Explaining the fall of man through evolution

[Bushido216]

2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."'

4Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Did Eve literally die? No. But she died spiritually. Metaphor much?

 

[Bushido216]

This is the type of rationale I'm used to seeing from TE's:

It is clear that you do trust man's interpretations of scientific evidence above God's word. That is why you reject a literal interpretation of the Genesis 1 and 2. and therein lies the point of contention.

As opposed to man's interpretation of Scripture?

Unlike Scripture, Micaiah, science isn't open to hermenuetics (I know I butchered that) and proof-texting. There is a wrong and a right and science is self-correcting.

You can't look at the same set of data that S.J. Gould looked at and come to different conclusions and claim that you have as much ground as he did. You don't. There are correct ways to interpret the data and wrong ways. Unlike the Bible, these ways are obvious and mostly beyond debate.

 

[Vance]

Here is an extract from the book of Revelation. This chapter incorporates language that is highly symbolic. It could refer to the persecution of the church, or Mary and Christ.


Those who accept the historicity of Genesis are sometimes wrongly accused of not recognising that there are passages in the Bible that are allegory, or claiming all passages of the Bible should be interpretted literally. I think you will find there are few YEC's who make these claims.

What we do say is that the type of interpretaion that should be adopted is normally abundantly evident from Scripture, and is the one that should be used. "If the plain sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense" is an oldie but a goodie.

If you choose to disregard a literal interpretaion of Genesis 1 and 2, it is easy to accomodate evolution, and an earth that is billions of years old. You then need to decide whether this interpretation was adopted because it was the one plainly intended, or because people want a way of accomodating popular scientific views on origins.

If you ignore what Scripture plainly teaches, then the answer to the questions you posed above become any ones guess. If you accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, there are specific and clear answers to these important questions.

First, I came to the conclusion that Genesis must be non-literal BEFORE I knew much of anything about evolution or an old earth and while I was still holding YEC beliefs. Of course, when I came to this realization, I then wondered whether all that YEC stuff was really true and did the research. Then it was basically "ah, then, my interpretation Genesis was correct."

Second, it is NOT always as clear-cut as you would make it sound. There have been debates over many Scripture on the literalness issue long before there was any scientific pressures to go one way or the other. Song of Solomon and Job are two examples of texts which even the Jewish community has been debating for thousands of years.

Third, even if you DO accept that a literal reading of Genesis makes the most sense from a purely literary standpoint, it definitely no longer "makes good sense", so even by your little test, it should not be followed. The idea of a young earth just simply doesn't work. The earth IS old, there can be no serious doubt about it when the evidence is viewed objectively.

 

[Micaiah]

I have started a thread - Genesis is History - and outlined the internal evidence that clearly indicates the authors of Scripture and indeed Christ understood the events and people of Genesis to be real. I haven't seen any substantial evidence to the contrary.

What I am hearing here is the view that we should reject a literal interpretation of Genesis because it doesn't match current popular interpretations of scientific evidence. I think it is fair to characterise this as the main reason many TE's reject a literal interpretation. Our friends quandry is clear proof of the confusion that creates.

 

[Vance]

You are not hearing that from me, Micaiah. How many times do I have to tell you that I concluded that the non-literal reading for Genesis was the correct one BEFORE I knew anything about the scientific reasons. You continue to conveniently ignore the stuff that doesn't fit your agenda. You want to believe that the only reason people adopt a non-literal view is in order to accomodate evolution and an old earth. You are just plain wrong on this point.

Also, you are forgetting that people in ancient times had no problem at all associating historical events and non-historical events, since they did not view the past the way we do. Jesus, knowing that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal history would still have said EXACTLY what he said. And, whether Paul viewed Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history or not is irrelevant, since the message he was called upon to convey by comparing Genesis 1 "events" to his own time (and our own) is true whether the Genesis part of the comparison is literal or not. So, that whole argument is a non-starter from the beginning.

 

[Bushido216]

I have started a thread - Genesis is History - and outlined the internal evidence that clearly indicates the authors of Scripture and indeed Christ understood the events and people of Genesis to be real. I haven't seen any substantial evidence to the contrary.

What I am hearing here is the view that we should reject a literal interpretation of Genesis because it doesn't match current popular interpretations of scientific evidence. I think it is fair to characterise this as the main reason many TE's reject a literal interpretation. Our friends quandry is clear proof of the confusion that creates.

You like to use words like "plain" "simple" and "clear". Yet your writing only obfuscates the point. This confusion is clear proof of the quandry your beliefs create.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Basically could someone please explain when the fall was? Were we homosapiens or what? When does genesis stop being a metaphor and become literal? How does that effect the inerrancy of scripture? When did we become concious (like Adam and Eve - if they existed) or were neadathals (sp?) concious or are all animals concious?

Good questions, Eluzai. Everyone else is answering the Fall of Man questions, so I'll talk about your Scripture questions. Let me put it this way: the Bible must be interpreted as it was written. You read a novel in the same way that you read the newspaper, but how you interpret the stories in each depends on understanding the type of literature it is you're reading. You wouldn't say that Great Expectations was "errant" or "a pack of lies" unless you thought it was written as history. The same goes for the Bible, which is far from uniform in literary genre. You're right that not all of Genesis is to be intepreted the same, and that's somewhat obvious to someone examining the type of stories being told. Thus the Creation part of Genesis is a lot like Ancient Near Eastern mythology, whereas the stories of the Patriarchs remind us of the Icelandic sagas, collections of family stories that give a group of people a common heritage. Now, neither myth nor saga were meant to give an empirically historical reckoning of the facts, so you can't very well blame them when they don't. Mythology attempts to give the meaning of a situation (such as the creation of the world) even when the historical particulars are unknown; because Genesis is inspired, we know that it accomplishes this, better than the mythologies of other cultures. Sagas are almost always based on historical occurrences and often are made up of true historical events, but the telling of them is often embellished and made for good campfire fare. God chose the stories, and hence we have wonderful typological truths such as the ram in the thicket, foreshadowing Jesus' substitutionary atonement.

Now "inerrancy" means different things to different people. Literalists and those who disagree that the Bible is literature use "inerrant" to mean "perfectly scientifically and historically accurate," but that's because they're expecting practically every story in the Bible to have been written as scientific history. I think the term "inerrant" can only be used to describe how the Bible accomplishes what it was written for. The Genesis Creation accounts were written to dispel and replace the theologically errant mythology in the world at the time - and they do so, brilliantly. The Gospels were written to tell the history of God being made flesh to dwell among us and redeem us, and are composed of lots of different historical accounts strung together, and they accomplish what they were written for. Hence the Bible does not err.

 

[Vance]

Didaskomenos, this is a great explanation for how many of us approach Genesis. Actually, how a LOT of Christians approach Genesis. And a LOT of Jews.

 

[gluadys]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Didaskomenos again.


That is a beautiful explanation. Hits the nail right on the head.

 

[gluadys]

Bump--since the question came up in the Origins Poll thread

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

So asking the question you've heard a thousand times before: If Adam & Eve are literal, evolution is the correct model describing our origins, and the fall occurred about 6-10,000 years ago, then how does murder, rape, greed, death, and more fit into God's scheme of good? Surely if millions of years of evolutionary history taught me that murder is acceptable if it helps me improve my survivability and wipe out the weaker, then it is no sin for me to follow that?

 

[Vance]

Well, first of all, I have no idea when the Fall occurred. But I do know that you would not say an animal "sins" if it kills another animal, even one of its own kind. You would not say that the death of any animal is evil or "bad". What makes an action evil, or sinful, is in the fact that it is contrary to God's commandments, both written in Scripture and "written on our hearts". Thus, it would not have been until God took whatever act He describes in Scripture as "breathing" into Man a soul, or whatever other action He took, or process He allowed to happen, which turned Man into Man that such actions would have become sinful.

At some point, God made Mankind AWARE, either through direct communication or instillation into our soul, the consciousness of good and evil. From that time forward, doing those things you mention became sin. And it seems that as soon as Mankind had this knowledge, this awareness, Mankind chose to sin and thus Fell, since God can not commune with sin.

Now, I am not sure exactly how or when this all happened, but I believe something like this what God did. And the Genesis Creation accounts are a figurative and powerfully poetic method of telling us about the process. While I do not reject the possiblity of their having been a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden, I don't see this as in any way theologically necessary. I think it is most likely that the events which are described are, indeed, literal events, but they are just described non-literally.

 

[gluadys]

Surely if millions of years of evolutionary history taught me that murder is acceptable if it helps me improve my survivability and wipe out the weaker, then it is no sin for me to follow that?

First, this is based on a very incorrect understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection does not require murder or wiping out the weaker.


Secondly, you need to remember that what science does is describe what is observed in nature. Nothing more. It does not say that the way non-human animals behave is the way humans ought to behave. In fact, it doesn't even say the way humans behave is the way they ought to behave.

So even if natural selection was the murderous, genocidal process you think it is, that in no way makes it morally acceptable for humans.

 

[Delta One]

Hello Eluzai,

Since you appear to want a TE view, I'll just respond to the following point:

When does genesis stop being a metaphor and become literal?

Actually, the TE's take the first verse literally, i.e. In the beginning, when God created the universe!

Btw, literally, the fall of man happened 6,000 years ago, a short time (unknown time, probably a few years?) after creation.

What I would do is occassionally point out inconsistencies in the evolutionary belief; Answers in Genesis, ICR and Christian Answers Network are good sources for information on this topic.

God Bless and I hope your friend becomes a Christian, just don't thump them on the head with a Bible!

Delta One.

 

[Delta One]

Hi gluadys,

Natural selection does not require murder or wiping out the weaker.

Natural selection is also known as "survival of the fittest". Survival of the fittest implies death of the weak, or those animals that don't have the characteristics to survive in a certain environment.

Delta One.

 

[shernren]

What I would do is occassionally point out inconsistencies in the evolutionary belief; Answers in Genesis, ICR and Christian Answers Network are good sources for information on this topic.

What about talkorigins.faq?

Natural selection is also known as "survival of the fittest". Survival of the fittest implies death of the weak, or those animals that don't have the characteristics to survive in a certain environment.

Just because natural selection occurs in nature doesn't mean we have to follow it.

God created bees with a society in which there is one fertile queen, some fertile males and many infertile drones. Does that mean our society have to be the same?
God created a flower (the Rafflesia) which emits the odor of rotting meat to attract flies which pollinate it. Does that mean I should spray eau-de-corpse on me when I go out?
God created animals which eat their young. Does that mean my mother should have eaten me?
God created animals which eat their mate after mating. Does that mean my future wife should eat me on my honeymoon night? O_O

The fact is, God created many principles which govern nature which He did not intend at all to govern man. In fact one thing which gives man sapience is the fact that he can to an extent transcend his biology (to, for example, practice abstinence).

 

[shernren]

Anyway. How do we interpret Romans 5 in an evolutionary framework?

 

[Delta One]

Good evening shernren,

What about talkorigins.faq?

I find that Talk Origins has a bad history of intentionally distorting the facts to pursuade people to believe their point of view. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Talk Origins is an evolutionary site; True Origins is the creationary site.

Just because natural selection occurs in nature doesn't mean we have to follow it.

I'm sorry, I think you lost me. We must not be on the same wavelength. I'm not exactly sure what your point is or where you are heading with this line. I was just defining natural selection and I know that it doesn't apply so much as to the Western countries as it does to many developing, or third world, countries. In fact, the overall concern of most humans for others is one of the evidences that I sometimes use for a implication of God's existance.

God created animals which eat their mate after mating. Does that mean my future wife should eat me on my honeymoon night?

That would be something to worry about. I'm glad that I'm single. No, originally in the beginning God made a creation that had no death and no suffering. All the animals ate plants. Humans also ate plants. As a result of the curse that God placed on the creation after Adam and Eve sinned death entered the creation. Death is a direct result of Adam's disobedience towards God.

The fact is, God created many principles which govern nature which He did not intend at all to govern man. In fact one thing which gives man sapience is the fact that he can to an extent transcend his biology.

I would argue that the one thing that gives men (or human beings) wisdom is the fact that all humans are made in the Image of God, we are not some naked ape (but this is another discussion).

God Bless,

Delta One.

 

[artybloke]

Natural selection is also known as "survival of the fittest". Survival of the fittest implies death of the weak, or those animals that don't have the characteristics to survive in a certain environment.

Lie. Natural selection is not about the death of the weak; it is about the ability of species to pass on their genetic characteristics. And "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean survival of the strongest; it means that those creatures which are best adapted to their environment will pass on their genes to the next generation more easily that those that are not as well adapted. A living creature doesn't have to be "strong" to be able to do that; evolution is a function of populations not of individuals.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

First, this is based on a very incorrect understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection does not require murder or wiping out the weaker.

Irrelevant, and wrong about my understanding. I never said that natural selection requires murder or wiping out the weaker. In fact, I fully understand and acknowledge that at times cooperation and aiding others helps natural selection to operate too.

I say this so you know what I know: natural selection is neutral - it is not intelligent. It just happens.

It's all irrelevant to my point. I was stating that these neutral processes - including death and murder, were never seen as wrong by God under a theistic evolutionary view.

Secondly, you need to remember that what science does is describe what is observed in nature. Nothing more. It does not say that the way non-human animals behave is the way humans ought to behave. In fact, it doesn't even say the way humans behave is the way they ought to behave.

I understand that, and it is not relevant. My point is that these things were never condemned by God. And so I shall move on to Vance's post, in reverse order, in which I will give more details on my point:

Well, first of all, I have no idea when the Fall occurred. But I do know that you would not say an animal "sins" if it kills another animal, even one of its own kind. You would not say that the death of any animal is evil or "bad". What makes an action evil, or sinful, is in the fact that it is contrary to God's commandments, both written in Scripture and "written on our hearts". Thus, it would not have been until God took whatever act He describes in Scripture as "breathing" into Man a soul, or whatever other action He took, or process He allowed to happen, which turned Man into Man that such actions would have become sinful.

First of all, I believe animals can do wrong. An example would be disobedience to a human master. Another example would be if one animal enjoyed tormenting another. I, at least, would have no difficulty in describing these animals as having done wrong. Perhaps it is not sin, since there is no eternal spirit and therefore no means of eternal punishment for an animal. Nevertheless, in the flesh they are still able to do wrong.

For my argument to be successful there only needs to be one case in history where one ancestor of humanity killed another ancestor (before the infusion of the spirit into man) such that it increased the first ancestors chances of survival and caused his beneficial genes to spread. Perhaps he had a mutation that made him a little stronger, giving him an edge in combat. It doesn't have to be death - it could be theft, rape, etc.

Assume that the above case is true - once in history, an ancestor shaped our evolution through an action that if committed by a human would be considered a sin by God.

Then God infused a descendant of this ancestor with a spirit, and we have Adam and Eve. God then declares to His chosen vessels that they should not murder, should not rape, should not steal. He lists off a number of things that are considered sinful.

Evolutionists, when describing why humans are as they are, must not only account for our physical capabilities, but also our mental and emotional ones. Our intelligence, our ability to solve problems, all these things must have evolved for evolution to be true. After all, the minds of animals evolved to perform similar functions as the human mind, albeit at an inferior capacity.
We can argue that our spine is shaped in an inferior way because at one stage we evolved from walking on all fours to upright walking. Many examples of inferior "design" are quoted by Darwinists as evidence of our evolved history and signs of imperfection that a Creator would not implement if He designed from scratch.
The same applies to animals - razor sharp claws helped with combat, poisons in spiders helped with survival, etc. Evolutionary explanations for physical things abound.
So then this must too apply to our mind, and our minds way of thinking.

There are two problems:
1. If our mind is shaped from a history of murder, rape, theft, trickery, lies (along with cooperation, and other "positive" qualities), then we should expect our behaviour to be shaped by them. If our mind is shaped and wired by a history involving these neutral events, then God should not have blamed us when we followed those instructions ingrained in us from millions of years of selection and shaping. Just like a tiger naturally knows how to use its claws to maim and kill, so do humans naturally use their mind for the things they have been selected to do for over millions of years
2. God, in claiming now some things as sinful, and others as not, seems to be acting arbitrarily. These things were not originally sinful, so they cannot be claimed to be absolute morals. How can God in one age embrace something as a tool, and in another age condemn it as a most vile action? Murder isn't just wrong because God says it is so. Rather, God has told us it is a sin.

For example, if God says "Do not go for walks on the beach", and you do, then your sin is disobedience. That was Adam & Eve's sin. Whereas, when God says "Do not murder", He is declaring what is eternally and absolutely sinful. Even if God had not commanded "do not murder", we would still be sinning if we murdered. Cain, knowing good from evil, sinned when he murdered his brother - even without being told by God beforehand "do not murder".