How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[One_In_Christ]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

 

[Perhaps Today]

MOD HAT ON

Thread moved from Christian Forums How To? to Origins Theology.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Hello One_In_Christ, welcome to CF.


I learnt about evolution at an early age, so for me personally there has never been much of a debate between evolution and creationism. If God made the world then presumably whatever we find is part of His creation.

The biggest question for Christians is probably human evolution. I have no problem knowing humans evolved from apes or that we are a special creation - at some point in history God chose a particular animal, a kind of upright ape it seems, to be made in His image.

But when did this happen? When did we stop being merely 'upright apes' and become 'human'? And what about the other extinct humans, like the Neanderthals? Did they have souls, did God have any kind of plan for them? So far I don't have an answer for these questions.

 

[Papias]

For me, it became clear looking at Genesis (which is filled with intentional puns and other clear clues that it is metaphorical) that the chapter 1 account (actually written later than the different, chapter 2 account) was clearly meant as an allegory. This has been recognized by many Christian theologians back to before books of the Bible were settled on - it's not something new.

Then, looking at that Christians have found looking at the evidence, it became clear that denying evolution and an old earth was lilke me pretending that atoms don't exist because I can't see them - practically all scientists, many of whom are Christians today, agree that evolution is a fact, and that denying it is denying what God's been telling us through his creation itself.

That's my findings, at least. Your thread reminds me of another one, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7590838/

In that one, I gave some theological answers about origins - again not anything I came up with myself, but from Christian theologians. Here is that:
******************
There are many theistic evolution ways to see the core doctrines of Christianity, just as there are many creationist descriptions, depending on the person and denomination. However, these may at least be common, if not exclusive.

The Garden: The Garden of Eden can be a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think. It need not have happened as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The Fall: The fall of man can be what happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequence was alienation from God.

Adam: Note that many theistic evolution supporters (including apparently the Pope) believe in a literal, real, single human Adam, the father of us all, who was the first transitional ape-human to cross the line to being human, who sinned and brought about original sin (not the first death). This fits with the above mention of the Fall.

The Flood: The flood can be a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It need not have happened as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables while on earth as Jesus, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These can be figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the ~2 million Jews at the Exodus in a short number of years.

******************

Blessings-

Papias

 

[Jig]

How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

I read Genesis without the influences of secular philosophy.

 

[Freedom63]

For me, it became clear looking at Genesis (which is filled with intentional puns and other clear clues that it is metaphorical) that the chapter 1 account (actually written later than the different, chapter 2 account) was clearly meant as an allegory. This has been recognized by many Christian theologians back to before books of the Bible were settled on - it's not something new.

Then, looking at that Christians have found looking at the evidence, it became clear that denying evolution and an old earth was lilke me pretending that atoms don't exist because I can't see them - practically all scientists, many of whom are Christians today, agree that evolution is a fact, and that denying it is denying what God's been telling us through his creation itself.

That's my findings, at least. Your thread reminds me of another one, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7590838/

In that one, I gave some theological answers about origins - again not anything I came up with myself, but from Christian theologians. Here is that:
******************
There are many theistic evolution ways to see the core doctrines of Christianity, just as there are many creationist descriptions, depending on the person and denomination. However, these may at least be common, if not exclusive.

The Garden: The Garden of Eden can be a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think. It need not have happened as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The Fall: The fall of man can be what happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequence was alienation from God.

Adam: Note that many theistic evolution supporters (including apparently the Pope) believe in a literal, real, single human Adam, the father of us all, who was the first transitional ape-human to cross the line to being human, who sinned and brought about original sin (not the first death). This fits with the above mention of the Fall.

The Flood: The flood can be a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It need not have happened as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables while on earth as Jesus, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These can be figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the ~2 million Jews at the Exodus in a short number of years.

******************

Blessings-

Papias

Interestingly enough I have reached a point where I share most of the same conclusions as you...though I have come from a very literalistic bible teaching and belief background.

 

[Greg1234]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

Whether literally or figuratively, you find Creationism. If one treats it allegorically, the inclusion of even more metaphysical elements further belittles an attempt at a Darwinian integration. Literally, there's nothing there for Darwinists either. Overall, creationism is the bedrock of theology and the foundational principle. This comes as no surprise since everything starts with creation and is built upon it.

We find the need to defend texts because Darwinists have promised theists (and God) the tiny microbe. The condition- theists grant materialists the rest of the organisms on the planet. Theists in turn think that they will be liberated from Darwinian scorn if they accept this deal. But we already know from the reclamation by materialists of the tiny, dense big-bang particle, that there is no actual deal.

The hive-mind within the scientific community is one that requires a constant upkeep. The halls of acedemia are decorated with the entrails of naysayers and those who survive are hacked till their reputations are such that render their words fruitless. Hence, one who takes it upon himself to pursue the preservation of theology must be ready to enter the ruthless world of lop-sided black-market deals, protection, and a power struggle.

The demeanor of "Prehistoric men" differs in the respective persuasions of Creationism and Darwinism. The similarity however is that in both Darwinism and Creationism, these prehistoric men were involved in the origin of religion. The scientific method which was derived from philosophy is one that caters to the demeanor of man today. Truth is not something that is as tediously difficult as science portrays it since man himself is a part of the truth. So when ancient men are said to have found the basis of the universe, and there are no details on the Hadron Collider used, its a slap in the face. Similar to the slap from turning water into wine without scientifically advanced wineries. Healing without surgery and MRI machines. Multiplying fishes and bread without expensive processing plants. Prophesying, without a time machine. And so forth.

So theists are asked to emulate the scientific trek and provide an extensive materialistic response. But the spirit at work in an answer can in fact be summed up with Goddidit or mathematically expressed as God = didit. How the spirit worked can be vaguely outlined but it's not out to compete with lengthy materialistic explanations. Those who are too consonant with the scientific method will find it harder to come back to the bible as the bible goes past current knowledge with no Hadron Collider. Most times, just a man with his shirt on his back, with the mysteries of the universe.

Either you can study a plane while it is stationary or you can build highly advanced machinery to track it at high speed. Or even better, you could match its speed and continue as before since man was and is endowed with the faculties for such movement. This however, is only due to Creationism, not materialistic processes. There were trade-offs that came with the fall through which man was doomed to toil in all his endeavors.

A person is also a microcosmic pattern of the universe. You know yourself before you know anything. Tracking advancements pertaining to man automatically sheds light on the much bigger picture. And creationism deals with a very broad area though it may be focused on humans.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

I read Genesis without the influences of secular philosophy.

Sure. Jig, what about the influence of early Christians, like Origen and Augustine? Are the early Christians worth listening to?

Papias

P.S. Freedom63 - Thanks.

 

[theFijian]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

Personally I used correct OT hermeneutics, ie. not reading modernist scientific rationalisations into the text and instead letting the genre of text speak for itself

 

[gluadys]

For me, there was never a controversy. I had already been reading C.S. Lewis as a teenager and begun looking at the Bible from a more literary perspective in which the story is more important than what history gave rise to it.

I did come across some creationist literature which for a time convinced me there was no solid scientific basis to evolution, but as soon as I checked out a scientific description of evolution, I realized that literature was misstating things, taking some things out of context, etc.

In fact, my first reaction to a scientific description of evolution was "Neat!, so that's how God did it!" I saw no reason then and I see no reason now to think evolution excludes God any more than embryological development or meteorological phenomena exclude God.

I didn't have a lot of answers then about theological issues or hermeneutical issues. But it was evident to me that the theory of evolution was based on sound scientific observation. And, therefore, it was part of God's world. I knew I could work on more specific issues at my leisure.

 

[gluadys]

For me, there was never a controversy. I had already been reading C.S. Lewis as a teenager and begun looking at the Bible from a more literary perspective in which the story is more important than what history gave rise to it.

I did come across some creationist material which for a time convinced me there was no solid scientific basis to evolution, but as soon as I checked out a scientific description of evolution, I realized the creationist material was shoddy and distorted the facts.

In fact, my first reaction to a scientific description of evolution was "Neat!, so that's how God did it!" I saw no reason then and I see no reason now to think evolution excludes God any more than embryological development or meteorological phenomena exclude God.

I didn't have a lot of answers then about theological issues or hermeneutical issues. But it was evident to me that the theory of evolution was based on sound scientific observation. And, therefore, it was part of God's world. I knew I could work on more specific issues at my leisure.


As it happened, I didn't really start investigating the creo-evo debate until 20 years later when I attended a lecture by Duane Gish.

 

[Keachian]

I had a rather interesting transition through Theism (agnostic to evolutionary theory) -> Deism (Creationist) -> Deism (Evolutionist) -> Theism (accepting evolutionary theory)

 

[Jpark]

The Garden: The Garden of Eden can be a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think. It need not have happened as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Regardless, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was real.

The Fall: The fall of man can be what happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequence was alienation from God.

I completely disagree.

The fall happened when man ate from the tree.

Man was created as a living being (soul). At this point, he was just an animal with higher than average intelligence, an indication of God's primal blessing. When he ate from the tree, he became like God, having a spirit, the source of rational (Job 32:7-9, Dan. 4:33-34), meriting greater worth to God (Job 15:14, Isaiah 57:16, Luke 12:6-7) as well as receiving greater responsibility (he already had dominion but now he has to stop himself from abusing this position; pride is a real threat).

As for the decision to rebel, it was done in ignorance, not willingly (Rom. 8:20). Also, God had maintained a close relationship with Adam prior (Gen. 3:9-13). Gen. 2:17 was true, Adam was going to die physically when he ate it, but God rescinded this because of His plan and close association with Adam, cursing the ground instead.

The consequence was partial.

The Flood: The flood can be a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It need not have happened as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

2 Peter 3:5-6, Psalm 148:4

Don't the heavens still exist today and why the association of water with the heavens?

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables while on earth as Jesus, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Parables aren't necessarily metaphors. Compare Luke 19:27 to Matt. 18:34-35.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

Wanted to atone.

The geneologies in Genesis: These can be figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the ~2 million Jews at the Exodus in a short number of years.

Perhaps.

 

[artybloke]

I read Genesis without the influences of secular philosophy.

No you didn't. A literalist view of the Bible is dependent upon a common sense naturalist philosophy. In fact, I'd argue that the logical positivism of Dawkins & co is only one step away from the logical positivism + spernaturalism of the creationists.

You may not recognise the philosphical a priori you're operating under, but it doesn't mean they're not there.

 

[Greg1234]

The Flood: The flood can be a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It need not have happened as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The flood is a flood. As in a literal flood. Noah was a literal man.

The flood is resolved theologically.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables while on earth as Jesus, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

A parable does not mention the supernatural within itself. A parable is an inclusion of more metaphysical elements. Interpretations of parables are not derived from methodological naturalism. This is a parable-

A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell along the path, and was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it. 6 And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew with it and choked it. 8 And some fell into good soil and grew, and yielded a hundredfold.​

A materialist says "no, no, don't take it literally. People can't literally sow seeds. Birds can't literally devour seeds. Think of it as a metaphor. It's talking about the word of God being sown in the hearts of people and spiritual occurrences taking place." No they don't actually say that. They might say that seeds evolved into birds. They say that you include more naturalistic elements. They say that it is secretly a book on materialism. Of course if they were actually aware of the repercussions wrought from an allusion to a metaphor and how damaging it is to their own cause, then they wouldn't do it. But it seems like there is something in it for them, so they pursue it.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

You don't get it do you. The only God man rebelled against according to Darwinism is the God that evolved in his mind. An incidental by-product of evolution. You don't say thank God for Darwin, but thank Darwin for God. Which line in this article have you heard from an atheist? Where exactly do you think they get it from? Darwinism is not out to be compatible with God, but to eliminate it. It is in everything including, but not exclusive to, the origin of man. These materialists simply allow you to marinate the masses. Once your work is done you will be, gently at first, asked to surrender the rest. You're making a mistake.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Guys, I don't think One_In_Christ wants (yet another) tired evolution versus creationism debate; she wants to know if we personally can reconcile evolution with religion.

 

[mark kennedy]

I had a rather interesting transition through Theism (agnostic to evolutionary theory) -> Deism (Creationist) -> Deism (Evolutionist) -> Theism (accepting evolutionary theory)

I have no idea where you get the notion that Creationists are deists but it's absurd. I am a young earth creationist by default which means I will maintain that view unless or until I am persuaded otherwise. I went through a transition as well and it when from core conviction, sound doctrine, exposition, apologetics and finally creationism and other intellectual pursuits. What is more I'm an evolutionist as well differing from atheistic materialists only with regards to the time and means of evolution.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

God is the Creator. Evolution is a God-authored mechanism in creation through which God has created life and all its brilliant diversity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mark kennedy]

No you didn't. A literalist view of the Bible is dependent upon a common sense naturalist philosophy. In fact, I'd argue that the logical positivism of Dawkins & co is only one step away from the logical positivism + spernaturalism of the creationists.

You may not recognise the philosphical a priori you're operating under, but it doesn't mean they're not there.

Scientific positivists are interested in having their naturalistic assumptions ( the a priori assumption of universal common descent) interwoven into religion. Creationists on the other hand are not and theistic evolution is one step removed, not creationism. Where do you guys get this stuff?

I think it's you who don't recognize the philosophical a prior your operating under because it's identical to Darwkins and company right up to the point of New Testament miracles as far as I can tell. Creationists on the other hand embrace the God of miracles in accordance with the clear testimony of Scripture and these vicious, divisive and contentious debates are a proof positive of exactly that. When was the last time you had this kind of a debate with an atheistic evolutionist and how many times have you blistered creationists you are supposed to share core convictions with? I know the answer, would you like to know why?

I've debated atheists and I've debated theistic evolutionists and see very little difference in the two versions of philosophical naturalism. Just because you don't want to admit that does not mean it's not evident and obvious.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

God is the Creator. Evolution is a God-authored mechanism in creation through which God has created life and all its brilliant diversity.

-CryptoLutheran

I tend to agree with some reservation with regards to life's primary first origins of course.

Grace and peace,
Mark