Evolution's Debt to Christianity

[zoidar]

If God had brought the universe into being through evolution, He would have plainly said so. God does not say one thing and mean another. If you are saying that Paul didn't know everything, you are saying that what he wrote was not inspired by the Holy Spirit (who actually does know everything!). If Paul said that all Scripture is inspired of God, then it is literally true.

The Bible doesn't say to be inspired by God means literally true. Of course we have testimonies by apostles, but even they have variations depending author. Like one thief coming to Christ at the cross, and in the other testimony he mocked him. Of course both testimonies are inspired by God, but they are also written by people, through their understanding.

If professing Christians say that they believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but do not believe Genesis 1 literally, that shows that God did not create the universe through evolution, then they are mistaken or lying, because we can't say that the Bible is God-inspired, and then decide not to believe parts of it that don't comply with our understanding.

Again you mean being inspired by God means literally true...

God says what He means and means what He says. Jesus, in speaking about the mansions waiting in heaven for believers, He said, "If it were not so, I would have told you." There can be only one interpretation when God speaks directly, and that is what He literally says. If He says that He created the universe in one out of six days, then that is what He did. If it were otherwise, He would have said so.

Sure, if His purpose with the story is for us to know these exact details. Maybe He just want us to understand the wider meaning? Like God created Earth perfect, mankind being deceived by Satan and there was a fall of man, and now we need redemtion.

Those who cannot just have faith in what God has said, play the "another interpretation" card to try and shrink God down to their limited mortal understanding. My attitude is that if God said it, I believe it, so it is a straight-out case and there it is!

Sure, you are welcome to take it all literally, many do.

Even professing Christians can in their own way just repeat what the devil said to Eve: "Has God said?" or "Did He mean literally that you would actually die if you ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Not necessarily. You will becomes gods instead!" That's what the devil meant when he asked Eve the question. But God's words came true 800 years later when both Adam and Eve were dead. So they did die after all. God is never wrong in what He says. It is just that some don't want to believe it somethings because they like to be their own gods and have things their own way.

If it is a literal story or not, isn't it the message that is important? That man became a sinner through listening to Satan and now we need to be saved by Christ.

 

[RTP76]

If it is a literal story or not, isn't it the message that is important? That man became a sinner through listening to Satan and now we need to be saved by Christ.

Hi zoidar! I agree that there is a message in Genesis, but does the message have any meaning if it's not rooted in truth? If God's message conveys that He created the universe in 6 days, that this is the framework for the 4th commandment, and that Jesus and all OT and NT authors that make any mention of people/events from Genesis, do so as if they were in fact literal history, then what exactly is the message if not what is written? If the message is not what is written then we are each free to make the message what we personally prefer or want it to be (as is evident by some), and therefore the message is meaningless. Extensive hermeneutical analysis has been done on Genesis and there is no indication this follows the poetic prose as found the Psalms - rather, it follows traditional Hebraic narrative form.

Numbers 12:6-8 indicates that God spoke with Moses differently than a prophet would receive an inspired message:

"And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

All of this seems to run contrary to the idea that we should take liberty in making Genesis to be a tertiary text of oddly specific references to events, people, names, lineages, ages, etc... and the grand purpose is to merely convey a vague message that man is sinful and in need of a savior. Just my opinion, but it would seem God, who spoke directly and clearly to Moses, could have conveyed our sinful state by skipping all of this and just going straight to His commandments as His standard for righteousness. He; however, did not so it seems that there is relevance and meaning to understanding the truth of our origins, and the version of the truth God ordained is the one He clearly gave (not the one man, who was not there, has made up and keeps modifying as time goes on).

 

[zoidar]

Hi zoidar! I agree that there is a message in Genesis, but does the message have any meaning if it's not rooted in truth? If God's message conveys that He created the universe in 6 days, that this is the framework for the 4th commandment, and that Jesus and all OT and NT authors that make any mention of people/events from Genesis, do so as if they were in fact literal history, then what exactly is the message if not what is writte?n If the message is not what is written then we are each free to make the message what we personally prefer or want it to be (as is evident by some), and therefore the message is meaningless. Extensive hermeneutical analysis has been done on Genesis and there is no indication this follows the poetic prose as found the Psalms - rather, it follows traditional Hebraic narrative form.

Numbers 12:6-8 indicates that God spoke with Moses differently than a prophet would receive an inspired message:

"And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

All of this seems to run contrary to the idea that we should take liberty in making Genesis to be a tertiary text of oddly specific references to events, people, names, lineages, ages, etc... and the grand purpose is to merely convey a vague message that man is sinful and in need of a savior. Just my opinion, but it would seem God, who spoke directly and clearly to Moses, could have conveyed our sinful state by skipping all of this and just going straight to His commandments as His standard for righteousness. He; however, did not so it seems that there is relevance and meaning to understanding the truth of our origins, and the version of the truth God ordained is the one He clearly gave (not the one man, who was not there, has made up and keeps modifying as time goes on).

We don't know that Moses wrote Genesis. The message would be that we fell in sin and need a saviour. The character of the devil, the character of God, His purpose with creation etc. I believe the full revelation of scripture is through Christ. I believe the OT prophets had a shadow of the truth, just like the sacrifice of animals was a shadow of the true sacrifice of God's Son.

I agree that God resting is connected with the sabbath in the 4th command, that's a good point. The apostles seem to have taken it literally, but that doesn't mean they were right. Jesus himself seems to say that the story of Jonah is a true story. I won't argue with Jesus.

The good thing is that this is not a matter of salvation. We are saved by Jesus not by if we take Genesis literally or not.

 

[GenemZ]

The unfit did not go extinct... as picture with the triceratops bones. The prehistoric creation was wiped out by God judging the prehistoric earth in utter judgement. Not because the creatures were unfit. No creature could survive an atomic blast, and, nor could any of the prehistoric creatures survive Divine judgment.

Jeremiah presented a prophetic threat to the rebellious and evil generation in his day. Jeremiah chose the same Hebrews words as found in Genesis 1:2.

The Hebrew words tohu wa bohu refers to a topsy-turvy chaos.One in utter ruin.. while having an eerie sense of emptiness hovering like we see in old horror movies depicting an abandoned haunted house on a dark and dreary night.

Genesis 1:2 was not about the earth's creation. Its about the state of the earth it was found in as the narrative begins. For, the earth had faced a terrible judgment. Destroyed because of the prehistoric angelic rebellion. Angels who had dominion over that creation..

So? Jeremiah to strike fear in the rebellious Jews, gave them a taste of what was to come from God's judgement. Jeremiah used the same Hebrew words they understood from Genesis 1:2.

Jeremiah portrayed how the previous creation was utterly destroyed.

In order to show God's grace, Jeremiah had to make it clear that in their case it would not be as severe. Unlike Genesis 1:2, that they would not be utterly destroyed!

For the Jews knew what Genesis 1:2 in the Hebrew spoke of. It spoke of an utter destruction of the previous world that used to cover the surface of the earth...

Here are Jeremiah's words...

Jeremiah 4:23-27

23 I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty; (Gen 1:2!)
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

27 This is what the Lord says:

“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely."


Note in the last verse.

Jeremiah had to make it clear to the people that in their case these rebellious Jews, unlike what happened in Genesis 1:2, this time they will not be utterly destroyed! For Jeremiah was describing the utter destruction indicated in Genesis 1:2! Nothing alive survived.

It makes sense once (and, if) you take the time to ask the right questions.

grace and peace...

 

[Brightmoon]

The non Avian dinosaurs weren’t unfit they were just wiped out by a bolide and volcanos spewing huge amounts of lava . This changed the climate so fast that large dinosaurs couldn’t cope.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Right Oscarr. So we either take God's word on it, from God, who was there. Or take the shifting sands of opinion from Scientists where weren't there, who are biased and whose opinions seem to change like shifting sands.

One hundred years from now if the Lord tarries Genesis 1 will be Genesis 1 still, the 'scientific' account of origins will have changed beyond all recognition.

Scientists don't have to be there to know what existed hundreds of millions of years ago, you know. What was there has been studied thousands of times by scientists who have absolutely no bias of any kind.

Genesis 1 is NOT a scientific account of what happened, obviously. It does not say anything about geology, meteorology, chemistry, ecology, paleontology, or botany and tells very little about zoology.

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

Creation was a straight miracle that can't be explained by science. Evolution is a process given by those who refuse to believe in the existence of God, and that He is powerful enough to create a whole universe out of nothing in six days.

Evolution as a process does not contradict creation. Within a creation format, evolution can take place, whether it be by selective adaptation or random genetic drift. Mammals that live in warm tropical climes for example tend to develop more elongated limbs, compared to those that live in colder climes which tend to have shorter type extremities, with different variations and combinations in between here and there. This is seen in humans by the way- many skeletons of ancient Egypt for example have an elongated pattern indicating that the initial peopling came from a tropical environment, not a cold one. This is not "a trick of the atheists" but simple adjustments to life on a created planet earth.

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

How is that the simple answer? The simplest answer to me seems to be ongoing continuous creation rather than a once-and-for-all style miracle, and that fits perfectly with evolution. I'm not an Intelligent Design theorist, but things like the origin of mitochondria (bacterium eats bacterium, and both survive) intrigue me all the same--only an atheist has to write off divine providence for an evolutionary event as strange as that one.

Yes, continuous creation could be one approach, but the notion of the Big Bang theory- the sudden instance of creation some 4 billion years ago, has significant scientific data to back it up, and also fits well with evolutionary processes. Once the framework of the material universe was formed by the Creator, then WITHIN that framework, evolution can take place quite comfortably. And as a process it does not limit the Creator's sovereign action within that creation.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, continuous creation could be one approach, but the notion of the Big Bang theory- the sudden instance of creation some 4 billion years ago, has significant scientific data to back it up, and also fits well with evolutionary processes. Once the framework of the material universe was formed by the Creator, then WITHIN that framework, evolution can take place quite comfortably. And as a process it does not limit the Creator's sovereign action within that creation.

There's no conflict between continuous creation and the Big Bang theory. The former is just the rejection of a sort of deistic picture in which God starts the ball rolling, and then effectively steps back. I would view things like stable laws of physics and the possibility of evolutionary processes themselves as instances of continuous creation--I don't think any of this stuff would be happening at all if God were not maintaining it in existence, which is why I find the hostility towards evolution a bit absurd.

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

There's no conflict between continuous creation and the Big Bang theory. The former is just the rejection of a sort of deistic picture in which God starts the ball rolling, and then effectively steps back. I would view things like stable laws of physics and the possibility of evolutionary processes themselves as instances of continuous creation--I don't think any of this stuff would be happening at all if God were not maintaining it in existence, which is why I find the hostility towards evolution a bit absurd.

On one level there is conflict and in some comparison between the two, the Big Bang seems to have the weight of data in its favor.

BIG BANG TO STEADY STATE APPROACHES COMPARED.
Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)
Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)

And under various Big Bang approaches God does not step back but continues to act within His creation. Hence various Old Earth approaches see God as still shaping and designing within the initial framework- though not bound by it. Thus if God wants to suspend the laws of gravity to do something, He could do so with total power and absolute right, since He himself created those laws to fit a particular material universe, and is not bound by them. But hey, that's a whole other thread and a whole lot of books.

But on another level, I would agree with what you say that evolutionary processes and the laws of physics themselves are a part of creation, and is being maintained by the Creator. I too find some knee jerk opposition to evolution out there unnecessary at times. Evolution is just a technical process that needs a bigger, pre-existing framework to function. Some of course see evolution as the agent of creation itself- hence no need for a creator, evolution explains all. But that's 40,000 other threads of debate.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Evolution as a process does not contradict creation. Within a creation format, evolution can take place, whether it be by selective adaptation or random genetic drift. Mammals that live in warm tropical climes for example tend to develop more elongated limbs, compared to those that live in colder climes which tend to have shorter type extremities, with different variations and combinations in between here and there. This is seen in humans by the way- many skeletons of ancient Egypt for example have an elongated pattern indicating that the initial peopling came from a tropical environment, not a cold one. This is not "a trick of the atheists" but simple adjustments to life on a created planet earth.

It is a contradiction to the way creation is described in Genesis 1, in that God, through His almighty power, created the whole universe in an instant of time just by saying "Let it be". To say that the universe gradually evolved or created adds to what is stated in Genesis 1, and so it is the same as saying, "I don't believe Genesis 1. God didn't create the universe instantly."

So one either believes the Bible or not. If you don't want to believe what the Bible says, that is your choice. I have said everything I am going to say about it.

 

[Silmarien]

On one level there is conflict and in some comparison between the two, the Big Bang seems to have the weight of data in its favor.

BIG BANG TO STEADY STATE APPROACHES COMPARED.
Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)
Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)

I was never talking about the Steady State model in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, that model is dead. I meant "continuous creation" in a purely theological sense--constant divine activity to maintain Creation in existence is really the only thing that makes sense to me. That is a form of continuous creation.

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

I was never talking about the Steady State model in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, that model is dead. I meant "continuous creation" in a purely theological sense--constant divine activity to maintain Creation in existence is really the only thing that makes sense to me. That is a form of continuous creation.

Fair enough. I would agree with the notion of a Creator providing constant maintenance to the creation. Or intervention as said Creator sees fit. I think evolutionary processes could work well in either approach.

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

It is a contradiction to the way creation is described in Genesis 1, in that God, through His almighty power, created the whole universe in an instant of time just by saying "Let it be". To say that the universe gradually evolved or created adds to what is stated in Genesis 1, and so it is the same as saying, "I don't believe Genesis 1. God didn't create the universe instantly."

So one either believes the Bible or not. If you don't want to believe what the Bible says, that is your choice. I have said everything I am going to say about it.

Ok but I never said "evolution" is responsible for creation or that the universe "evolved" gradually. I said there was a creation, and then WITHIN that creation, certain evolutionary processes can take place. The Creation comes FIRST- evolution after, is just a technical detail. Thus mammals on cold climates tend to develop thicker fur and shorter limb ratios, than mammals in hotter climates. This development can be by selection, or by random chance such as when a hurricane or volcanic eruption wipes out a portion of a population leaving behind survivors with certain traits more numerous, or by random genetic mutations that take hold by chance, etc. etc.

This does not at all deny Creation, nor does the fact of such changes mean a Creator is bound by them or relies on the technical details. A Creator can use evolution, or direct intervention NON evolution to do something. He is not bound by any physical rule or process either way- its His call, as Creator.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Ok but I never said "evolution" is responsible for creation or that the universe "evolved" gradually. I said there was a creation, and then WITHIN that creation, certain evolutionary processes can take place. The Creation comes FIRST- evolution after, is just a technical detail. Thus mammals on cold climates tend to develop thicker fur and shorter limb ratios, than mammals in hotter climates. This development can be by selection, or by random chance such as when a hurricane or volcanic eruption wipes out a portion of a population leaving behind survivors with certain traits more numerous, or by random genetic mutations that take hold by chance, etc. etc.

This does not at all deny Creation, nor does the fact of such changes mean a Creator is bound by them or relies on the technical details. A Creator can use evolution, or direct intervention NON evolution to do something. He is not bound by any physical rule or process either way- its His call, as Creator.

But, and you seem not to get my point, God did not use progressive creation or evolution at all, according to the Bible record. He created the whole thing as we know it now, in an instant of time. One moment there was nothing, the next was a whole, fully created universe.

If your god used progressive creation or evolution to create the universe, then he is not the God of the Bible.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

If your god used progressive creation or evolution to create the universe, then he is not the God of the Bible.

That is your interpretation of the Bible. Majority of the people disagree including the Catholic Church.

Some numbers of different religions accepting evolution is found here.

Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

TLDR version.

"Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth"

Most accepting of evolution Buddhists and Hindus at around 80%
Least accepting (by far) Jehowah`s Witnesses at 8%
US population hangs at around 50% accepting this.

This survey was from around 2007 so not exactly recent data, but gives an estimation at least.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That is your interpretation of the Bible. Majority of the people disagree including the Catholic Church.

Some numbers of different religions accepting evolution is found here.

Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

TLDR version.

"Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth"

Most accepting of evolution Buddhists and Hindus at around 80%
Least accepting (by far) Jehowah`s Witnesses at 8%
US population hangs at around 50% accepting this.

This survey was from around 2007 so not exactly recent data, but gives an estimation at least.

My position is that I just believe what the Bible actually says, and this is what it says:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Anything else other than what these verses literally say, is human opinion how it might have happened. But the literal rendering is that God took no more than one 24 hour day to create the whole universe and to light it up. That means, that before God said, "Let there be light", the stars and the sun were dark, and they lit up as soon as God said it.

Progressive creation and evolution are just mere speculations dreamed up by scientists who don't believe the literal words of the Bible. They can't accept that an all-powerful God can just speak a whole universe into being in an instant out of nothing just by telling to to exist.

This is not "my interpretation". This is just reading what the Bible actually says and no more. Any interpretation is just an add-on made up by people who want some alternative explanation.

One either believes the Bible or they don't.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

My position is that I just believe what the Bible actually says

Which is fine. Other people have different positions.

While I admire the fortitude of the people who say they understand the Bible better than the Pope does I would allow for some degree of hubris in this thinking.