without it.'

2. 'Interpretation undermines the authority of infallible Scripture, is a conformist response to atheist theories that breaks away from church tradition and the historic confessions, and produces unacceptable ideas which are incompatible with the context and the literary format.'

3. 'Theistic evolution separates God from the sustaining of nature, undermines belief in his supreme power, and leaves no room for him in creation.'

4. 'Theistic evolution rests on a failed attempt to reconcile Genesis with modern scientific theories, as it goes against core principles of the doctrine of creation.'

To me, these seem to be the main lines of criticism sustained in your articles, AV. If you (or any other creationists, for that matter) are prepared to propose modifications or additions, please post. I think, though, that we need a clear statement of your criticisms before a meaningful discussion can begin, and this I believe that I have provided.

p.s. is it just me or has AV gone very patriotic very quickly?

</IMG>

 

[Iosias]

we need a clear statement of your criticisms before a meaningful discussion can begin

I will state my basic criticism of TE:

Premise 1: Theistic Evolution requires the existence of death prior to Adam.
Premise 2: Scripture teaches that death entered through the sin of Adam.*

Conclusion: Theistic evolution conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture and is therefore wrong.

* The key texts are the narrative of Moses in Genesis 1-3 and the argument of St. Paul in Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

p.s. is it just me or has AV gone very patriotic very quickly?

LOL

 

[JMC309]

I will state my basic criticism of TE:

Premise 1: Theistic Evolution requires the existence of death prior to Adam.
Premise 2: Scripture teaches that death entered through the sin of Adam.*

Conclusion: Theistic evolution conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture and is therefore wrong.

* The key texts are the narrative of Moses in Genesis 1-3 and the argument of St. Paul in Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Perhaps it is the potential for sin to enter the world, or the fact that Adam was predestined to sin (for God foreknew that he would) that corrupted it and brought death from the begining. Hence, death came by sin. It does say that God declared his creation 'very good,' but as good is synonymous with the will of God anyway this could just mean that all was going according to plan. Could it also mean spiritual death here?

 

[Iosias]

(1)Perhaps it is the potential for sin to enter the world, (2)or the fact that Adam was predestined to sin (for God foreknew that he would) that corrupted it and brought death from the begining. Hence, death came by sin. (3)It does say that God declared his creation 'very good,' but as good is synonymous with the will of God anyway this could just mean that all was going according to plan. (4)Could it also mean spiritual death here?

Could you explain in more detail? This is a little all over the place and so I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say. If you could develop upon the points you make I would appreciate it (from what I gather you make 4 points). I hope I do not discourage, it is just that I am capable of misreading what people say, my fault not yours.

Recall that Christ is the second Adam and so if you undermine the truth of Genesis 1-3 then you undermine the gospel. Christ came to repair what Adam broke.

1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Question: Why not just accept what Scripture clearly teaches?

Again let me say it...I am encouraged that you are thinking through issues such as this!
​