evolution and the fall

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

This has probably come up before, but I was not smart enough to find it.
I am pretty much a firm believer in Evolution. You couldn't convince me it didn't happen without effectively discrediting science altogether. So that brings me to a bit of a dilemma.

Because I absolutely believe in the fall, and I think it actually happened and is not just a metaphor (a metaphor for what exactly? what about everything else then? no... it has to have happened). I think it might actually be easier (hard though it would be) to discredit science altogether than convince me the fall did not happen.

So... the chronology... disturbs me. First of all, a human being is an organic unity as far as I am concerned, I am pretty suspicious of Cartesian dualism. So what exactly happened? Was there a moment before the creature that would evolve into man was not quite there, then he reaches a particular stage of development, God puts a soul in? Does that make sense to you? It seems kind of ...odd, to me and way too dualismy.

How else might it have happened?

But it doesn't worry me too much, what really worries me is that evolution is a process that is effectively reliant upon death. Evolution doesn't really work without it, because without natural selection to weed out some creatures the whole thing doesn't work. All mutations would survive. Also, the very concept of mutation, it is reminiscent of corruption, but isn't the Fall the source of corruption.

So it seems to me like evolution is impossible without the fall, because evolution relies upon corruption and death, it feeds on those things.

...so... the only way I can figure it might happen, is that the fall not only gave corruption to the future, but also to the past, that sin corrupted the world like ripples through time that went in both directions.

Which sounds a bit sci-fi lol but I don't know... it's all I can think of.

I guess it doesn't matter too much, but I wondered if there were other solutions to these issues other people had thought of.

 

[metherion]

But it doesn't worry me too much, what really worries me is that evolution is a process that is effectively reliant upon death. Evolution doesn't really work without it, because without natural selection to weed out some creatures the whole thing doesn't work. All mutations would survive. Also, the very concept of mutation, it is reminiscent of corruption, but isn't the Fall the source of corruption.

So it seems to me like evolution is impossible without the fall, because evolution relies upon corruption and death, it feeds on those things.

...so... the only way I can figure it might happen, is that the fall not only gave corruption to the future, but also to the past, that sin corrupted the world like ripples through time that went in both directions.

There's a slight misunderstanding going on here. Evolution does not rely on corruption and death. Even if all mutations survived, the mutations that made animals more fit for their particular environment would prosper. Take the Arctic. There would be more blubberous seals than non-blubberous seals, because the blubberous ones would spend more time reproducing than the non, who would lie there shivering all the time. Even if no seal ever died, you would see more blubberous ones because they can devote more energy to reproducing, since they devote less to maintaining body temp. Then there would be more blubberous seals. And the cycle would go on: more aquadynamic seals that moved faster through water for the same amount of energy would travel farther, get more food, and have more energy to reproduce. So you'd see more sleek blubberous seals than normal ones, and more of those than of non-blubberous ones. Even if every single one survived.

Furthermore,
1. Mutation is not the only source of genetic variance. Sexual reproduction is another, combining DNA from two animals to introduce variance. There are many more.

2. Mutation doesn't equal corruption. For there to be corruption, there would have to be an absolute unchanging standard that could be fallen away from. No such thing exists. What exists is a 'best balance' with the environment, so to speak. As the environment is constantly changing, the 'best balance' is constantly changing. There is no absolute 'this is the best'. There is always a struggle. Predator vs prey (shells versus sharp claws, speed versus speed, etc). Animal versus environment (fur to prevent sunburn. scales to prevent water loss. Warm blooded/cold blooded to maintain body temp). The list goes on. There is no corruption because there is no standard to fall away from. We can say a computer code is corrupted because we know exactly what it is supposed to be. Not so with life.


Furthermore, I agree that some sort of fall must have happened. There must have been some point at which God stepped in and let Himself be known. There must have been some point at which mankind committed the first sin. As to the exact how or why, I honestly don't know. Perhaps God revealed Himself to multiple beings at the same time. Perhaps He waited until there was a community, with all members capable of having a soul before He bestowed souls upon them. Perhaps not. I don't know. What I do know is that evolution is not reliant upon corruption and death going like a shockwave through time for it to work.

Metherion

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Mutation doesn't equal corruption. For there to be corruption, there would have to be an absolute unchanging standard that could be fallen away from. No such thing exists. What exists is a 'best balance' with the environment, so to speak. As the environment is constantly changing, the 'best balance' is constantly changing. There is no absolute 'this is the best'. There is always a struggle. Predator vs prey (shells versus sharp claws, speed versus speed, etc). Animal versus environment (fur to prevent sunburn. scales to prevent water loss. Warm blooded/cold blooded to maintain body temp). The list goes on.

That's now. But think about it, the whole survival of the fittest thing... do you think that went on in paradise? I don't, its brutal and horrific if you look closely. Remember how Darwin reacted to that parasitic ...was it wasp or moth or whatever?

There is no corruption because there is no standard to fall away from. We can say a computer code is corrupted because we know exactly what it is supposed to be. Not so with life.

But God knows exactly what it is supposed to be right?

 

[metherion]

That's now. But think about it, the whole survival of the fittest thing... do you think that went on in paradise? I don't, its brutal and horrific if you look closely. Remember how Darwin reacted to that parasitic ...was it wasp or moth or whatever?

I don’t subscribe to the idea that there was an earthly paradise where nothing ever died or ate anything except plants which for some reason aren’t considered life. I think the story of an earthly paradise in Eden is either an allegory or a reference to the way humanity saw things and interacted with things while innocent and within God’s presence, and the way we’ll experience them in we move on from this mortal plane.

Furthermore, physical death is natural. God even enjoys things related with it. I’m terrible with chapter and verse, but I do remember things such as His finding the odor of burnt animal offerings pleasing. You can’t burn an animal offering without killing the animal to get the offering. And it can’t be pleasing to God without it being good.

Also, if you accept the scientific validity of evolution, it should be known that there are fossils preserved with animal remains in their stomachs. If there were no death, and these creatures lived before humans, before there could possibly have been a Fall, how did one kill and eat the other? How do fossils of dead animals exist at all if there were no death at all?

Remember, not all death is caused by other living beings. Sure, parasites, diseases, and predators take their toll, but there is also old age, starvation, dehydration, and so on to consider. Sure, death isn’t pretty or pleasant to experience (that we know of) but the worst part is more the unknown on the other side. Death isn’t inherently evil or even bad. It just happens.

But God knows exactly what it is supposed to be right?

I think this question is based on a faulty assumption. There wouldn’t really be a ‘what it is supposed to be’. If there were, yes, God would know it. But, how can there be? Nature is all about balance. For a predator to be perfect, it would always catch all its prey. For a prey animal to be perfect, it would never be caught. Thus, there cannot be both at the same time. Correct?
Or, if you argue that if they were perfect at some point, that raises a large number of questions. What did they eat? If they didn’t eat, why do they even bother to have digestive systems? If they did, why isn’t whatever they ate considered alive? If somehow they did eat things that were truly unalive like minerals, how did they changed to having digestive systems across all time with no evidence of there ever being anything else? Where would the fossils of animals with other eaten animals inside them exist? And why would human sin, with the only punishments listed in Genesis except for the one to the serpent (presumed to be Satan) are applied to humans cause all that?
Was there a perfect member of every species? Or more than one? What qualities are most perfect in God’s eyes? How could wild variations occur without evolution if there is only one perfect DNA set per animal, and ever was?

Metherion

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Surely death only came into the world because of the fall though. That is exactly what the issue is. If it didn't and it is all allegory, then why Christ? Why the resurrection? What is the whole of Christianity about?

 

[metherion]

Surely death only came into the world because of the fall though. That is exactly what the issue is. If it didn't and it is all allegory, then why Christ? Why the resurrection? What is the whole of Christianity about?

Spiritual death and redemption. Before humanity, there were no physical beings with spirits. We’re the only ones. After the Fall, whatever form it took, humanity gained the ability to fall away from God and die in that state. Humanity and the angels are the only beings that ever had the ability to fall from God. Angels who did so became demons, and the area of whether or not they can be saved is not something I am knowledgeable about. However, humans who fall away CAN be saved. But they still sinned. Sin requires redemption, according to the OT laws. Jesus came and fulfilled those laws in the fullest way when He died and let humanity be redeemed and our sins paid for by His death. And when humans die, our spirits are eternal, like the angels’ are, and will last through death. Christ’s death and resurrection shows that such things are nothing compared to the power of God, and that human spirits can be returned to God not only in this life but in the next as well.

Metherion

 

[timbo81]

the 2 aren't compatiable.

you'll have to stop believing in one.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Spiritual death and redemption.

If its only spiritual death, what was the resurrection all about? Why do we "look for the resurrection of the dead?"

 

[juvenissun]

This has probably come up before, but I was not smart enough to find it.
I am pretty much a firm believer in Evolution. You couldn't convince me it didn't happen without effectively discrediting science altogether. So that brings me to a bit of a dilemma.

Because I absolutely believe in the fall, and I think it actually happened and is not just a metaphor (a metaphor for what exactly? what about everything else then? no... it has to have happened). I think it might actually be easier (hard though it would be) to discredit science altogether than convince me the fall did not happen.

So... the chronology... disturbs me. First of all, a human being is an organic unity as far as I am concerned, I am pretty suspicious of Cartesian dualism. So what exactly happened? Was there a moment before the creature that would evolve into man was not quite there, then he reaches a particular stage of development, God puts a soul in? Does that make sense to you? It seems kind of ...odd, to me and way too dualismy.

How else might it have happened?

But it doesn't worry me too much, what really worries me is that evolution is a process that is effectively reliant upon death. Evolution doesn't really work without it, because without natural selection to weed out some creatures the whole thing doesn't work. All mutations would survive. Also, the very concept of mutation, it is reminiscent of corruption, but isn't the Fall the source of corruption.

So it seems to me like evolution is impossible without the fall, because evolution relies upon corruption and death, it feeds on those things.

...so... the only way I can figure it might happen, is that the fall not only gave corruption to the future, but also to the past, that sin corrupted the world like ripples through time that went in both directions.

Which sounds a bit sci-fi lol but I don't know... it's all I can think of.

I guess it doesn't matter too much, but I wondered if there were other solutions to these issues other people had thought of.

One way to compromise. You may believe the animal evolution. But if you do not believe the evolution from ape to human, you would also solve part of the chronology problem about the Fall.

So, now you have a focus to evaluate the evolution "theory": the human evolution. I think it is not that hard to figure out the answer.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So... the chronology... disturbs me. First of all, a human being is an organic unity as far as I am concerned, I am pretty suspicious of Cartesian dualism. So what exactly happened? Was there a moment before the creature that would evolve into man was not quite there, then he reaches a particular stage of development, God puts a soul in? Does that make sense to you? It seems kind of ...odd, to me and way too dualismy.

The entire concept of the soul as defined by Christian theology is pretty much Cartesian dualism at its finest.

 

[Assyrian]

If its only spiritual death, what was the resurrection all about? Why do we "look for the resurrection of the dead?"

Isn't that what the Tree of Life is about? They themselves didn't have everlasting life, but it was freely available to them, they just had to reach out their hand, as it were. When they sinned they were cut off from the promise of everlasting life. They did not change from immortal to mortal when they fell, they changed from mortal with everlasting life available from God, to mortal cut off from God and everlasting life.

Mind you, I only know of one tree that can give us everlasting life and that is the tree Jesus Christ was nailed to for our sins. It looks like the promise of everlasting life, even in Eden, always was going to be through the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[metherion]

If its only spiritual death, what was the resurrection all about? Why do we "look for the resurrection of the dead?"

Humans are not only physical beings. Nor are we only spiritual. We are both. So, if we die, our spirit lives on, but not our body. At the end of time, when we are with God, we will be complete. Which means our bodies will be restored to us.

Metherion

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

The entire concept of the soul as defined by Christian theology is pretty much Cartesian dualism at its finest.

Does it have to be?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Does it have to be?

Does anything have to be anything?

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Does anything have to be anything?

Well I mean, is that the only way its ever been taken?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Well I mean, is that the only way its ever been taken?

In general yes. There's only so far you can go before it's not really a soul and you're just redefining words. The soul by its nature is inherently dualistic as it posits some extra thing that is another part of man. It's where the will, personality, and morality reside. Now the type of that dualism could be argued... maybe property dualism instead. But it's necessarily dualistic because that's what the soul is.

 

[crawfish]

If its only spiritual death, what was the resurrection all about? Why do we "look for the resurrection of the dead?"

Conversely, if it means physical death, then how come we still physically die in Christ?

 

[shernren]

Here's a debate I had with a creationist some time ago on how the doctrine of original sin could be reconciled with evolution:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7305187/

Hope you find it helpful! =)

 

[lawtonfogle]

This has probably come up before, but I was not smart enough to find it.
I am pretty much a firm believer in Evolution. You couldn't convince me it didn't happen without effectively discrediting science altogether. So that brings me to a bit of a dilemma.

Because I absolutely believe in the fall, and I think it actually happened and is not just a metaphor (a metaphor for what exactly? what about everything else then? no... it has to have happened). I think it might actually be easier (hard though it would be) to discredit science altogether than convince me the fall did not happen.

So... the chronology... disturbs me. First of all, a human being is an organic unity as far as I am concerned, I am pretty suspicious of Cartesian dualism. So what exactly happened? Was there a moment before the creature that would evolve into man was not quite there, then he reaches a particular stage of development, God puts a soul in? Does that make sense to you? It seems kind of ...odd, to me and way too dualismy.

How else might it have happened?

But it doesn't worry me too much, what really worries me is that evolution is a process that is effectively reliant upon death. Evolution doesn't really work without it, because without natural selection to weed out some creatures the whole thing doesn't work. All mutations would survive. Also, the very concept of mutation, it is reminiscent of corruption, but isn't the Fall the source of corruption.

So it seems to me like evolution is impossible without the fall, because evolution relies upon corruption and death, it feeds on those things.

...so... the only way I can figure it might happen, is that the fall not only gave corruption to the future, but also to the past, that sin corrupted the world like ripples through time that went in both directions.

Which sounds a bit sci-fi lol but I don't know... it's all I can think of.

I guess it doesn't matter too much, but I wondered if there were other solutions to these issues other people had thought of.

One must understand what death is... and that is, for most things, nothing but the shut down of chemical reactions called life and the start up of chemical reactions called decay. We ascribe more to it, but that is because we have more than any thing else.

Look at a single cell organism. Is it pain when it moves away from a toxic environment, or just pure chemical reactions? Is it death when the cell shuts down due to a virus, or just a chemical reaction? We call it alive, but I will for this discussion call that sci-life, the scientific definition of life. Metabolizes, reproduces, and a few other details.

Now look at a human. When they touch a stove, either it is a set of chemical reactions, or it is something more. When a person falls on their knees and ask God for forgiveness, either it is a set of chemical reactions, or it is something more. Some of us choose to think there is something more. But looking at it from the viewpoint of science, we can't find it. Yes, more complex chemical reactions, but still chemical reactions. We definitely have sci-life, but some of us think we something more, what I will call ot-life, for some other way of describing life.

But where is this difference? Maybe that is where the soul comes in. Of course, to those who have assumed there is nothing more, this is all nonsense, and I can accept that some think it is nonsense. Anyways, back to the soul. Do animals have a soul? Does that single cell we though about earlier. We assume humans have it, but nothing else does. But this doesn't stop a child from wishing to see her pet dog in heaven when it dies. This doesn't stop us from sympathizing with a cat which broke it's leg. This doesn't stop us from being outrage at those who mistreat animals... sometimes. Most of us will turn a blind eye to other animals, those we hunt and eat. A few of us are vegans, but most are not. The irrationality of this double standard originates from the irrationality of thinking that animals have ot-life. They have only sci-life, and they can only die the equivalent sci-death.

Humans though, can die what I will term ot-death. Yes, the theologically knowledgeable among you can probably think of a correct theological name for it, but for now I will just call it ot-death. It is this death which enteredin the fall, and it was ot-life which entered when God gave the first humans a soul. Exactly when this was, we will have a hard time to know.

To those who think that just because we have a hard time knowing means we are wrong, I want you to consider the following.

WARNING: Reproduction discussed from a scientific point of view coming up. May be unsutable for some viewers.

When does life begin? Well, there are numberous opinions, some of which are 'when sentience happens', but you cannot give the exact moment when that happens, so does that mean it doesn't happen? 'Ahha, I think it occurs the moment of conception' you may be thinking. So lets just assume it does... so when is the moment of conception? When the sperm first touches the egg? When it is halfway burrowed into the egg? When it releases the genetic material into the egg? Once againk the exact moment cannot be defined. So then, does the soul enter in at some point? Well, yes. If you disagree with humans having a soul, I am suprised you made it this far, as you probably think I am a bit off my rocker already.

END WARNING (Yes, so it wasn't that sexual at all, but I just wanted to give a warning.)

So, just because we cannot define the exact moment does not present a problem.



Of course, I am not saying it did happen this way, this is just but one explanation of my views (A TE) given my current knowledge.

 

[lawtonfogle]

the 2 aren't compatiable.

you'll have to stop believing in one.

Or maybe they are, but you have had your heart hardened to that possibility.

You know, I have far less problem believing in Christ and in evolution (though to call it a belief is misleading, in both cases) than I have believing in a loving God and reading parts of the Old Testament. If you are going to make an issue with the easier of the two, the I have no choice but to take issue with the harder of the two.