Monkies and whales and all other animals do not live eternally.
Who says so? There is a very real connection of humans to animals and the rest of creation. One of the purposes for the salvation of humanity is the salvation of the world of nature, which, according to Paul's letter to the Romans, will be set free of the cycle of futility and decay. The prophetical visions of the kingdom of God always include animal and vegetable life. The bible gives no support to the idea that God's purpose is to pluck us out of creation, but to restore creation (and us in it) to its original, unspoiled glory.
What did He create with theistic evolution?
Everything. Theistic evolution is not about whether God created this or that, but about how God created. When God uses natural means to create, it is still just as much God's creation as when God uses means beyond nature. The idea that a natural process excludes the action of God is an essentially atheist idea. Insisting that God's work is seen only in super-natural action is a "god-in-the-gaps" fallacy.
Also, I believe until we sinned, man was to live forever, our flesh had not yet been corrupted by the sin. Why did so many 'models of man' have to die before we got to one where the would not die until they sinned?
There is no scripture which says humanity was created immortal. This again is a borrowing from Plato who believed the soul is immortal by nature. What scripture says is that in the garden, the man and woman had access to the tree of life, and if they ate from it, then they would live forever. Genesis 3:22 implies that they had not ever eaten from it.
The bible consistently represents eternal life as a gift from God, not something inherent in human nature. That is one reason Christianity has always insisted on resurrection, not re-incarnation. Re-incarnation makes sense if the soul is immortal. But if humans are naturally mortal, and must be given immortality, then what is needed is resurrection and transformation. (1. Cor, 15:50-55)
Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God).
Right, because it is a scientific theory describing the diverisification of life on earth. It is not a religious proposition. Faulting it for this reason is like finding fault in the law of gravity because it doesn't allude to one's purpose in relation to God.
How so? Is sin made meaningless by the speed of light? by learning what causes tides? by the discovery of electromagnetism or radioactivity? Evolution is science, not theology. It has no capacity to make sin meaningless.
If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding "God" to the evolutionary scenario.
Sin is not an evolutionary factor at all, and it is certainly not harmless. The basic problem here is that you are trying to compare apples and horseshoes. Evolution does not comment on theology and has nothing to say about sin one way or another.
The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event
Every fall into sin is a real event. Naturally, the first one was as well. Our sinful choices are the direct cause of sin in the world.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).
Please note especially that last phrase: "for that all have sinned."
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:17).
Please do not add to scripture what is not there. The word 'directly' does not appear in Gen. 2:7 That is your personal inference. As a matter of fact, science does acknowledge that humans, like all other forms of life on earth, are made of the same stuff the earth is made of.
Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance.
"Merely"? A mythical tale given to us by God is not to be sneered at. Undervaluing the importance of myth is the besetting interpretive error of the literalist, which s/he then projects onto theistic evolutionists and liberal interpreters in general. If you think "myth" = "worthless" , a "mere" trifle, I can understand your reluctance to deal with it seriously. But it is your thinking that is at fault, not the fact of biblical myth.
However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.
Indeed they are, and this is one of the great passages of scripture in which we see Adam presented as the archetype of the natural human state, while Christ is presented as the archetype of redeemed humanity. For me, this passage confirms that the Genesis story is best read as myth, for only so does it have universal application. And that affirms the universal application of the redemption in Christ. Otherwise I have difficulty with the concept that either a particular sin of one individual or the particular death of one individual has anything to do with me.
Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds).
In respect to creation there are no biblically given measures of time---only human interpretations of some sketchy information, at least some of which is likely symbolical.
This can lead to two errors:
Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.
False conclusions based on a false premise. This error is similar to the statements which discount the value of myth. You assume the theistic evolutionist would not take statements of the bible seriously if they are not literal, because YOU do not take them seriously if they are not literal. You are projecting your own premises onto other people who do not accept them.
Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.
That is a flat out lie. Theists who accept evolution fully affirm God's omnipotent acts of creation.
The following evolutionary assumptions are 'generally' applicable to theistic evolution:
The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and its subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
The present is the key to the past.
There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
Evolution will persist into the distant future.
In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:
God used evolution as a means of creating.
The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.
Is this a cut and paste? Sounds like it. Where is the reference? My apologies if it is your own work, but I will only respond to it if you confirm that it is.
I hope I am understanding Theistic evolution more now. I have an essay to read on it.
Keep reading. You are still a long way from understanding theistic evolution. A reminder of some points.
For the Christian theistic evolutionist, evolution is strictly science. It is not a commentary on Christian theology. For guidance on matters spiritual, our primary source is the Bible not Darwin.
We believe God is not limited in choosing the means of creation to the super-natural only. We reject the atheistic notion that natural=without God.
We believe God is not limited in choosing the literary format in which scripture will appear. If God chooses to inspire legend, story, drama, fiction, myth, parable, allegory, etc then these forms of scripture are to be taken with utmost seriousness just as more literal forms such as historical narratives are to be taken seriously.
We believe the creation which science explores is God's handiwork and is God's other revelation to humanity. As Paul says to the Romans, creation testifies of the eternal power and majesty of God. As such creation cannot lie about how God created.
So when scientific study tells us something about creation which seems to contradict scripture, and we are as sure of the science as it is humanly possible to be, it follows that we must revise our concept of scripture. Biblical scholars have been doing this since before the birth of Christ. Before the Christian era began, the biblical cosmology, based on a flat earth and a solid dome-like sky was replaced by the Ptolemaic concept of concentric spheres containing the earth and moving around it to generate the motions of celestial bodies. Sixteen centuries later, this cosmology was replaced by the Copernican system of a moving earth, orbiting the sun and sky open to infinite space. Both of these major scientific revisions required re-interpreting many passages of scripture by re-assigning them from "literal description" to "figurative description". There is no good reason not to follow these historical examples in reference to geology and evolution as well. Scientists are constantly re-interpreting science. Historically, theologians have constantly re-interpreted scripture in light of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, drawing from its storehouse treasures both old and new.
It seems to me that literalists want to stop this and make the scripture stand still on the page instead of permitting the Spirit to breathe through it. But a scripture that is never re-interpreted becomes a lifeless and sterile icon of a dead past. It can no longer function as the Word of God to the present generation.
)
