If man evolved, where does God fit into the equation?

[Mallon]

I have always argued against naturalistic assumptions with regards to natural history, biology and evolution, that makes me a creationist, not a deist. God transcends nature but exists apart from it, it's called the aseity of God. What I am arguing against and always have is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes and you know it.

Right. So you believe that God created nature and has generally been hands-off ever since, interjecting on occasion to right it or to exert His will. That may not fit the classic definition of deism (deists don't believe God intervenes in the world at all), but it's a lot closer to deism than to the traditional beliefs of Christianity whereby God is constantly sustaining even the natural processes of the universe (Heb 1:3). Again, if you believed otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for you describe natural processes as "atheistic" and without God. You clearly believe that nature runs itself apart from God.

 

[Achilles6129]

Allow me to interject in this discussion - the bottom line is that only an evil, wicked, irrational, demented deity would ever create through a process such as evolution. Christian evolutionists rhapsodizing about the "beauty" of it all are exactly like a make-up artist putting a smear of lipstick on the bride of Frankenstein's monster.

There is nothing in the slightest beautiful about hundreds of millions of years of pain, suffering, death, wild dogs chasing down creatures and tearing them limb from limb, all the while the Creator of this insanely wretched creation looks down, pronounces everything "good" and wills it to be that way. Any Creator, and I mean any Creator, who creates WILLFULLY through this process is a monstrously, tremendously evil being.

This world did not turn out the way God intended. God never wanted this world to be this way, and he said as much over and over again in the Scriptures. Jesus Christ was sent into the world to rescue the few, the elect, from this present evil world (see Gal. 1) and deliver them into the kingdom of God.

Need I also add that the god of evolution successfully rampages all over "Occam's Razor" since the simplest way for the Creator of the universe to create life is exactly how it is described in the Scriptures.

Need I add again that the god of evolution quite deliberately and willfully creates death and seems most nonchalant and chummy about the existence of death. However, the real Creator of the universe's enemy is death:

" 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 1 Cor. 15:26

And, when the real Creator of the universe meets death he casts him into a lake of fire and brimstone (see Rev. 20:11-15). Sounds like quite a contradiction from the god of evolution, who initially started out the universe with a whole lotta death, pain, and suffering.

The final word on the matter is that theistic evolution violates the rational nature of the Creator of the universe and it violates the moral nature of the Creator of the universe. Hence, there was no theistic evolution. In addition, atheism is also impossible, since you simply cannot have a computer program without a computer programmer. Therefore, there was, in fact, a global flood.

 

[mark kennedy]

Right. So you believe that God created nature and has generally been hands-off ever since, interjecting on occasion to right it or to exert His will.

No, I believe nothing of the sort. I do believe that there were periods refereed to as an age of miracles like Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Christ and the Apostles were signs, miracles and mighty deeds were the order of the day while in other periods not as common. However, I have always upheld God's interaction with His creation.

I have stated my view repeatedly and you continually mischaracterize it. This is a bad habit that you have picked up in your Biblical expositions and it varies from random errors to gross contradictions of obvious facts.

That may not fit the classic definition of deism (deists don't believe God intervenes in the world at all), but it's a lot closer to deism than to the traditional beliefs of Christianity whereby God is constantly sustaining even the natural processes of the universe (Heb 1:3). Again, if you believed otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for you describe natural processes as "atheistic" and without God. You clearly believe that nature runs itself apart from God.

I believe in providence as well as God's intervention. I have never doubted that God sustains the universe by the power of His word. It doesn't fit the classic definition of deist because young earth creationism is not deistic. If I were prone to this kind of a philosophical view I would be arguing for something more like ID or TE.

Since I have posted to these boards I have argued only one issue, the creation of Adam. I am not concerned with geology, astronomy or cosmology in the slightest. What is more I have never really had a problem with the miracles of the Bible although I have often sought confirming or contradictory evidence.

If I were a deist I assure you I would know it and not hesitate to make that clear at the outset. I am not and the insistence that I am is remarkably absurd.

Actually the only reason I have been spending an uncustomary amount of time on here is because I'm anxious to get on with my debate with Papias.

Mallon do you realize that you have not made a defensible argument in days? The things you have been arguing about Genesis 2:19 and YECs being deists are not only wrong, they are indefensible.

Are you trying to make a point or what? Because this has went from objectionable to kind of sad. You seem better educated, more cordial and more articulate then most of the rest which leaves me wondering what on earth you could be trying to get at here. I have to wonder because if you are seriously trying to arguing these erroneous points then I have misjudged you by a country mile.

I know you probably don't care but your credulity bubble is about to burst with me. Just saying, when it does you don't get it back so easy. Like I say, I know you probably don't care but I believe in giving people the benefit of every doubt but I have my limits as Papias is about to learn.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Allow me to interject in this discussion - the bottom line is that only an evil, wicked, irrational, demented deity would ever create through a process such as evolution. Christian evolutionists rhapsodizing about the "beauty" of it all are exactly like a make-up artist putting a smear of lipstick on the bride of Frankenstein's monster.

There is nothing in the slightest beautiful about hundreds of millions of years of pain, suffering, death, wild dogs chasing down creatures and tearing them limb from limb, all the while the Creator of this insanely wretched creation looks down, pronounces everything "good" and wills it to be that way. Any Creator, and I mean any Creator, who creates WILLFULLY through this process is a monstrously, tremendously evil being.

I'm not entirely sure how it's any worse than a God who places a tree in a garden and then tells two people if they eat from it they'll die, and for the act of eating fruit they must suffer and labor under sweat and toil and death.

But if you'd like to make the argument that specifically creating a tree that would curse the entire human race is a more noble act than the evolutionary process than by all means do so.

There are certainly other examples from certain elements of some streams of Christian thought (certainly not universally held elements, but held by some) that could have been mentioned as well, but the one listed suffices for the sake of this argument.

This world did not turn out the way God intended. God never wanted this world to be this way, and he said as much over and over again in the Scriptures. Jesus Christ was sent into the world to rescue the few, the elect, from this present evil world (see Gal. 1) and deliver them into the kingdom of God.

Need I also add that the god of evolution successfully rampages all over "Occam's Razor" since the simplest way for the Creator of the universe to create life is exactly how it is described in the Scriptures.

Not particularly, the simiplest way for the Creator of the universe to create life, if one wants to go that route, would be all things simultaneously in a single instant. This was Augustine's belief, and it's certainly far simpler than spanning it arbitrarily over the course of six days. So if simplicity is the goal, then six days of creation is entirely obliterated by the notion of an instantaneous creation of everything in a single moment.

Need I add again that the god of evolution quite deliberately and willfully creates death and seems most nonchalant and chummy about the existence of death. However, the real Creator of the universe's enemy is death:

" 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 1 Cor. 15:26

And, when the real Creator of the universe meets death he casts him into a lake of fire and brimstone (see Rev. 20:11-15). Sounds like quite a contradiction from the god of evolution, who initially started out the universe with a whole lotta death, pain, and suffering.

The final word on the matter is that theistic evolution violates the rational nature of the Creator of the universe and it violates the moral nature of the Creator of the universe. Hence, there was no theistic evolution. In addition, atheism is also impossible, since you simply cannot have a computer program without a computer programmer. Therefore, there was, in fact, a global flood.

As a counterpoint I offer that a God who creates a universe wherein all evidence points toward old age and evolutionary processes when these are in fact false paints the portrait of a deceiving, lying Creator who seeks but to trick us by planting into the very memory of the cosmos an artificial history that never transpired. This violates the rational nature of the Creator of the universe and it violates the moral nature of the Creator of the universe, hence there is no young earth creationism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mallon]

No, I believe nothing of the sort. I do believe that there were periods refereed to as an age of miracles like Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Christ and the Apostles were signs, miracles and mighty deeds were the order of the day while in other periods not as common. However, I have always upheld God's interaction with His creation.

Then again I ask: If you believe God continuously sustains the everyday processes of nature, why do you regularly claim that natural processes like evolution are atheistic? You appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[Fencerguy]

For what it's worth, throwing it out there, Christians (specifically clergy) were among some of the earliest supporters of Darwin's theories, Charles Kingsley, Asa Gray and Charles Babbage to name three. Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky, both Christians, were responsible in the modern evolutionary synthesis. In modern times there's Francis Collins, a dedicated Christian and was head of the Human Genome Project.

Christianity and evolution are not enemies, because Christianity and science are not enemies and evolution is science. The only Christians who have trouble with evolution are those who have bought into the lie that there's a problem, that one has to take Genesis 1 absolutely literally (despite the fact that the Christian Church has long understood Genesis 1 non-literally) and to read it or understand it any other way is to somehow deny the truth of Scripture. That is a lie, it's a lie that's been told for over a hundred years and the fact that Christians buy into that lie is a discredit to the Christian faith. Because as Christians, who believe in the God who created all things we should rejoice and celebrate God's creation and creativity and science let's us do that. We can rejoice in God when we study and marvel at the genius of evolution, general relativity and every other aspect of the natural universe. It's God's creation, it's good and wonderful.

Denying the truth doesn't glorify God, celebrating the truth glorifies God, because He is a God of Truth.

-CryptoLutheran

I would only say in response to this that I think it is possible to view Genesis 1 lietrally, and to Integrate it with parts of the Theory of Evolution. Microevolution is observable all around us, and this process can occur in an observable amount of time, within microevolution we see organisms exhibiting a wide variety of characteristics and structures and shapes....But we also see these organisms falling into several major groups...Organisms from one major group (shall we say, the level of Phylum or Class?) do not seem to evolve into organisms from another major group. They evolve and change, but they all stay within their major kinds. And that is all that Genesis 1 says, God created all the animals of the world, but they were to reproduce after their own kind, not species.....So by taking Genesis 1 at its word, and by considering the observable process of microevolution, the Christian can both hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture, and likewise hold to scientific knowledge. The Bible and science do not necessarily need to be at odds with regard to how they describe the origin of the universe (or of life) but both must be considered by the Christian with respect to each other. How can the Bible (which Christians view as authoritative) and science (which is authoritative based on repeatable and observable processes) complement and enhance the other?
It is clear that God has created life with an amazing capacity for diversity, but the Bible does not say that all organisms on earth have one common ancestor, so how does the Christian determine what to believe? As I gave example above, we must determine which parts of The Bible and science are complementary, for therein must be the truth.
Many (well, probably all) atheistic evolutionists believe that the Phylogenetic Tree of Life looks something like this:http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/MScourse/phylogenetic_tree.jpg

and that the creationist Tree of Life must look something like a bunch of lines that have been there since the beginning and have not changed since "creation"

I would say on the contrary, that a truly well educated creationist would say that the Phylogenetic Tree of Life should look something like this:http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/orchard.jpg

A series of branching trees that reflect the created kinds that I mentioned above, These generic kinds of organisms had a wide variety of genetic material at their disposal, and that is what lead to the microevolution of those kinds into the myriad species that we observe today (both living and extinct).

 

[Fencerguy]

Then again I ask: If you believe God continuously sustains the everyday processes of nature, why do you regularly claim that natural processes like evolution are atheistic? You appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

A well educated creationist should not denounce all evolution as atheistic...A differentiation must be made between microevolution: The change and adaptation of different kinds (e.g. phylum, class, order) into more and more specific kinds of animals that have more and more specific genetic codes; and Macroevolution: that simple organisms can somehow change and add previously unknown genetic information to their genetic code resulting in increasingly complex organisms over millions of years.

As to how old the universe is, that is up for debate....God could have created a universe that appears old, would not a young universe deprive the people that He desires to believe in Him the opportunity for faith? Doesn't the Bible teach that believing and seeing is not really believing? Really the only place that I can see the universe (not necessarily earth) being millions of years old is between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, because the Bible simply does not say how long it was between "the beginning" and "now the earth was dark and formless..." I believe the 6 day creation process, and I believe that it occurred within the last 100,000 years. We do not know how long Adam and Eve walked with God before they finally sinned and ate the forbidden fruit. But to base the age of the earth on such things as the fossil record does not hold up for me, because the fossil record is not complete, and it only shows bones lying around in dirt. The fossil record also requires that there be millions of years of death before the Fall of Man--where death was instituted as the punishment for man's rebellion against God--So how could there be millions of years of death on earth before there actually was death? But from the point in time where Man sinned and death came into the world, the first 12 chapters of Genesis give a historical timeline of sorts, Adam lived 900 and some odd years, and some of his descendents also lived 900 and some odd years. So from the point of Original Sin, it has only been about 6-10,000 years....Again, the earth could be older than that, because we don't know how long the time period before Original Sin was, The BIble does not tell us, but I would be very hesitant to base the age of the earth upon the fossil record...

 

[CryptoLutheran]

One of the problems about talking about "microevolution" and speaking about clearly defined "kinds" is that "kinds" aren't defined and "microevolution" is simply a matter of degree. Even when we talk about taxonomy and cladistics it is such a malleable system of categorization that to some degree we are being arbitrary.

What are birds? Are they a class of their own and what defines aves as class distinct from anything else? That they have feathers? Well we have dinosaurs with feathers recorded in the fossil record, clearly defined feathers; so much so that the line between birds and dinosaurs is at best extremely blurry but more so non-existent. That is, birds are dinosaurs.

When we talk about modern mammals we are really talking about an extent group of therapsids, which also includes other organisms only known about in the fossil record including organisms that looked like this. To that degree what's even the real difference between mammals and reptiles? Where do we draw the line? Effectively mammals are reptiles; mammals are just therapsids with mammary glands, and therapsids are just synapsids with canine teeth; but then again synapsids are just reptiles with a specific skull formation, and reptiles (or more specifically amniotes) are just tetrapods whose eggs have a waterproof membrane and an amniotic sack. But what of tetrapods? Aren't they just particular kinds of fish whose fins enable them to crossover land?

At what point do we draw that line? How can we draw that line? Any line we draw doesn't exist in nature but only our minds as a means of convenient arbitration for the purposes of taxonomic categorization which is--again--exceptionally malleable and fundamentally arbitrary.

There is no such thing as microevolution or macroevolution, there's just evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Assyrian]

When we talk about modern mammals we are really talking about an extent group of therapsids, which also includes other organisms only known about in the fossil record including organisms that looked like this.

I want one! I want one!

 

[theFijian]

If we're going to say that God is involved in the weather and natural events, then we might as well blame Him for the hurricanes and earthquakes that destroy people's homes and lives. I cannot do that. I have never been able to accept such a view and doubtfully ever will be able to.
...
It is mere presumption to say that God guides child birth (and therefore must guide child death as well; a scary thought), the weather or natural selection

The sense I am getting from all this is, basically, just pick whatever you want to believe. If that is so, then why Christianity? (I'm not trying to turn you away from it, just asking an honest question.)

The irony runneth over. Perhaps you 'pick and choose' regarding the myriad of texts speaking of Gods sovereignty over the elements? Or his involvement in childbirth? (ie. Psalm 139) How staggering to on the one hand accuse others of rejecting scripture whilst conveniently ignoring great swathes of scripture with your own viewpoint. Perhaps you believe in a God of your own making rather than the God of scripture.

 

[Mallon]

A well educated creationist should not denounce all evolution as atheistic...A differentiation must be made between microevolution: The change and adaptation of different kinds (e.g. phylum, class, order) into more and more specific kinds of animals that have more and more specific genetic codes; and Macroevolution: that simple organisms can somehow change and add previously unknown genetic information to their genetic code resulting in increasingly complex organisms over millions of years.

Ignoring the fact that we do know of mechanisms that increase complexity, what makes macroevolution any more atheistic than microevolution?

 

[er72]

If evolution is true, then I would wager almost certainly that (orthodox, anyway) Christianity is false. There is no compatibility between a world of death and sin and a good, loving Creator.

 

[granpa]

yes, its a jungle out there.
but as i pointed out before, we have domesticated ourselves.
we are evolving to have life more abundantly.
someday we will even evolve to the point that sin no longer exists.

evolution is not random.
things happen for a reason.

 

[Assyrian]

If evolution is true, then I would wager almost certainly that (orthodox, anyway) Christianity is false. There is no compatibility between a world of death and sin and a good, loving Creator.

Are you another Creationist that doesn't like God's wonderful creation?

 

[er72]

evolution is not random.
things happen for a reason.

Says you.

Most evolutionary scientists plainly teach that the process is a) Random and b ) Without the necessity of a supernatural being guiding it.

 

[er72]

Are you another Creationist that doesn't like God's wonderful creation?

No.

I am a truth-seeker, only seeking the truth.

I love God's creation. Death, however, was not of God's design. My Bible tells me the devil was the one who held the power of death, not God.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I love God's creation. Death, however, was not of God's design. My Bible tells me the devil was the one who held the power of death, not God.

So if the world is filled death, which as you seem to be saying is not what He intended then the devil has the upper hand over God?

 

[er72]

So if the world is filled death,

(Which it is.)

which as you seem to be saying is not what He intended

(I don't believe it was. God is good and can only create good things. Death is evil and God is not the author of it.)

then the devil has the upper hand over God?

How does he have the "upper hand"?

 

[elopez]

If evolution is true, then I would wager almost certainly that (orthodox, anyway) Christianity is false. There is no compatibility between a world of death and sin and a good, loving Creator.

So according to that logic why do you believe God is good? Sin and death consumes this world, even if evolution is false.

 

[granpa]

yes, its a jungle out there.
but as i pointed out before, we have domesticated ourselves.
we are evolving to have life more abundantly.
someday we will even evolve to the point that sin no longer exists.

evolution is not random.
things happen for a reason.

Says you.

Most evolutionary scientists plainly teach that the process is a) Random and b ) Without the necessity of a supernatural being guiding it.

mutations may be random but natural selection is definitely not random (nobody teaches that) and who said anything about a supernatural being (or any other kind of being)?