Evolution, Science, Creation

[shernren]

Arguments against theistic evolution theory follow ...

A. Something to Ponder.

1) If evolution occurred then it is still occuring.
2) If so, what we are now is not what we will be.
3) If so, we are becoming something completely different.
4) If so, eventually humans will be replaced by some other thing.

.. that is bizarre to me .... how do you wrap your head around these things? ..

I try not to. In the first place I believe that Christ's return is imminent. Besides, evolution takes a long time to work. I'm guessing that barring biotechnological modification, it would take at least 5 thousand years (wild guess, mind you) before humanity's evolutionary descendants become recognizably different from humanity today. And given sin's taint I don't think humanity has a shred of a chance to survive that long.

B. Impossible odds.

1) Let's say evolution is God's method of creation.
2) Evolution involves chance only (not intelligence).
2) Since we are here, therefore evolution has resulted in intelligence.
3) Therefore intelligence can result by chance.

... that doesn't make sense to me. How can chance result in intelligence? If you saw a watch would you theorize that possibly by some chance (not intelligence) the pieces came together to form a watch? Of course not. Why then, when you see a flower, would you theorize that it could result by pure chance (not intelligence)? Clearly it is far more complex than the simple watch design.

I say the fact that it doesn't make sense to you ... doesn't make sense to me. In the first place, there's a contradiction between 1 and 2. If God owns this method then why can't we say that God directs this method to His own ends? In the second place, how do you know that simple rules do not lead to complex outcomes? I'm starting to find enthusiasm towards Conway's Game of Life, and there are deceptively simple patterns that can spawn surprisingly complex outcomes.

C. Physical death occurred prior to the fall of man (IMPOSSIBLE):

1) Adam's (or first humans) ancestor was not a man and had no soul.
2) Adam (or first humans) received a soul.
3) All Adam's offspring also receive a soul after this.
4) Some time (long or short) later Adam (or first humans) sinned.
5) The penalty for sin is death (or death of the soul).

If Adam (or first humans) had not sinned, in your view there would still be physical death. The soul of all humans would live on for eternity in heaven. The sinless humans would continue to die a physical death. Ultimately they would eventually become one or more different species.

Some questions for TE's about this world of sinless humans that very well might have been. And yes I was hoping you might consider and answer them, because I wasn't sure if you ever considered such things:

1) Would cancer still exist?
2) Would parkinsons still exist?
3) If not, what would people die from?
4) Would dying still cause pain or would it be painless?
5) Could they be killed by an animal?
6) Why recent ancestors didn't get a soul (just as intelligent)?

To be honest:

I ... don't ... know.

I don't know what a world is supposed to look like without sin. How should I know? There are, however, intriguing Scriptural hints that a world without sin would still have pain. In Gen 3:16: "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing". This can be taken to mean that had Eve had children before the Fall she would still have had pain and the effect of the Fall was not to introduce pain, but to increase it.

In any case, why do we fear physical death? It is because of our innate separation from God due to sin (we all sin; whether or not Adam caused this is beside the point). Death was our enemy because death would mark the final separation of us from God. God is at least present in our physical universe, and that is why it is at least palatable even to those who do not know Him; but Death would banish us from this universe in which God is there to an eternity where even God's presence would be absent.

Most Christians will still have to die physically! Does that mean Jesus has done nothing for them? After all, how can we say that Jesus conquered death if His followers still have to die? The answer is that now, Christians do not fear death even if they have to undergo it. They know what lies beyond: they know that those who die in Christ will be with God, and Jesus Himself is the firstfruits of that resurrection power working in their lives.

For me, although I don't know if humans would have died before the fall, I can imagine something like that colouring their opinion of death. Death wouldn't be a blank wall ending their existence, but a door to eternity.

Note: The above questions are intended to invoke thought that would prove the idea of evolution preposterous in your minds, and hopefully change your minds. The ideas they invoke are proposterous to me.

What ideas, exactly, do they invoke? Ideas about God? About man? About nature?

For me your questions invoked nothing preposterous at all.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Arguments against theistic evolution theory follow ...

A. Something to Ponder.

1) If evolution occurred then it is still occuring.
2) If so, what we are now is not what we will be.
3) If so, we are becoming something completely different.
4) If so, eventually humans will be replaced by some other thing.

.. that is bizarre to me .... how do you wrap your head around these things? ..

Spiritually, we are a work in progress... the time will come when we will be perfected in Christ.

Physically, we are also a work in progress...except not with the same goal, so what's the big mystery?

B. Impossible odds.

1) Let's say evolution is God's method of creation.
2) Evolution involves chance only (not intelligence).
2) Since we are here, therefore evolution has resulted in intelligence.
3) Therefore intelligence can result by chance.

... that doesn't make sense to me. How can chance result in intelligence? If you saw a watch would you theorize that possibly by some chance (not intelligence) the pieces came together to form a watch? Of course not. Why then, when you see a flower, would you theorize that it could result by pure chance (not intelligence)? Clearly it is far more complex than the simple watch design.

premise 2 is false. Evolution does not involve chance only. Natural Selection is not intelligence, but nor is it chance. And even if it were, you're completely ignoring the "theistic" part of the equation... if God is directing the process, even in the most subtle ways (no need for Him to be ham-fisted about it... He has patience), then there's nothing random about it.

C. Physical death occurred prior to the fall of man (IMPOSSIBLE):

1) Adam's (or first humans) ancestor was not a man and had no soul.
2) Adam (or first humans) received a soul.
3) All Adam's offspring also receive a soul after this.
4) Some time (long or short) later Adam (or first humans) sinned.
5) The penalty for sin is death (or death of the soul).

If Adam (or first humans) had not sinned, in your view there would still be physical death. The soul of all humans would live on for eternity in heaven. The sinless humans would continue to die a physical death. Ultimately they would eventually become one or more different species.

Except that the Fall brought into being spiritual death...separation from God. Physical death was always a possibility, otherwise putting a Tree of Life in Eden would've been redundant.

There really wouldn't be any reason to fear or avoid physical death until after we were separated from God, would there?

Some questions for TE's about this world of sinless humans that very well might have been. And yes I was hoping you might consider and answer them, because I wasn't sure if you ever considered such things:

1) Would cancer still exist?
2) Would parkinsons still exist?
3) If not, what would people die from?
4) Would dying still cause pain or would it be painless?
5) Could they be killed by an animal?
6) Why recent ancestors didn't get a soul (just as intelligent)?

Note: The above questions are intended to invoke thought that would prove the idea of evolution preposterous in your minds, and hopefully change your minds. The ideas they invoke are proposterous to me.

Well, that's your business... let's look into it.

1 and 2 seem to fall into the notion that illness is some form of divine punishment, a theology I've never bought into.

3... the same things people die from now.

4. seems to imply that there was no pain before the fall. Pain is not an evil thing...it is your body's way of telling you that you've just done something stupid to yourself. If Adam didn't say "ouch" when he stubbed his toe on a rock in Eden, how would he know to be more careful?

5. Sure, why not?

6. Can you be so sure they didn't? We'll have to wait and see when we get to heaven if there are any cavemen there.

There is no conclusive evidence for evolution theory. Will you now please choose to put your faith in a literal creation?

Not if the best it can come up with is to actually say with a straight face that there's no evidence for evolution.

You cannot prove to me or anyone else that physical death of man or animal occurred prior to the fall of Adam.

I have no interest in doing so... it's a trivial doctrinal point which has no bearing on salvation.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

There are, however, intriguing Scriptural hints that a world without sin would still have pain. In Gen 3:16: "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing". This can be taken to mean that had Eve had children before the Fall she would still have had pain and the effect of the Fall was not to introduce pain, but to increase it.

The word etzev (Hebrew) is incorrectly translated as pain. It should read possibly toil or refer to increased emotion or exhaustion. But certainly not as pain.

 

[shernren]

The word etzev (Hebrew) is incorrectly translated as pain. It should read possibly toil or refer to increased emotion or exhaustion. But certainly not as pain.

Hmm, I'll have to look into that. But hey, do you realize that that makes the argument worse? According to what I believed from that passage,

before Fall: childbirth with a little pain
God's decree: increased pain
after Fall: childbirth with extreme pain

But if your "mistranslation" statement is correct,

before Fall: childbirth with extreme pain
God's decree: increased toil/emotion/exhaustion
after Fall: childbirth with extreme pain and increased toil/emotion/exhaustion

Since the extreme pain of childbirth didn't come from God's decree it would have been there before the Fall. Isn't that a very, very clear example of pain in a supposedly "perfect" pre-Fall world? If pain is present in a perfect world what sort of perfection is that?

Certainly not the YEC brand of perfection.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Since the extreme pain of childbirth didn't come from God's decree it would have been there before the Fall.

No problem here for me. Not all women experience pain during childbirth, although granted most do today. I believe woman's bodies were never meant to have pain during childbirth, whether before the fall or after. Sometime along the way our sinful fallen creation in the process of running down, has all manner of negative side-affects. So my interpretation still works for YEC.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Not if the best it can come up with is to actually say with a straight face that there's no evidence for evolution.

Why not? It can't be proven. So why should I believe it?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Why not? It can't be proven. So why should I believe it?

What, scientifically speaking, do you think can be proven to a creationist's satisfaction?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Why not? It can't be proven. So why should I believe it?

Prove apples won't start falling upward tomorrow.
Prove that the battle of Agincourt took place.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

What, scientifically speaking, do you think can be proven to a creationist's satisfaction?

Correct, there is no proof I am satisfied with yet.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Correct, there is no proof I am satisfied with yet.

No proof of anything? How odd.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Prove that the battle of Agincourt took place.

The Battle of Agincourt was fought on 25 October 1415, (Saint Crispin's Day), in northern France as part of the Hundred Years' War. The combatants were the English army of King Henry V (traditionally thought to be highly outnumbered, though this is now disputed, see below), and that of Charles VI of France. The latter was not commanded by the incapacitated king himself, but by the Constable Charles d'Albret and various notable French noblemen of the Armagnac party. The battle is notable for the use of the English longbow, which helped the English compensate for their inferior numbers. The battle was also immortalised (and somewhat fictionalised) by William Shakespeare as the centrepiece of his play Henry V.

This is recent history. You are talking extremely ancient history. One is easier than the other.

Prove apples won't start falling upward tomorrow.

I can't see the future. But I do not suspect that gravity will reverse tomorrow.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The Battle of Agincourt was fought on 25 October 1415, (Saint Crispin's Day), in northern France as part of the Hundred Years' War. The combatants were the English army of King Henry V (traditionally thought to be highly outnumbered, though this is now disputed, see below), and that of Charles VI of France. The latter was not commanded by the incapacitated king himself, but by the Constable Charles d'Albret and various notable French noblemen of the Armagnac party. The battle is notable for the use of the English longbow, which helped the English compensate for their inferior numbers. The battle was also immortalised (and somewhat fictionalised) by William Shakespeare as the centrepiece of his play Henry V.

This is recent history. You are talking extremely ancient history. One is easier than the other.

The point is that for all you or any of us know, Shakespeare may have done more than "somewhat" fictionalize it... he might have made the whole thing up...can you prove otherwise?

I can't see the future. But I do not suspect that gravity will reverse tomorrow.

Can you prove that it won't? Isn't your "suspicion" the same type of unprovable faith that you claim evolution is?

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Perhaps, but I don't have reason to change my suspicion yet.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Perhaps, but I don't have reason to change my suspicion yet.

I'm not asking you to change... just to examine why you're holding a double standard.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

I'm not asking you to change... just to examine why you're holding a double standard.

Point taken. I will try to stick to the facts on this thread. My beliefs have a habit of sneaking into my posts, and that doesn't serve the debate. Sorry about that.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Just want to re-state my position, and clarify my reasons for participating in the debate.

To answer the following questions perhaps:

1) Where did I come from?
2) Why am I here?
3) How should I live?
4) Why is there evil and suffering?
5) Where is history going?
6) What will happen when I die?

The bible provides a world-view and answers concerning the ultimate questions of life. It is not to be adjusted to fit modern theories.

The bible teaches about Creation, Fall, and Redemption. Theistic evolution undermines all three.

a. Creation

a1. Theistic evolution denies the 6 days of creation laid out in Genesis.

a2. It attacks the character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly, and random (no purposefulness).

a3. It undermines the dignity and sanctity of human life, by transforming the creation of humans into an afterthought (or mutation) of the creation process.

b. Fall

b1. According to Romans 12:5 the fall of man caused death. Not only this, but nature itself was also brought down. The ground was cursed, the elements disturbed, and the animal kingdom wounded (Genesis 3:17). The whole creation groans according to the apostle Paul.

b2. Theistic evolution portrays God as using suffering and death to create, even though the Bible calls death ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26). It thereby diminishes our sense of His holiness and goodness.

c. Redemption

c1. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to become 'the last Adam', (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:45–49). The former Adam 'sold' mankind and creation into sin and eternal judgment. The 'last Adam' paid our debt.

c2. Inherent anti-supernaturalism in favour of the view that all humanity is gradually evolving towards a mystical union with God. The final appearance of the Christ will not be a man in the air before whom all must kneel. The final appearance of Christ will be an evolutionary event. This is consistent with the scientific anti-supernaturalistic view. We will evolve into something that will be acceptable to God.

d. Interpretation

d1. Creationists do not deny evidence itself. We all are using the same evidence. Some do not deny natural selection and other 'proven' theories. They deny evolutionary interpretation of evidence. They hold to the view of created kinds as stated clearly in the bible. Their interpretation of evidence is based on these beliefs.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[shernren]

Yup, typical YEC complaints. Now I hope that you will be willing to listen to how we have treated this. I am a former YEC and I struggled with the very same questions when I switched to being a TE. I'm not trying to force you to believe what I do but I hope that you will understand why. Let's take it slow:

a2. It attacks the character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly, and random (no purposefulness).

This is what I call the "sentimental God" view in creationism: the vague idea that "fuzzy & cute" = good and "nature red in tooth and claw" = bad. But when I looked at a particular problem I realized that the issues are not so clear-cut:

Were there carnivores before the Fall?

If YES, then I've proven my point. If God created carnivores in a pre-Fall world logically He intended for it to contain animal death, and He called it "very good". Lions hunting elephants were "very good", sperm whales battling giant squids were "very good", female spiders devouring their male mates after mating were "very good".

Of course the creationist answer has to be NO, because they can't imagine all those being "very good". This however raises immense difficulties:

1. God GLORIFIES HIMSELF through predatory activities.

"Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?"
(Job 38:39-41 NIV)

If predation was not part of God's original plan, then it is the result of sin, and verses like these are basically God saying ... "Look at what sin has done for My ecosystems! Look how I provide for animals who need meat because of sin! Look what a testimony sin is to My glory!" ... can you honestly imagine God saying something like that?

God takes credit for the design and sustenance of predators, and so their killing cannot be the result of sin.

2. The introduction of predation is NOT MENTIONED in the Curse of the Fall.

Thus, isn't saying that "the Fall caused predation" rather like reading something into Scripture that shouldn't be there?

... more will come ...

 

[gluadys]

Just want to re-state my position, and clarify my reasons for participating in the debate.

To answer the following questions perhaps:

1) Where did I come from?
2) Why am I here?
3) How should I live?
4) Why is there evil and suffering?
5) Where is history going?
6) What will happen when I die?

The bible provides a world-view and answers concerning the ultimate questions of life. It is not to be adjusted to fit modern theories.

I think an important point to be noted here is that not one of these is a scientific question. They are all metaphysical questions which science is not equipped to answer.

Yes, the bible does provide a world-view and answers to these questions. And they do not have to be adjusted to fit modern scientific theories.

It is only where the bible touches on scientific questions that we need to ask--do we still understand this as the writers of the scriptures did, or have we moved on to a more accurate understanding of nature?

Since the purpose of the bible is to answer those metaphysical questions, are we really called to doubt the bible if it uses the parameters of 2000-3000 years ago instead of modern science when they do not agree? How does it affect ultimate questions and answers if the bible says a bat is a bird and modern science says a bat is a mammal? Does it make any difference to the biblical answer about why I am here or how I should live?

a1. Theistic evolution denies the 6 days of creation laid out in Genesis.

It does not deny them. It understands them in a different way than literal historical days.

a2. It attacks the character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly, and random (no purposefulness).

I don't know where you get this from. It is not part of the theory of evolution as science presents it.

a3. It undermines the dignity and sanctity of human life, by transforming the creation of humans into an afterthought (or mutation) of the creation process.

Does God not know the end from the beginning? Why would the timing of human evolution imply that it was an afterthought if God planned it from the beginning?

b1. According to Romans 12:5 the fall of man caused death. Not only this, but nature itself was also brought down. The ground was cursed, the elements disturbed, and the animal kingdom wounded (Genesis 3:17). The whole creation groans according to the apostle Paul.

As a TE, I agree with all of this. I don't think anything in scripture teaches that animals did not die prior to the creation of Adam. So the death referred to is that referred to in Genesis 3--the death Adam and Eve brought on themselves when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This has no application to natural plant and animal death.

b2. Theistic evolution portrays God as using suffering and death to create, even though the Bible calls death ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26). It thereby diminishes our sense of His holiness and goodness.

No, suffering and death does not create. This misrepresents the theory of evolution. As for diminishing our sense of God's holiness and goodness, speak for yourself. This may be how you see it, but do not presume that others see it the same way.

c. Redemption

c1. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to become 'the last Adam', (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:45–49). The former Adam 'sold' mankind and creation into sin and eternal judgment. The 'last Adam' paid our debt.

This has no relevance to evolution one way or the other.

c2. Inherent anti-supernaturalism in favour of the view that all humanity is gradually evolving towards a mystical union with God.

The theory of evolution is about biology. Evolution does not imply that humanity or any other species is evolving toward any goal. It says absolutely nothing at all about evolving toward a mystical union with God.

Science has no comments about the mystical or spiritual realm.

It may be perfectly true that we are moving to a mystical union with God, but that is not implied by the theory of evolution, which speaks only of biological change.

The final appearance of the Christ will not be a man in the air before whom all must kneel. The final appearance of Christ will be an evolutionary event. This is consistent with the scientific anti-supernaturalistic view. We will evolve into something that will be acceptable to God.

This is not any part at all of the theory of evolution. This may be somebody's mystical ramblings about evolution, but it is not science.

d. Interpretation

d1. Creationists do not deny evidence itself. We all are using the same evidence. Some do not deny natural selection and other 'proven' theories. They deny evolutionary interpretation of evidence. They hold to the view of created kinds as stated clearly in the bible. Their interpretation of evidence is based on these beliefs.

Understood. But when you test creationist interpretations of evidence against actual observations of nature, they fail. The theory of evolution has not yet failed.


Basically you have verified my thesis that people who reject the theory of evolution are really rejecting a strawman that has very little resemblance to the actual scientific theory of evolution.

Especially in the the section of redemption, you attributed many metaphysical or mystical assertions to evolution which have no connection with evolution at all.

If your concept of evolution includes these assertions, then your concept of evolution is not the same one scientists use.

Basically, your rejection of evolution is not based on anything in the theory of evolution, but on a number of additional premises which you associate with evolution, but which have no place in science at all.

What you have rejected is not evolution, but a number of red herrings designed to divert your attention from the actual theory of evolution.

Its a bit like the mirror image of the evangelist who asks an anti-theist to describe the God they reject. Often the evangelist can say truthfully "I don't believe in that God either. Now let me tell you about the God I do believe in."

The vision of evolution you reject is not the scientific theory of evolution. Perhaps if you were open to learning what science really says about evolution, you would not find it so anti-biblical after all.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

I think an important point to be noted here is that not one of these is a scientific question. They are all metaphysical questions which science is not equipped to answer.

Right.

Yes, the bible does provide a world-view and answers to these questions. And they do not have to be adjusted to fit modern scientific theories.

Right.

It is only where the bible touches on scientific questions that we need to ask--do we still understand this as the writers of the scriptures did, or have we moved on to a more accurate understanding of nature?

Question. Do you think that the Genesis account of creation is inspired by God? "writers of scripture" were people, but I believe in inspiration by God too. Do you?

Since the purpose of the bible is to answer those metaphysical questions, are we really called to doubt the bible if it uses the parameters of 2000-3000 years ago instead of modern science when they do not agree?

My church teaches inspiration of scripture by God. I am sure that I myself can find some verses that cast doubt on this teaching, but I still feel inclined to try to believe it, and understand those verses. Otherwise how will I know which verses are true? The answer is: All the verses are true and inspired. Also some parts of Job make me go hhhmmm.

How does it affect ultimate questions and answers if the bible says a bat is a bird and modern science says a bat is a mammal? Does it make any difference to the biblical answer about why I am here or how I should live?

No. BTW, does the bible say that bats are birds?

It does not deny them. It understands them in a different way than literal historical days.

Which could be interpreted as denial.

a2. It attacks the character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly, and random (no purposefulness).

I don't know where you get this from. It is not part of the theory of evolution as science presents it.

It is obvious to me. Roughly speaking, evolution predicts random mutations producing change in/of species. And death is the medium because survival decides which random mutation will be accepted. You can argue semantics but death, deadly violence, pain are part of this process.

Does God not know the end from the beginning? Why would the timing of human evolution imply that it was an afterthought if God planned it from the beginning?

Yes I believe God is outside of the time/space continuum that He created. So in that sense He knows the end and the beginning.

As for the second part it is because, roughly speaking, evolution is science that predicts random mutations, not design. From a scientific perspective it is impossible to conceive of a plan embedded in there somewhere. The prediction is that humans arrived here by chance mutation and selection.

The theory of evolution is about biology. Evolution does not imply that humanity or any other species is evolving toward any goal. It says absolutely nothing at all about evolving toward a mystical union with God.

...

Science has no comments about the mystical or spiritual realm.

...

It may be perfectly true that we are moving to a mystical union with God, but that is not implied by the theory of evolution, which speaks only of biological change.

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? Then please tell me, what are we evolving into next? How many billions of years will it take to get there? If creation is a mythical account, then it follows that salvation would be carried out using the same mythical evolutionary process. Evolution science does not state this but TE implies it.

Understood. But when you test creationist interpretations of evidence against actual observations of nature, they fail. The theory of evolution has not yet failed.

As a theory evolution serves its scientific purpose. But it is a stretch to say it has not failed. Especially if you are extrapolating observed selection to creation of species we have today. As a theory it doesn't even suggest creation of species. Only small changes. Obviously the biological creatures that God created are complex and capable of adapting at the cellular level. That is obvious from observed evidence or even at a more conceptual level.

Basically you have verified my thesis that people who reject the theory of evolution are really rejecting a strawman that has very little resemblance to the actual scientific theory of evolution.

There I think you did it again. Jumping between evolution and TE. Which is it? I don't see how you can keep jumping between the atheistic theory and the theistic theory. You missed my point again. Evolution is a theory that works in a purely scientific role as a useful tool. Briefly again, my point is that its role is greatly exaggerated when you consider that sin caused death in this world, causing our need for salvation.

Especially in the the section of redemption, you attributed many metaphysical or mystical assertions to evolution which have no connection with evolution at all.

If your concept of evolution includes these assertions, then your concept of evolution is not the same one scientists use.

Perhaps not when your definition of evolution is possibly changing from one paragraph to the next. Language is possibly failing us here. I am talking about TE and trying to understand it. Most scientists use E. TE is different. You cannot equate them. Are you trying to suggest that the evolutionary mutations are not random, but God ordained? Or are you holding to the purely chance mutation view?

Basically, your rejection of evolution is not based on anything in the theory of evolution, but on a number of additional premises which you associate with evolution, but which have no place in science at all.

What you have rejected is not evolution, but a number of red herrings designed to divert your attention from the actual theory of evolution.

Its a bit like the mirror image of the evangelist who asks an anti-theist to describe the God they reject. Often the evangelist can say truthfully "I don't believe in that God either. Now let me tell you about the God I do believe in."

The vision of evolution you reject is not the scientific theory of evolution. Perhaps if you were open to learning what science really says about evolution, you would not find it so anti-biblical after all.

The additional premises that I talked about are the T part of TE. I am not sure, bit I think you are jumping between E and TE alot. I admit that mutations occur and adaptation takes place and all that stuff. What I deny is that it creates any new type of animal or human.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[gluadys]

Question. Do you think that the Genesis account of creation is inspired by God? "writers of scripture" were people, but I believe in inspiration by God too. Do you?

Yes I believe in inspiration.

Now let me ask you a few things about inspiration.

Does inspiration in your view amount to dictation such that the human writers were no more than secretaties, not authors? (This is what Muslims believe about the Qur'an--that nothing of Muhammad is in the Qur'an--he merely received and transmitted what was dictated to him.)

Does inspiration require that the Spirit of God so overwhelm the human spirit of the author that the author writes unconscious of what s/he is writing?

Does inspiration require that everything inspired be fact and nothing be figurative, poetical, dramatic, symbolic, etc?

Does inspiration require that the human authors be made conversant with the state of science thousands of years in the future? If yes, why the science of the 21st century rather than the science of the 11th century or the 31st century?

No. BTW, does the bible say that bats are birds?

Yes, in the dietary laws of Leviticus bats are included among birds that are unclean and not to be eaten. The wording is not vague enough to suggest that it is simply talking about flying things, as there are separate notations on other flying things such as insects.

Which could be interpreted as denial.

And that would be a mistaken interpretation. Human interpretation of human motives is highly susceptible to human fallibility.

It is obvious to me. Roughly speaking, evolution predicts random mutations producing change in/of species. And death is the medium because survival decides which random mutation will be accepted. You can argue semantics but death, deadly violence, pain are part of this process.

The survival of one does not require premature death, much less violence or pain for the other. Please explain to me how a more fit carrot kills, does violence to or causes pain to a less fit carrot.

This notion is a purely creationist notion, which derives more from Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem In Memoriam than from science.

Yes I believe God is outside of the time/space continuum that He created. So in that sense He knows the end and the beginning.

As for the second part it is because, roughly speaking, evolution is science that predicts random mutations, not design. From a scientific perspective it is impossible to conceive of a plan embedded in there somewhere. The prediction is that humans arrived here by chance mutation and selection.

Right. From a scientific perspective one cannot see the embedded plan. But it is plainly visible to God who placed it there.

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? Then please tell me, what are we evolving into next? How many billions of years will it take to get there?

We could only know that if God chooses to reveal it to us. From a scientific perspective, evolution does not have any particular target to move toward. It is opportunistic rather than goal-oriented, and adopts any change that works today without regard for future implications.

If creation is a mythical account, then it follows that salvation would be carried out using the same mythical evolutionary process. Evolution science does not state this but TE implies it.

Creation is not mythical. The biblical accounts of creation are mythical. But creation is real. Evolutionary process is real too. TE does not state or imply that salvation is based on evolution. There is no logical connection between one and the other. Salvation is a matter of saving us from our sins, not from our biological origins.

As a theory evolution serves its scientific purpose. But it is a stretch to say it has not failed. Especially if you are extrapolating observed selection to creation of species we have today. As a theory it doesn't even suggest creation of species. Only small changes. Obviously the biological creatures that God created are complex and capable of adapting at the cellular level. That is obvious from observed evidence or even at a more conceptual level.

To date no evidence calls evolution or common descent into question. The most that can be said is that there are many details we are not sure of yet or have not discovered yet. Creationists like to make much of these "gaps", but the fact is that no matter when or how they are filled, it is unlikely that they will overturn the theory of evolution. In any case theories cannot be built on or overturned by unobserved evidence--only by observed evidence. The theory does suggest origin of species through natural mechanisms Both the mechanisms themselves and the origin of new species have been directly observed and are no longer a matter of theoretical prediction but of verified experience.

There I think you did it again. Jumping between evolution and TE. Which is it?

No, I did not make any jump. I was talking about evolution. But even if I had been talking about TE the comment would still hold. What you are rejecting is not evolution. And it is not TE either.

I don't see how you can keep jumping between the atheistic theory and the theistic theory.

In science there is only one theory. There is no theory of evolution which is atheistic and no theory of evolution that is theistic. There is only a theory of evolution which is scientific.

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory. And it is not a theory of evolution. It is a theological concept, not a scientific concept. It is a theological framework which integrates the science of evolution into a theistic world-view. Just as atheists also integrate evolution into an atheistic world-view. Both world-views use the same theory of evolution. It does not change from one world-view to another.

Christian TE is a Christian perspective on evolution which accepts that evolution is real and the theory of evolution is valid science. It also accepts the basic Christian doctrines about God, Christ, Creation, Sin and Redemption, and Life Everlasting and the role of the scriptures as the inspired revelation of God's plan and will for humanity and all creation.

You missed my point again. Evolution is a theory that works in a purely scientific role as a useful tool. Briefly again, my point is that its role is greatly exaggerated when you consider that sin caused death in this world, causing our need for salvation.

But it is a categorical error to try and make evolution say anything at all about sin or salvation. Science, including evolution, says nothing about these things.

If you think this is what theistic evolution is about, you have an incorrect view of what theistic evolution is.

This continued entanglement of science and theology is much more characteristic of creationists than of theistic evolutionists.

Language is possibly failing us here. I am talking about TE and trying to understand it. Most scientists use E. TE is different. You cannot equate them.

TE is not different in terms of science. Evolution is evolution in both science and TE. TE is not a scienctific idea at all. It proposes no alternative--not even a pseudo-alternative --to the theory of evolution.

TE is a theological approach to evolution and how to understand evolution within a theistic frame of reference.

Since evolution is science and TE is theology, they are quite different indeed. You cannot draw any theological conclusions from evolution. Nor can you draw any scientific conclusions from TE.

Are you trying to suggest that the evolutionary mutations are not random, but God ordained?

That is a possibility, but I don't think we can know one way or the other. We have no way of distinguishing between naturally random mutations and God-ordained mutations.

Also, we cannot conclude that naturally random mutations do not accomplish the will of God.

The additional premises that I talked about are the T part of TE.

No, they are not. Nothing you said under the heading of Redemption is recognizable to me as theistic evolution. The same applies to much you said under other headings.

It appears that your understanding of TE is as deficient as your understanding of evolution. It would seem you have a lot of unlearning to do before you can hear clearly what TEs are really saying. As long as your mind is cluttered up with what you think you know about TE, you cannot understand TE as it really is. You will have to shed a lot of assumptions which you have taken for fact when they are not.