How do you reconcile Evolution and Genesis?

[AV1611VET]

The response I find intriguing is that the universe is in a process of self-creation,

Thermodynamics says otherwise.

... and that if it had been brought into existence already complete and perfect, it would be identical with God.

Then was Lucifer brought into existence identical with God?

Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

 

[Job 33:6]

The response I find intriguing is that the universe is in a process of self-creation, and that if it had been brought into existence already complete and perfect, it would be identical with God. Independence requires imperfection, dynamism, and separation from God. And all of this comes with a price.

You mentioned that this response is intriguing. But do you disagree with it? Why or why not?

 

[zippy2006]

Christians who accept Evolution usually assert that Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to be taken literally. This post is aimed at you and I would like to know what does Original Sin actually mean to you and what were its consequences?

This topic generally revolves around monogenesis, and since you were talking to Silmarien about Catholic priest-scientists, this video seems highly relevant:

(I'm going to summon @zippy2006, since I know he's been interested in having this discussion too.)

You're too kind.

I was planning on doing more listening than talking since it's not an area where I have any particular expertise. Today I started reading some articles related to Ratzinger's In the Beginning..., which eventually led me to Austriaco's talk above (Thomistic Evolution is another resource). (The orthodoxy of Ratzinger and Dominicans seems to be a better starting point than full blown innovators like Teilhard de Chardin.)

It seems that your question does not relate so much to monogenesis, but rather to the idea that Evolution causes us to posit postlapsarian phenomena before the Fall (e.g. conflict, suffering, etc.). It's an interesting question. Inevitably Christianity is going to focus much more on what philosophers sometimes call 'moral evil' as opposed to 'natural evil,' and the possibility for moral evil is coterminous with the existence of rational creatures.

Although I have considered your objection in the past I have never done much research into it. To get a glimpse into the Christian view of the prelapsarian natural world I might turn to the first part of the Summa Theologica, Questions 96, 97, and 102, but Aquinas doesn't have a great deal to say about it. In any case I think that would be a key to your question: how have Christians viewed the natural world before the Fall? Christian tradition certainly affirms the existence of fallen angels before the Fall, and the idea that they had an impact on creation--even apart from Eve--seems intuitive.

 

[Silmarien]

You mentioned that this response is intriguing. But do you disagree with it? Why or why not?

Given the modern focus on ideas like emergence and self-organization, I think it has some real synergy with what we know about the universe. Theologically, I lean towards voluntarism so find the primacy of freedom compelling here as well. And as an answer to the Problem of Evil, I think a cosmic version of the Free Will defense is actually quite powerful.

I have deep, unresolved issues concerning revelation in general and biblical inspiration in specific, though. The fact that there are positive and negative aspects of material existence may not actually mean that the universe is fundamentally fallen and in need of divine rescue. But as far as maximalist Christianity goes, I think it's a really powerful approach.

I was planning on doing more listening than talking since it's not an area where I have any particular expertise. Today I started reading some articles related to Ratzinger's In the Beginning..., which eventually led me to Austriaco's talk above (Thomistic Evolution is another resource). (The orthodoxy of Ratzinger and Dominicans seems to be a better starting point than full blown innovators like Teilhard de Chardin.)

Actually, I think this is another issue for me: I find the innovations compelling, but I also find them suspect simply on account of being innovations. But I feel like innovation is necessary here, because evolution at least seems to have upended everything. It's a vicious circle.

I will need to look into Thomistic evolution--I'm at least vaguely familiar with the basic Aristotelian approach to evolution, reincorporating final causality, but had not come across a Thomistic account of divine providence and natural evil in the evolutionary context before, so that should be interesting.

 

[hedrick]

I agree with your general point. If Christians can no longer coherently point to the Garden of Eden as the specific point where sin and evil entered Creation, then they need to provide an alternative account for why God would intentionally create a world that would lead to suffering as a natural consequence.

As far as I can tell, there are several answers here:

1. The ever popular hand waving.
2. Denying evolution and pretending that the Problem of Evil goes away with it.
3. Denying the reality of good and evil and declaring suffering illusory. This works, I think, but it shoves us outside of Christian theism and towards Hinduism instead.
4. ???

The Garden of Eden doesn't actually help here. If you take Gen 2 literally, apparently God created people who failed the first time they had an opportunity. Why?

Evolution (well, not evolution itself, but the kind of beings that would reasonably result from it) provides a different answer for exactly how evil entered. But in both cases, God apparently set up a world where it was bound to happen. In neither case does God do evil himself or directly cause us to do it. I believe the problem of theodicy is basically the same either way.

 

[Silmarien]

The Garden of Eden doesn't actually help here. If you take Gen 2 literally, apparently God created people who failed the first time they had an opportunity. Why?

Evolution (well, not evolution itself, but the kind of beings that would reasonably result from it) provides a different answer for exactly how evil entered. But in both cases, God apparently set up a world where it was bound to happen. In neither case does God do evil himself or directly cause us to do it. I believe the problem of theodicy is basically the same either way.

I think the difference is that in the traditional picture, natural evil could be subsumed into moral evil, and so theodicy was approached, as Zippy just pointed out, with the primary focus on the moral dimension of the problem. Hence the focus on human free will throughout much of theology.

Now it's reversed. Moral evil seemingly must be subsumed into natural evil instead, and Christianity has paid relatively little attention to the latter, historically. (And has also largely abandoned the more cosmic pictures of Atonement in the West, which exacerbates the impression that it doesn't have answers to anything but made up problems.)

 

[zippy2006]

I think the difference is that in the traditional picture, natural evil could be subsumed into moral evil, and so theodicy was approached, as Zippy just pointed out, with the primary focus on the moral dimension of the problem. Hence the focus on human free will throughout much of theology.

Now it's reversed. Moral evil seemingly must be subsumed into natural evil instead, and Christianity has paid relatively little attention to the latter, historically. (And has also largely abandoned the more cosmic pictures of Atonement in the West, which exacerbates the impression that it doesn't have answers to anything but made up problems.)

I think we need to ask why Christianity has focused on moral evil. A few things come to mind:

1. Scripture focuses on moral evil and God's relationship to man. Theological forays into the etiology of natural evil don't have much to go on and are therefore highly speculative.
2. Natural evil seems to be less interesting and important than moral evil, especially when it does not involve human beings (as is true with the vast majority of evolutionary history).
3. It is not at all clear that Christians believed the prelapsarian natural world contained no suffering or corruption. Aquinas is clear that the natural world was corruptible and also that, for example, carnivores existed before the Fall (ST Ia, Q 96, A 1, ad 2).

I think you need to say more about your question. I'm also curious what others think (e.g. @Quid est Veritas?, @Dirk1540, @ViaCrucis, @Ripheus27)?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think we need to ask why Christianity has focused on moral evil. A few things come to mind:

1. Scripture focuses on moral evil and God's relationship to man. Theological forays into the etiology of natural evil don't have much to go on and are therefore highly speculative.
2. Natural evil seems to be less interesting and important than moral evil, especially when it does not involve human beings (as is true with the vast majority of evolutionary history).
3. It is not at all clear that Christians believed the prelapsarian natural world contained no suffering or corruption. Aquinas is clear that the natural world was corruptible and also that, for example, carnivores existed before the Fall (ST Ia, Q 96, A 1, ad 2).

I think you need to say more about your question. I'm also curious what others think (e.g. @Quid est Veritas?, @Dirk1540, @ViaCrucis, @Ripheus27)?

On some level, even going purely by the description in Genesis 3, there's the simple fact that God gave to Adam and Eve the fruit of every tree. So plant death seems to be present in the narrative, or at the very least the destruction of life in the form of the mastication of living tissue and its consumption.

Further, the Psalmist writes, "He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting. You make darkness, and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep about. The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. When the sun rises, they steal away and lie down in their dens." (Psalm 104:19-22). The point of this psalm is about God's design and sovereignty over His creation, the implication being that the lion's predatory nature is there by divine design--it is God who established the trees, the mountains, the moon, the night, the waters, and the beasts who hunt and are hunted.

The point isn't to say that God is the author of death, or that death is not a problem. Death is a problem; decay, entropy, death are--by our confession--at odds with God's perfect intent for His creation. And yet, on some level, these things are shown to be present (at least in some way) in the prelapsarian world.

The idea that human beings were created perfect--that Adam and Eve were utterly perfect--isn't an idea that was shared by the early fathers of the Church. Instead the idea is human beings were created with potential--to grow, to mature, to learn. I recall reading that St. Irenaeus compared Adam and Eve to adolescents, the Fall as a kind of adolescent rebellion. The thing about adolescents is that they have room to grow and become adults. Man was created as a child, who rebelled, but rebellion or not God's purpose for humanity is to grow, mature. And in Christ we behold the mature man--what humanity is supposed to look like.

By the same token the Age to Come is not a return to Eden, it is the telos toward which creation was created in the first place. I wouldn't know where to look to find a quote, perhaps De Genesi ad Litteram, where Augustine speaks of how God created all things in an instant (as he understood the days of creation as figurative)--but not in completed, perfected forms, but in seminal form. The universe was made in seminal form--to grow and become. Again, the sense is the idea of potential.

On some level this may be important as a contrast to the doctrines of the Platonists who saw things in the framework of cosmic fall and cosmic return. A perfection in the beginning, a deterioration of that perfection, and ultimately a return toward that perfection, a return to the Platonic Ideal. In contrast there is the sense that all things were created with an inherent purpose and potential to grow into something more. That purpose, that perfection, is ultimately Jesus Christ Himself, "By whom and for whom all things were made".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think we need to ask why Christianity has focused on moral evil. A few things come to mind:

1. Scripture focuses on moral evil and God's relationship to man. Theological forays into the etiology of natural evil don't have much to go on and are therefore highly speculative.
2. Natural evil seems to be less interesting and important than moral evil, especially when it does not involve human beings (as is true with the vast majority of evolutionary history).
3. It is not at all clear that Christians believed the prelapsarian natural world contained no suffering or corruption. Aquinas is clear that the natural world was corruptible and also that, for example, carnivores existed before the Fall (ST Ia, Q 96, A 1, ad 2).

I think you need to say more about your question. I'm also curious what others think (e.g. @Quid est Veritas?, @Dirk1540, @ViaCrucis, @Ripheus27)?

More specifically, does 'natural evil' even exist? What do we mean by that term?

Evil essentially means something against nature (related to Ill), as bad etymologically likely means to defile. So 'natural evil' is an oxymoron. Is a lion killing antelope doing 'evil', or what she clearly was supposed to do? Or a parasitic wasp? We only judge it 'evil' by importing human moral reasoning, or judging it morally inferior to presumed paradise where the wolf lies with the lamb. They are following a natural order though.

Evil came into existence biblically when a moral choice was made to act against the natural order as decreed by the Creator. Humans ate that which was decreed should not be eaten by our kind. So in essence, if animals are acting in a natural manner, how can that be judged evil except by anthropomorphising from human moral evil? Natural Evil is inherently a derivitive concept from Moral Evil, and a problematic one at that.

We see this in Stoic thought too, where you must accept your lot from Fate. A lion mauling you isn't a moral agent, so while an 'evil' to you, the lion is not acting against the order of the world at all. As the Stars decreed and the season follow on season... Does something not only become 'evil' once we decide it should not be so?
Thinking Natural Evil to exist seems Zoroastrian or Manichean to me, that another contrary order to that instituted by the Good God is there. In this way, creatures without free choice beyond instinct, could choose a different 'evil' nature. But Christianity teaches that 'and it was Good'.
Evil does not have a nature of its own, but only corrupted good; trying to attain a good by short-cut or one not alloted to you. It is a shadow of good, not having an existence completely of itself, but only in reference to its opposite. Something acting in its nature, cannot circumvent its nature, so Natural Evil is contradictory.

CS Lewis had the Hrossa of Malacandra, the unfallen Mars of his Space Trilogy, hunt a fearsome water creature. Within this act, they found bravery and honour, while they might suffer in the process and perish. In the same way, we can judge wolves stalking their prey noble, feeding their pack after all, or see bravery in a tiny animal facing a large predator. So it cuts both ways, that what we can judge evil from human ways, we can also judge laudable. This is in stark contrast with moral evil, from which a wrong is a wrong, though people may consider it a justified one or a 'necessary evil'.

What the nature of Eden or the New Earth after the Parousia would entail, I frankly don't know. But while the world may be considered 'corrupted' by the Fall traditionally, that its nature was changed in some manner, without a moral scope it cannot be construed to be evil. When the Black Death ravaged Europe, or earthquakes occured, this was seen as chastisement for sin, for moral failings by man, or was termed natural as 'written in the stars'.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To the OP, seeing that I have now commited to this thread:

The Fall is a narrative of a moral sense, knowledge of Good and Evil, that had us set up ourselves 'as gods'. This is the act of a rational creature.

People are too hard on the poor parasitic wasp or our 'friends' the Pseudomonas species or other bacteria. Nothing they do is evil. To do an evil act, one must act contrary to what one ought to have done. They are acting exactly as they are setup to.

The man who goes and sleeps with another's wife, even though at behest of natural instincts of lust or such, is doing an evil act since he is aware he shouldn't be doing so.
Now we can argue Prisoner's dilemma style arguments, that the faithful and cheaters have to balance out in a population. That certain monkeys receive grooming, but don't reciprocate; and if they become too numerous, then the others cease grooming; for instance. But this is not a moral sense, but an equation of gain vs. loss and unconscious expectation to receive in turn.
For all we know this was present in whatever hominid we presume, but that inherently NOT reciprocating is 'wrong', that is a leap of judgement.

The Fall is the creation of a concept, of an abstract, that can be applied to a situation. Perhaps similar to mathematics, where a rock and another rock give two rocks, and thus the abstract of number is derived. So from acts between individuals, a sense of how such an act ought to be conducted occurs, as opposed to how it does, or learned behaviour of gain or loss. I see no reason why this couldn't have occured somewhere after the 'awakening' of man into sentience - for all I know, perhaps even involving a fruit. It isn't really an 'evolved' property except in an emergent sense - which is the same as when doctors speak of idiopathic, meaning we aren't sure how or properly explain it, but it must work in some way along these lines based on our presumed framework of understanding.

So I see no reason to reconcile the Fall to Evolution, for none is required. The very argument that morality is a developed thing, would require an event where creatures became cognizant of some form of rules regarding it, of an ideal which 'cheaters' flout, which would constitite a Fall from innocence. Otherwise we would be unaware of the concept in entirety. Likewise, a developmental model of morality is not that different from original sin as a heritable entity - as toddlers would only become aware of having done wrong likely after some wrong has been commited by them, and the property allowing such an idea would be a heritable one. Thus born in sin, inheriting the propensity to recognise it as such.

This is close to the Aristotlean idea of a Rational soul, as apart from the animalistic or vegetative one. Sentience is needed for the Fall, for Evil to be. Now if we argue our Reason evolved that can come to such discernment, then we are entering on discussions on whether a purely material being even can act outside the blind iterations of nerve depolarisations and such. Whether he can 'reason' as opposed to acting as an automaton from instincts and the neural activity of the brain, controlled by external stimuli and necessary internal process. For without free will, only chemical and physical determinism, there is no reason and no evil - thus no Fall. Everything hinges on whether Reason can exist purely from evolution, which is unfortunately negated by the Argument from Reason.
So for us to be aware of Evolution, that it is a 'real process' we have discovered and consider valid or veridical, we require a Rationality that necessarily stands beyond it - and in so doing, set up the necessary requirements for an primordial ancestor to have fallen from innocence, whether created or evolved.

 

[Brother Billy]

• Divine Revelation is necessarily superior to human wisdom

Can Divine Revelation shed any light on the topic we are discussing? Can two people use divine revelation to arrive at mutually inconsistent conclusions about the same issue? If so, how do we know who is right?

People make mistakes and science is both fallible and necessarily falsifiable

I think this is slightly misleading. Science never claims to have the absolute truth for anything. Instead science claims to hold provisional truths: answers that are the best explanation for things at the present time. The implication of your statement is that “Absolute truth cannot be known, so no idea can be considered to be absolutely right; therefore all ideas are equally valid.” - this is not true.

• The biblical authors had a phenomenological approach to the world, not a modern scientific view. Such views are not "wrong" only less accurate. For example, the sun does not "set in the west", but that is a highly practical way to discuss our relationship to the sun. Saying that the Bible is therefore "wrong" is as woodenly ignorant as thinking of the Bible as a science manual.

I agree

Where does the danger of evolution creep in? If by evolution we mean something like "purposeless, directionless, random chance mutation of biological organisms and systems", then yes, of course that just doesn't jive with being in relationship with a dazzlingly brilliant and powerful Creator and Sustainer of life.

Yes, I partly agree. Although if God is omniscient, he would know when he created the universe that the natural laws he put in place would eventually result in humans, even if there is an element of randomness in Evolution.

There are massive problems with evolution as a metaphysical worldview and even as a comprehensive description of life.

Evolution isn't a worldview. It just describes what is, not what should be (morality or ethics).

Recognition of design, purpose, order, and relationship must be actively suppressed in order to prevent humans from relating to nature as a intentionally designed thing.

How do you infer design and purpose in nature? Unless you mean it in a very loose sense?

If we read Genesis as a true story–one that may or may not be scientifically precise but precise in what it communicates– what do we come away with? A good, powerful creator. Order from Chaos. A noble humanity: male and female created in God's image. A deception. A rebellion. A curse and banishment A promised hope: the seed of the woman who will crush the head of the snake. The curse takes root. Two family lines emerge: those who are murders and violent and those who walk with Yahweh. A judgement and rescue. Further rebellion. A second curse and banishment - the nations are scattered(Babel). A new hope, the seed of Abraham who will draw all nations back to Yahweh. The family begins, the seed of Abraham continues despite opposition.

This is the part that I'm really interested in. Before the "deception, rebellion, curse and banishment" that you speak of, were humans any different to humans of today? If you believe that God used evolution to create humans, then there shouldn't be any difference.

Assuming you agree with me, doesn't this then seem bizarre to you that a benevolent being would create a law against sin, specify its punishment as eternal damnation, then create humans with a sinful nature such they would be 100% likely to break this law, and then punish them for sinning (unless they take the "medicine" which he prescribes).

 

[Norbert L]

So, if something is unexplained or partially explained, does that justify invoking the supernatural?

My point is both the one word supernatural and the phrase unexplained phenomena firstly share that in common and secondly when rightly pointing out the apples and oranges argument against this point. We shouldn't forget they are both kinds of fruit whereby we lack the knowledge and explanetary power to find words that fully grasp what is going on here.

If things can't be explained, then they are unexplained.
Slapping the label "supernatural" on them, doesn't mean anything. They are still unexplained.

I wouldn't ignore the similarities between what is understood as supernatural and unexplained phenomena. Is it really about slapping a label on a word or is it about dismissing a legitimate comparison out of the equation? Are we "slapping a label" or are we "burying our head in the sand"?

It's a similar kind of issue people have with between creation & evolution. Like glass half full of water, people point to the half they have focused on and deny the other half. There's really no absolute way of reconciling the two other than they share the same living space.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

On some level, even going purely by the description in Genesis 3, there's the simple fact that God gave to Adam and Eve the fruit of every tree. So plant death seems to be present in the narrative, or at the very least the destruction of life in the form of the mastication of living tissue and its consumption.

Further, the Psalmist writes, "He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting. You make darkness, and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep about. The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. When the sun rises, they steal away and lie down in their dens." (Psalm 104:19-22). The point of this psalm is about God's design and sovereignty over His creation, the implication being that the lion's predatory nature is there by divine design--it is God who established the trees, the mountains, the moon, the night, the waters, and the beasts who hunt and are hunted.

The point isn't to say that God is the author of death, or that death is not a problem. Death is a problem; decay, entropy, death are--by our confession--at odds with God's perfect intent for His creation. And yet, on some level, these things are shown to be present (at least in some way) in the prelapsarian world.

The idea that human beings were created perfect--that Adam and Eve were utterly perfect--isn't an idea that was shared by the early fathers of the Church. Instead the idea is human beings were created with potential--to grow, to mature, to learn. I recall reading that St. Irenaeus compared Adam and Eve to adolescents, the Fall as a kind of adolescent rebellion. The thing about adolescents is that they have room to grow and become adults. Man was created as a child, who rebelled, but rebellion or not God's purpose for humanity is to grow, mature. And in Christ we behold the mature man--what humanity is supposed to look like.

By the same token the Age to Come is not a return to Eden, it is the telos toward which creation was created in the first place. I wouldn't know where to look to find a quote, perhaps De Genesi ad Litteram, where Augustine speaks of how God created all things in an instant (as he understood the days of creation as figurative)--but not in completed, perfected forms, but in seminal form. The universe was made in seminal form--to grow and become. Again, the sense is the idea of potential.

On some level this may be important as a contrast to the doctrines of the Platonists who saw things in the framework of cosmic fall and cosmic return. A perfection in the beginning, a deterioration of that perfection, and ultimately a return toward that perfection, a return to the Platonic Ideal. In contrast there is the sense that all things were created with an inherent purpose and potential to grow into something more. That purpose, that perfection, is ultimately Jesus Christ Himself, "By whom and for whom all things were made".

-CryptoLutheran

You confuse death of creatures with death of mankind......

Nowhere is eternal life promised to plants or animals, so what makes you think that their death is a problem? Are you anthropomorphizing?

Also how would Adam know what the punishment for sin was if he had never observed death? This is one of my biggest problems with those who assert before sin entered, there was no death.... I mean even in our so-called enlightened state would we understand what it was if we had never observed it???? How can a word for death exist and its understanding without the condition also existing?????

Adam could never have been eternal... "lest he stretch forth his hand...."

Just the possibility to eat from the tree each month to heal and sustain him.

"in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's a similar kind of issue people have with between creation & evolution. Like glass half full of water, people point to the half they have focused on and deny the other half. There's really no absolute way of reconciling the two other than they share the same living space.

A serious question:

Or some confuse finches becoming finches, bacteria becoming bacteria and fruit flies becoming fruit flies as meaning more than it does?????

 

[Ing Bee]

Can Divine Revelation shed any light on the topic we are discussing? Can two people use divine revelation to arrive at mutually inconsistent conclusions about the same issue? If so, how do we know who is right?

You pose an interesting trio of questions here but they are problematic because of our respective and divergent understandings of "Divine Revelation". Setting aside for a second whether or not God exists, IF he did exist, his perspective as the author would necessarily be superior to human discovered knowledge. That's what I meant by that statement and I don't think anyone would disagree with that in principle. Richard Dawkins said something similar once during a radio interview on NPR.

I'd like to answer these three questions more fully. They way they are framed indicates a huge problem in discussions of this kind. Before I do, it would be helpful if you could define what you mean by the phrase "Divine Revelation".​

I think this is slightly misleading. Science never claims to have the absolute truth for anything. Instead science claims to hold provisional truths: answers that are the best explanation for things at the present time. The implication of your statement is that “Absolute truth cannot be known, so no idea can be considered to be absolutely right; therefore all ideas are equally valid.” - this is not true.

I disagree with your assessment of my statement. The three points in my phrase are flatly true: people do make mistakes. Scientific (human) knowledge is fallible for that reason. And, for anything to be scientifically valid, it must be capable of being falsified, just ask Bertrand Russell. But to be clear, I do believe that Absolute Truth can be known (Ephesians 4:20) and thus not all ideas are equally valid or true.​

Yes, I partly agree. Although if God is omniscient, he would know when he created the universe that the natural laws he put in place would eventually result in humans, even if there is an element of randomness in Evolution.

That would all depend on the nature and purpose of evolution in God's creative process.​

Evolution isn't a worldview. It just describes what is, not what should be (morality or ethics).

That's exactly while I qualified the word with the phrase "as a metaphysical worldview". I have no problem with evolution per se, only with the addition of metaphysical interpretations and presuppositions.​

How do you infer design and purpose in nature? Unless you mean it in a very loose sense?

Tell me what you mean by "in a very loose sense" and I will (hopefully) be able to clarify what I mean.
​

This is the part that I'm really interested in. Before the "deception, rebellion, curse and banishment" that you speak of, were humans any different to humans of today? If you believe that God used evolution to create humans, then there shouldn't be any difference.

It might be helpful if you could list all the possible permutations for how you think God employed evolution. In other words, what are the various ratios of divine power, divine wisdom, divine goodness, direct creation to the use of divinely created algorithmic processes (of which evolution might be an example).​

Assuming you agree with me, doesn't this then seem bizarre to you that a benevolent being would create a law against sin, specify its punishment as eternal damnation, then create humans with a sinful nature such they would be 100% likely to break this law, and then punish them for sinning (unless they take the "medicine" which he prescribes).

Please define your conception of "sin". The way you are using it in this sentence leads me to believe you are thinking of something other than the biblical sources record.

Looking forward to your responses.​

 

[Norbert L]

A serious question:

Or some confuse finches becoming finches, bacteria becoming bacteria and fruit flies becoming fruit flies as meaning more than it does?????

There's an older expression, "don't believe everything you hear and only half of what you see".

If I'm hearing you right, I would say we like give answers on seemingly obvious topics that amount to easy answers and conclusions. I like to put it this way, we know more than we understand. When scientists observe something, there are also contradicting conclusions about what the results mean. As far as I know, even in the tradition of evolution, there are different opinions about how to interpret it.

I believe one of the more famous ones is about looking at the fossil record. What has been historically seen as completely different species progressing along the evolutionary tree, is now challenged with the idea that they are actually one species as it grows from hatchling, to adolescent to mature adult.

In certain regards you may as well be playing darts with a blindfold. We know more than we understand.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There's an older expression, "don't believe everything you hear and only half of what you see".

If I'm hearing you right, I would say we like give answers on seemingly obvious topics that amount to easy answers and conclusions. I like to put it this way, we know more than we understand. When scientists observe something, there are also contradicting conclusions about what the results mean. As far as I know, even in the tradition of evolution, there are different opinions about how to interpret it.

I believe one of the more famous ones is about looking at the fossil record. What has been historically seen as completely different species progressing along the evolutionary tree, is now challenged with the idea that they are actually one species as it grows from hatchling, to adolescent to mature adult.

In certain regards you may as well be playing darts with a blindfold. We know more than we understand.

That’s just it. We observe variation within the Kind, but never from one to another. We observe every fossil Kind distinct, but never in a state of change.

Yes, Triceratops is a great example of incorrectly classifying young and adult. But they are still arguing over that one while ignoring the bone growth patterns.

There will always be the die hard s that will never let go.

They have simply mistaken horizontal variation as also meaning vertical variation. But as dogs show us there can be great variation, yet no evolution into another type.

If all they had of dogs were fossils, they would list them as separate species and try to show an evolutionary history of one species becoming another species. Understandable from their perspective, but still flawed.

IMO these are no different than dogs, merely variation of the same species, not separate species.

It depends if one classifies them from observation of existing life and variation, or based purely upon belief of evolutionary change never observed.

Ones starting point changes the entire classification of these alone for example. Do you start with observation that one species can vary greatly in form? Or does one start with the belief one form becomes another? The first starting point has directly observable evidence in the here and now. The second has never been observed....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can Divine Revelation shed any light on the topic we are discussing? Can two people use divine revelation to arrive at mutually inconsistent conclusions about the same issue? If so, how do we know who is right?



I think this is slightly misleading. Science never claims to have the absolute truth for anything. Instead science claims to hold provisional truths: answers that are the best explanation for things at the present time. The implication of your statement is that “Absolute truth cannot be known, so no idea can be considered to be absolutely right; therefore all ideas are equally valid.” - this is not true.


I agree



Yes, I partly agree. Although if God is omniscient, he would know when he created the universe that the natural laws he put in place would eventually result in humans, even if there is an element of randomness in Evolution.



Evolution isn't a worldview. It just describes what is, not what should be (morality or ethics).



How do you infer design and purpose in nature? Unless you mean it in a very loose sense?



This is the part that I'm really interested in. Before the "deception, rebellion, curse and banishment" that you speak of, were humans any different to humans of today? If you believe that God used evolution to create humans, then there shouldn't be any difference.

Assuming you agree with me, doesn't this then seem bizarre to you that a benevolent being would create a law against sin, specify its punishment as eternal damnation, then create humans with a sinful nature such they would be 100% likely to break this law, and then punish them for sinning (unless they take the "medicine" which he prescribes).

Now I agree that whatever the punishment for sin is, it is eternal.

But the wages of sin is death, not eternal punishment.

The whispered lies of the serpent, you shall surely not die, instead becoming godlike in wisdom and knowledge.

Who will give eternal life to the sinner? God promises it only to the righteous. Do we therefore make God a liar and promote eternal life to all?

 

[Brother Billy]

You pose an interesting trio of questions here but they are problematic because of our respective and divergent understandings of "Divine Revelation". Setting aside for a second whether or not God exists, IF he did exist, his perspective as the author would necessarily be superior to human discovered knowledge. That's what I meant by that statement and I don't think anyone would disagree with that in principle. Richard Dawkins said something similar once during a radio interview on NPR.

Yes I agree. However we have no means of deciding whether God exists or whether something is or isn't divine revelation. This in turn makes the concept of divine revelation of no practical use, at least in science matters that is.

I'd like to answer these three questions more fully. They way they are framed indicates a huge problem in discussions of this kind. Before I do, it would be helpful if you could define what you mean by the phrase "Divine Revelation".

I didn't make any assertions about divine revelation in my previous post. I only asked a question about it. Could you use your definition of divine revelation in your answer please?

I disagree with your assessment of my statement. The three points in my phrase are flatly true: people do make mistakes. Scientific (human) knowledge is fallible for that reason. And, for anything to be scientifically valid, it must be capable of being falsified, just ask Bertrand Russell. But to be clear, I do believe that Absolute Truth can be known (Ephesians 4:20) and thus not all ideas are equally valid or true.

I'm sorry. If that is not what you meant, I take back what I said then

That would all depend on the nature and purpose of evolution in God's creative process.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then if he chose to create a Universe with certain natural laws and initial conditions, then he would know everything about this Universe until its end even if it contained random elements. He could just select those laws and initial conditions which would eventually produce the result that he intends. So in this sense he can still create a Universe with random elements and still do so having a specific goal in mind. See post #63, then skip to 24:00.

That's exactly while I qualified the word with the phrase "as a metaphysical worldview". I have no problem with evolution per se, only with the addition of metaphysical interpretations and presuppositions.

Okay I agree with you then.

Tell me what you mean by "in a very loose sense" and I will (hopefully) be able to clarify what I mean.

Animals aren't designed in the same sense as an engineer designs a car. Evolution is a mindless undirected processes that has no eventual goal. It just builds on what was there before. If you replaced "designed" in your initial point with "evolved", would this convey your intended meaning more accurately? If so, then we both agree and this point requires no further discussion.

Just to add, evolution is just another natural process like the weather is. The weather contains a random element just like evolution does. Do you think that God can use the weather as part of his grand plan? If so, why cant he do the same with evolution?

It might be helpful if you could list all the possible permutations for how you think God employed evolution. In other words, what are the various ratios of divine power, divine wisdom, divine goodness, direct creation to the use of divinely created algorithmic processes (of which evolution might be an example).

I'm not sure what you mean here? As I said in my original post, the idea that there was a time when humans had no knowledge of good/evil or that they were incapable of murder is completely inconsistent with evolution. This is because human morality evolved with the human mind gradually over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Chimps have the ability to empathize with others and have a concept of fairness. These abilities would therefore have been present in both our most recent common ancestor who lived about 6 million years ago and early (pre-fall) humans. How can humans have rational thought, the ability to empathize with others and a concept of fairness, but not the ability to tell right from wrong or the ability to commit acts like murder or rape?

Please define your conception of "sin". The way you are using it in this sentence leads me to believe you are thinking of something other than the biblical sources record.

By "sin" I mean disobey God.

 

[Brother Billy]

Some of us in the human race definitely DO apply it to chimpanzees and other apes, even if in very quaint fashion in some places in the world :

I loved that movie lol