How do you balance evolution and creation?

[RobinRedbreast]

I balance evolution and creation in the way that I understand that the theory of evolution is currently the most accurate model of the development of life on Earth, while the creation story in the Bible isn't meant to be a scientific paper, but just a story. Of course it may convey some truths in a metaphorical way, like many stories do, but it's not a historical account or a scientific paper.

Well put, I don't even have to say anything other than what has already been said.

 

[Markus6]

Or do you at all?

I'm studying to be a marine biologist....or...to do something in that field anyway. Well I took a class titled "Natural history of Vertebrates", which was essentially an evolutionary biology class with a focus on marine life. And I have to tell you all. I really think I believe that evolution is true. I believe that dinosaurs probably turned into birds, and that all life probably has a common ancestor somewhere, and that we are a more derived version of some now extinct something or another.

However, right now, as I type this, I'm watching Planet Earth on dvd. And literally right now, is a part about grizzly bears who ascend to the barren, rocky parts of the Rockies. The bears are digging, turning over rocks, searching for something. They are searching for moths that are under the rocks. These moths are rich in fat, and help provide fat for the bears for coming hibernation. There is also a section that talks about distant rainfalls on a mountain in Africa spreading miles and miles away, turning some lowlands into flooded wetlands, allowing numerous species much needed water. And how when a whale dies and finally descends to the bottom of the ocean, it provides a feast for numerous species down in the abyss as well, some of which are only found on the skeletons of dead whales.

I see all this, and the one thing I've begun to take away as I rewatch this series, is simply this:

God Provides.

To me, its so incredible to see God at work in all of creation. Him watching over the bears and wolves and crocodiles and sharks and even mosquitos.

But my attempts to reconcile my differing views on life have run me aground. I've read christian authors present untruths about the theory of evolution, and talk about it as if evolution claims to have answers to everything, which science most certainly doesnt.

Has anyone else run into trouble with this as well?

And this is NOT AT ALL meant to be a debate between the two, so I would sincerely ask that no debate happen here. I am open to views from everyone, but I'm really just kinda looking for advice and for others thoughts.

I havent been here in forever either, and it's good to be back.

I became an evolutionist pretty unconciously. I'm really not sure it happened. Looking back I had been reading Christian books that had an antio-evolution bias and I dropped biology at school before I was taught the theory. However, when I discovered the debate online I instantly dropped into the evolutionist side.

The first thing I'd say is that the theistic evolutionist perspective can give you an appreciation of how God can work through natural processes as well as supernatural ones. I suspect everyone here will agree that God "formed us in our Mother's womb" and we are individual creations of God, but also that our formation can be completely discribed in scientific terms. We accept in this case that God has worked through natural processes to implement his plans and it's in a similar sense that I look at evolution.

On Genesis I don't think a strict historical, chronological narrative fits the text. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 provide seperate accounts that contradict each other in the order of creation (unless patched up with some selective translating) which tells me that the order is not the important point here. I would recommend reading about the framework interpretation which is, at least, an interesting observation on the structure of Genesis 1 and, possibly, a justification for abandoning the historical, chronological view.

I commend you on your open mindness but, as you've already noticed, Christianity has a huge anti-evolution bias in America. Accepting evolution is quite a lonely position. Please don't listen to those who shout that Christianity and evolution are incompatible, search for the truth. You could read Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" or Francis Collin's "The Language of God" (which I haven't read yet), I'm not sure I agree with everything they say but it's refreshing to read a cogent view of evolution from a Christian perspective.

I'd also suggest you make your way over to the Origins Theology area of this site or the Theistic Evolution subforum. There are a lot of very smart, friendly Christians there who believe in evolution and have answered a lot of questions I've had.

God certainly does provide, and He certainly knew what He was doing when He created everything and arranged it to be in the times and places where they are found.

How this happened, I do not know. I will say that Christians who believe in evolution have not satisfactorily explained how sin and death fit into the picture. We know they both exist, and that death for people is a consequence of sin and nothing else. We know that God made everything good, and the planet came under a curse when Adam and Eve disobeyed. And we of course know that the solution to that is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We know that this happened.

To give my tuppence:
Genesis does not say that there was no death before the fall anywhere. It does say:

16The LORD God (Q)commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it (R)you will surely die."

Which is a difficult verse because we know they did not physically die the day they ate the fruit. Therefore generally the theistic evolutionist view is that the death refered to here (and hence by Paul) is spiritual death not physical. I view the whole forbidden fruit episode as imagery based on the portrayal of the snake (who is obviously not actually a snake).

Here are 2 sets of Youtube videos that may help you with this:

"Everything is spiritual part 1-5" by Rob bell

"Case for a creator" by Lee strobel

I've seen a DVD of 'Everything is Spiritual'. It may have different content than what you saw but it fit quite nicely with evolutionist beliefs (he calls Genesis 1 a poem and talks about the framework interpretation). I haven't been able to work out what his beliefs are but I've got a feeling he's trying not to alienate evolutionists or creationists.

I've read the 'Case for a Creator'. There's definitely some good scientific stuff. His position his 'Intelligent Design' and uses Michael Behe's 'Intelligent Design'. I don't agree with him on evolution but it's definitely worth reading the arguments there.

I dont understand how one says that only part of the bible is correct, The bible is either all real or not choose one?
-did you know that Darwin became a christian and renounced his whole theory before he died.

Please check out the video's you'll like them.

At the risk of debating I wanted to point out that Answer In Genesis (a young earth creation group) recommend that creationist do not say that Darwin renounced his theory:

“Darwin recanted on his deathbed.”

Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if it were true, so what? If Ken Ham renounced the Bible, would that disprove it? See Did Darwin recant? and Did Darwin Renounce Evolution on His Deathbed?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

It's also worth pointing out that we don't say that Genesis is incorrect or that God is lieing or anything. Theistic evolutionist believe Genesis. We just interpret differently.

 

[Dr. Thanatos]

Why do we even feel the need to "balance" evolution and creation?

Science and religion are two very different things, and we should be careful about blending them together. If you want to know the strength of an electromagnetic field, would you consult the bible? Or ask your pastor/priest? Probably not....you would ask a physicist. Alternatively, if you wanted to ask about the meaning of life, or the difference between right and wrong, or why we were put on this earth...a scientist cannot help you, only religion can provide the guidance you need.

My background is in biochemistry and I'm currently in medical school, I feel like science has come a long way in just the past 100 years. But by definition, science cannot and never will explain many of the questions we have regarding morals, meaning, etc....in Galileo's time they church tried to interpret the bible literally and believed that the earth was the center of the universe. We now know that is far from the truth (thanks to Galileo), but for his findings he was threatened with torture. This is what happens when you take a theological text and try to apply it as science. The church was wrong and had to apologize.

So where does this leave us? We are just human after all...searching for answers to complicated questions. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming....but what does that even have to do with my belief in God? Maybe what he does or how he does it is not for us to know or understand....that's why he is God (and we are not). I don't know nor claim to know how God went about creating the earth....however I feel quite strongly that we cannot take Genesis literally or we would be committing the same mistake as the early church in Galileo's time, trying to mold science by using a religious text. I believe in God, I believe that evolution is legit.

There is no need to balance evolution and creation because they are not in conflict with each other.

 

[Trashionista]

I don't.

I think the Creation is a great story and has some great moral lessons. But that's what it is - a story.

Evolution has it's holes, but given the amount of evidence, that seems far more like the logical conclusion than that of two people populating an entire planet.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

What are the moral lessons? There is no way that the writers of those books were trying to metaphorically convey evolution. There are MUCH better ways of doing this, and I'd like to see some ancient Jewish interpretations of Genesis to support it.
I can't balance it, and it's really screwing with my head. If it's true, then the atheists must be right and existence is nothing but a sick joke and we would need a meteor or something to end this foolish delusion known as life.

 

[larry_boy_44]

What are the moral lessons? There is no way that the writers of those books were trying to metaphorically convey evolution. There are MUCH better ways of doing this, and I'd like to see some ancient Jewish interpretations of Genesis to support it.
I can't balance it, and it's really screwing with my head. If it's true, then the atheists must be right and existence is nothing but a sick joke and we would need a meteor or something to end this foolish delusion known as life.

put yourself in God's shoes...

and assume evolution is how the world got here...

Now... how exactly do you explain that to people who lived 4000 years ago?? An advance in science = the world travelled on teh back of a turtle at that point in history...

I mean, really, did you want a dissertation on DNA and natural selection? Give me a break... There is no way God could have explained evolution to them...

Now, is that what Genesis is (God's explanation since the actual one wouldn't make sense to those people)?? I don't know... but it does kind of fit...

The thing I have always wanted to know... is what exactly was the light during the first 3 days... How is there light without the sun? See, the people of that day didn't know that light comes from the sun, but we do now... Also, I always wondered why it seems to say the moon produces light when it doesn't do any such thing...

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Lies. He can explain whatever he wants as simply as he wants. It may have led to some weird reverence of ancestors, but it could've been explained. In Revelation, it says there will be no night, why is that? Where was God when he created the earth according to Genesis?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Lies. He can explain whatever he wants as simply as he wants. It may have led to some weird reverence of ancestors, but it could've been explained. In Revelation, it says there will be no night, why is that? Where was God when he created the earth according to Genesis?

what are lies?

That light only comes from the sun (and stars & lightbulbs; well essentially fire)? That the moon creates no light (thus saying there are 2 lights, one ruling the day one ruling the night, is incorrect)??

Plus, you can't say the light was God because there was still evening and morning the first couple days (if I remember correctly)... That isn't possible without the sun & moon...

 

[Frieden]

I used to believe in Theistic Evolution. I now believe what the Bible says is true. All of it. Who are we to pick and choose what to take as literal and what can be twisted around? I will conceed that micro-evolution is true - we see it every day. Macro is a different story.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I will conceed that micro-evolution is true - we see it every day. Macro is a different story.

Macro evolution is really just micro evolution in a longer time scale, so ok with one, not ok with another is a bit odd. Check out the history of how the modern horse exists for one.

 

[ryanb6]

The thing I have always wanted to know... is what exactly was the light during the first 3 days... How is there light without the sun? See, the people of that day didn't know that light comes from the sun, but we do now... Also, I always wondered why it seems to say the moon produces light when it doesn't do any such thing...

back this up with scripture

This is what scripture actually says. Let's stick to that.

35Thus says the LORD,
Who (CI)gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who (CJ)stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
(CK)The LORD of hosts is His name:
Jeremiah 31:35

 

[speakout]

Or do you at all?

I'm studying to be a marine biologist....or...to do something in that field anyway. Well I took a class titled "Natural history of Vertebrates", which was essentially an evolutionary biology class with a focus on marine life. And I have to tell you all. I really think I believe that evolution is true. I believe that dinosaurs probably turned into birds, and that all life probably has a common ancestor somewhere, and that we are a more derived version of some now extinct something or another.

However, right now, as I type this, I'm watching Planet Earth on dvd. And literally right now, is a part about grizzly bears who ascend to the barren, rocky parts of the Rockies. The bears are digging, turning over rocks, searching for something. They are searching for moths that are under the rocks. These moths are rich in fat, and help provide fat for the bears for coming hibernation. There is also a section that talks about distant rainfalls on a mountain in Africa spreading miles and miles away, turning some lowlands into flooded wetlands, allowing numerous species much needed water. And how when a whale dies and finally descends to the bottom of the ocean, it provides a feast for numerous species down in the abyss as well, some of which are only found on the skeletons of dead whales.

I see all this, and the one thing I've begun to take away as I rewatch this series, is simply this:

God Provides.

To me, its so incredible to see God at work in all of creation. Him watching over the bears and wolves and crocodiles and sharks and even mosquitos.

But my attempts to reconcile my differing views on life have run me aground. I've read christian authors present untruths about the theory of evolution, and talk about it as if evolution claims to have answers to everything, which science most certainly doesnt.

Has anyone else run into trouble with this as well?

And this is NOT AT ALL meant to be a debate between the two, so I would sincerely ask that no debate happen here. I am open to views from everyone, but I'm really just kinda looking for advice and for others thoughts.

I havent been here in forever either, and it's good to be back.

I have just finishe the seies Evolution is a lie on my Blog httP://dawkinswatch.wordpress.com.

Please be very careful about what is presented by Evolutionists as proof.

I invite you to look at the work of people like Kent Hovind and why Richard Dawkins refused to debate him.

Well the theory of evolution is a theory. It is not a law of science simply because it has not been tested.

 

[speakout]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AfVyW1tT4qY&feature=related

If the first three chapters of the Bible did not happen the story falls apart.

God is also a liar.

 

[*Starlight*]

Well the theory of evolution is a theory. It is not a law of science simply because it has not been tested.

Gravity is a theory too. Hint: The word "theory" in science doesn't mean what you think it does. And evolution has been observed and tested. For example, when a population of bacteria becomes immune to some medicine. So it seems your argument is disproved... was it your main argument against evolution?

 

[speakout]

Gravity is a theory too. Hint: The word "theory" in science doesn't mean what you think it does. And evolution has been observed and tested. For example, when a population of bacteria becomes immune to some medicine. So it seems your argument is disproved... was it your main argument against evolution?

Gravity is a law, it always applies. Once a theory has been proven it becomes a law.

 

[larry_boy_44]

back this up with scripture

This is what scripture actually says. Let's stick to that.

35Thus says the LORD,
Who (CI)gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who (CJ)stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
(CK)The LORD of hosts is His name:
Jeremiah 31:35

seriously??? You need me to provide scripture with the fact that Genesis 1 says that on day 1 God created light, then 3 days passed (mornings and evenings) and THEN God created the Sun, Moon, and stars (and, again, no mention of the fact that the Sun IS a star)

ok.

Genesis 1:3-5 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Now, God created light, and seemingly the earth was rotating around the sun, here. The only problem with this is that God creates the sun on day 4. Don't believe me, let's look ahead a bit:

Genesis 1:14-19 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So day 4 God creates the thing that produces light for the earth (and feeds the plants created on day 3), plus the things that mark night and day (without the sun/moon we wouldn't know what day it was, we wouldn't know how many rotations of the earth had happened). So how'd day 1-3 even happen? And, for that matter, what exactly was marking night and day for 3 days and feeding the plants?

Also, why is the moon called a "lesser light" when it isn't a light at all?

 

[larry_boy_44]

If the first three chapters of the Bible did not happen the story falls apart.

God is also a liar.

no, it doesn't... and, no, He isn't...

Besides which, God doens't have to tell us everything/anything really... There's tons of stuff God knows about and has the answer to that He has never (and probably will never) share with us...

 

[Markus6]

Gravity is a law, it always applies. Once a theory has been proven it becomes a law.

How was gravity proven? Are you saying that Newton's Laws are not actually laws?

 

[ryanb6]

seriously??? You need me to provide scripture with the fact that Genesis 1 says that on day 1 God created light, then 3 days passed (mornings and evenings) and THEN God created the Sun, Moon, and stars (and, again, no mention of the fact that the Sun IS a star)

ok.

Genesis 1:3-5 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Now, God created light, and seemingly the earth was rotating around the sun, here. The only problem with this is that God creates the sun on day 4. Don't believe me, let's look ahead a bit:

Genesis 1:14-19 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So day 4 God creates the thing that produces light for the earth (and feeds the plants created on day 3), plus the things that mark night and day (without the sun/moon we wouldn't know what day it was, we wouldn't know how many rotations of the earth had happened). So how'd day 1-3 even happen? And, for that matter, what exactly was marking night and day for 3 days and feeding the plants?

Also, why is the moon called a "lesser light" when it isn't a light at all?

Thanks for your effort. I should have clarified, but I thought my verse that pertained to only a specific point of yours would be sufficient.

Anyway you have to take scripture as a whole and not just pull out from any place you want. Read the verse I posted again for your questions about the moon.

 

[Markus6]

I was going to respond but I fear this could turn into a debate against the OP's wishes. Could we start a new thread to debate this somewhere else and leave this thread for sharing individually how we balance evolution and creation?