Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[lucaspa]

On one hand we have (i) concordism (is that a word) – seeking to equate the interpretation of Biblical passages with scientific observations; on the other hand we have (ii) the integration of science and faith – seeking to understand the meaning and purpose of nature and science through the eyes of faith on the basis of the revelation of our incarnate, crucified, resurrected Savior. Perhaps everyone is best served with the latter.

How does the latter differ from the former? Does the latter accept evolution and heliocentrism or deny them? If we view science thru the eyes of faith in Christ, do we have to accept a literal Adam and Eve?

I need you to answer these questions, because we theistic evolutionists think we are viewing nature and science thru the eyes of faith on the basis of Christ.

 

[Greg1234]

Okay, so how did you decide the difference?

Textual analysis. Job is primarily concerned with depicting the omnipotence of God. Creation, the resurrection, revelations aren't.

 

[lucaspa]

You also gave up on the fact that the scientific evidence in Daniel contradicted the fire.

Dan 3:22-27:

“The king's command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego...So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.”

Notice that the fire destroyed the soldiers who were standing nearby, but left zero evidence on the men who were actually in the fire: Lack of evidence for fire. Also notice that everything we would not expect to find on the three men – intact skin, intact hair, intact robes – was actually found on the three men: Evidence to the contrary.

Remember, we do have evidence that supported the fire: the deaths of the soldiers "who took up ...". The whole passage is designed such to say that there is a real fire there. What the passage is saying is there is miraculous protection of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednago. The evidence of that miraculous protection is that they have none of the signs of fire that are expected. Again, theory vs data.

Theory: fire will burn every person in it and produce burned skin, hair, robes, etc.

Data: in this case 3 men were not burned.

Modification of theory: in that case the 3 men were protected by God.

Of course, this is not scientific evidence. Why not? Because science restricts itself to evidence that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. This is called "intersubjective". The account in Daniel is not intersubjective. We could set up approximately the same circumstances by building a fire that hot and then throw you in. Do you think you would come out unburned? If not, it means the experience is not intersubjective and not part of science. Does that mean the account is wrong or violates science? No.

 

[Greg1234]

Of course it does. The Bible clearly states that the earth does not move (1 Samuel 2:8)

Still peddling that stuff.

1 Sam 2:8 "The Lord makes poor, and makes rich; he brings low, and lifts up. 8 He lifts up the poor from the earth, and raises the needy from the dunghill; to seat him with the princes of the people, and causing them to inherit the throne of glory"

From the looks of it, it seems like you're going to have to provide evidence for Darwinism.

 

[Mallon]

Textual analysis. Job is primarily concerned with depicting the omnipotence of God. Creation, the resurrection, revelations aren't.

The creation story isn't concerned about depicting the omnipotence of God??? That's news to me.

 

[Mallon]

Still peddling that stuff.

1 Sam 2:8 "The Lord makes poor, and makes rich; he brings low, and lifts up. 8 He lifts up the poor from the earth, and raises the needy from the dunghill; to seat him with the princes of the people, and causing them to inherit the throne of glory"

Why did you leave out the part where 1 Sam 2:8 says that God set the earth atop pillars?

From the looks of it, it seems like you're going to have to provide evidence for Darwinism.

We're not discussing "Darwinism". We're talking about the meaning of the Bible. Please don't try to derail the discussion again.

 

[lucaspa]

This is because the names "Adam" and "Eve" have both singular and plural usage. This is no different form the name Jacob having both singular and plural usage. Jacob (singular) was Abraham’s grandson, and his many descendants, the nation of Israel, were also referred to as Jacob (plural).

Not here. The words that refer to "humans" in Hebrew is different from the word referred to as Adam. Eve doesn't have a plural to my knowledge and the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 is not the word used for Eve in Genesis 2.

You are making it obvious you don’t understand what Paul is saying.
There is the fallen sin-nature we inherited from fallen Adam and there are the sins we commit as a result of having that fallen sin-nature. The verses you quoted above are describing the sins we commit and not the sin-nature we inherited.

Your quote from Paul denies that:

“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” (Rom 5:19).

That isn't talking "sin nature". That is saying that we are out and out sinners because of Adam. Not "sin nature", but sins.

“For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” (Rom 5:15).
Again, not sin nature where we commit our own sins and therefore die. Paul is saying "many died" They didn't have to do a thing. The trespass of one man killed them.

It appears that you are not reading what is there but a theory you would like to be there.

I am often told by your fellow internet scientists that a scientific theory is so well evidenced that it is considered a fact.

You apparently didn't see that "considered", even tho you wrote it. We have never told you that you can use theory to deny fact. In fact, we criticize creationists all the time for doing exactly that.

Now, it turns out that militant atheists have the same problem: trying to use theory to deny data. As I said before, it's a mistake about science. Atheists that use that type of argument are misstating science. And you can call them on that.

This might also explain the talking serpent in Genesis 3.

Actually, the Genesis 3 story simply has it that there is only one serpent (made presumably in Genesis 2 as a potential helpmeet for Adam) and that it can naturally talk. No miracle. The serpent just talks. It also has legs. 3:14 "Then the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all animals, domestic and wild. You will crawl on your belly, groveling in the dust as long as you live."

God doesn't take away the ability of serpent to talk, but apparently its descendents either can't or don't, because the author realizes that snakes of that day don't talk.

BTW, the author of Genesis 3 obviously didn't know about skinks. They are a family of lizards and some species don't have legs and crawl on their belly.

 

[lucaspa]

Perhaps John Milton said it best, “If there be any difference among professed believers as to the sense of Scripture, it is their duty to tolerate such difference in each other, until God shall have revealed the truth to all”

I agree with this on many theological issues, such as faith alone or faith and works necessary for salvation.

However, the irony is that God's Creation does "reveal the truth to all". This gets back to 1) science studies God's Creation, which is also God's revelation and 2) science only accepts evidence that is the same to all. So science is looking at truth God has revealed to all.

 

[Greg1234]

The creation story isn't concerned about depicting the omnipotence of God???

No, it isnt primarily concerned with depicting the omnipotence of God but the recording of an actual event. So is the resurrection.

That's news to me.

Of course it is.

Why did you leave out the part where 1 Sam 2:8 says that God set the earth atop pillars?

This is given in 1
"My heart is established in the Lord [and cannot be moved], my horn is exalted in my God; my mouth is enlarged over my enemies, I have rejoiced in thy salvation

We're not discussing "Darwinism". We're talking about the meaning of the Bible. Please don't try to derail the discussion again.

You're using the bible to prove Darwinism. The only difference is in Creationism, this is done through affirming the bible, in Darwinism, through degrading it for Darwin. No subject is being changed here. While Creationism has both the bible and data, you only have evidence through the bible.

 

[Mallon]

No, it isnt primarily concerned with depicting the omnipotence of God but the recording of an actual event.

The problem is that the Genesis creation accounts depict two different events, as we've explored here.

You're using the bible to prove Darwinism. The only difference is in Creationism, this is done through affirming the bible, in Darwinism, through degrading it for Darwin.

Recognizing the Bible for what it is (a theological compendium, not a science textbook) doesn't degrade it in any way.

 

[Greg1234]

as we've explored here.

Lol

Recognizing the Bible for what it is (a theological compendium, not a science textbook) doesn't degrade it in any way.

So you admit to using the bible as evidence correct? Don't be ashamed. Materialists have realized the position they're in and have turned to the bible. "The bible is fairy tales" at times comes out as "your interpretation is wrong [the bible is actually evidence for Darwinism]." Funny old world ain't it?

By the by, wherever testing, observation and minds to formulate are, there is science. What you're trying to say is that the bible is not a book on materialism.

 

[lucaspa]

Because miracles break the laws of nature.

But here the nature is the sun moving around the earth. If you want a law of nature broken in our understanding, it would be the earth stops rotating. However, that isn't what the passage says.

- The repeated use of the word 'firmament' [a dome] especially in Genesis, suggesting that the Earth and it's atmosphere was sphericle.

A dome is semispherical. A dome is never a complete sphere. So the use of a dome suggests a flat earth with a semispherical dome above it.

- References to the Earth being 'set in it's place' refer to the fact the planet stays in its orbit instead of drifting out into space.

That's a reinterpretation derived from extrabiblical knowledge. The passages say the the earth is immovable, not that it stays in an orbit but is moving.

- Psalm 19:4 describes a 'tabernacle' [place of habitation] for the sun, which doesn't move.

But Psalm 19:5-6 has the sun coming out of the tabernacle and moving.

- Psalm 19:6 describes the heavens as a circuit.

Yep. The sun moves above the flat earth and then goes below the flat earth: that's night.

Of course, the whole point of the Psalm is to say that the heavens give the message of God.

My point was to say that the Bible does not state geocentrism as an absolute fact, but rather geocentrism is something people interpret by picking the quotes which fit their ideas.

Our point is that you reinterpret the verses in the light of extrabiblical knowledge. Taken at face value and literally, the following verses say the earth does not move:

Job 26:7: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing. "

1 Chron 16:30: "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

Psalm 93:1 "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, [wherewith] he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. "

Psalm 96:1 "Say among the heathen [that] the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. "

Psalm 104:5 "You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever." or "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

These were the verses that the RCC used to argue against heliocentrism in the 17th century. It is only extrabiblical knowledge that causes you to say we are "picking the quotes". You too are picking quotes, but you are picking them so you can reintepret them in the light of extrabiblical knowledge. Without that knowledge, there is no way you would think they mean what you claim they do.

 

[lucaspa]

Biblical geocentrism doesn't just follow from quote mining. The Bible is replete with references to this ancient cosmology. In fact, it's the ONLY cosmology described in Scripture.

That's true. The various authors used the best "science" of their day -- Babylonian cosmology -- to set their theological messages.

It's interesting that, in order to explain it away, you've had to inject modernist notions that the firmament actually refers to the atmosphere and the immobility of the earth actually refers to its being set in an orbit about the sun.

Yes, the very extrabiblical evidencebeing used to reinterpret those verses is supposedly not allowed when it comes to Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-8. The extrabiblical evidence of the origin of species and age of the earth can't be used to change interpretation of those parts of the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

So you admit to using the bible as evidence correct?

For theology? Of course. But when God's Creation contradicts a particular interpetation of the Bible, I follow Christianity and do what is advocated in the first quote of my signature.

Materialists have realized the position they're in and have turned to the bible.

None of us here are philosophical materialists. You aren't arguing against atheists here.

"The bible is fairy tales" at times comes out as "your interpretation is wrong [the bible is actually evidence for Darwinism]." Funny old world ain't it?

I've never said the Bible is evidence for Darwinism. I don't think Mallon has either. The evidence for Darwinism comes from God thru God's Creation.

By the by, wherever testing, observation and minds to formulate are, there is science. What you're trying to say is that the bible is not a book on materialism.

No, we are saying the Bible is not a book that is intended to be scientifically accurate as we understand the knowledge from science today. IOW, the Bible is not a book of scientific knowledge. That is often shortened to "The Bible is not a science book".

 

[Papias]

Mallon wrote:

the Bible repeatedly states that the earth is set in place on pillars, not in orbit about the sun.

(Post #168)


Greg wrote (post #184)

Still peddling that stuff.

1 Sam 2:8 "The Lord makes poor, and makes rich; he brings low, and lifts up. 8 He lifts up the poor from the earth, and raises the needy from the dunghill; to seat him with the princes of the people, and causing them to inherit the throne of glory"

From the looks of it, it seems like you're going to have to provide evidence for Darwinism.

The full verse says:

The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.
8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.


******************
Now, what would cause one to deliberately cut out part of a verse when it is being discussed, and then claim that the part cut out isn't in their Bible? Is not the respect for one's Bible to be more important than belief differences to Christians? What are we to think of Christians who feel comfortable deceived others about what the actual text of a Bible says? Is that the mark of someone who takes their Bible seriously?

And what do we expect non-believers to think of Christianity when they see Christians regularly lying, even to the point of quotemining what they say is their own sacred scripture? If we show them, by our actions, that we don't respect our Bible, then what will they think when we tell them that we want them to respect our Bible?

Papias

 

[lucaspa]

Textual analysis. Job is primarily concerned with depicting the omnipotence of God. Creation, the resurrection, revelations aren't.

Why would not the omnipotence of God also include that the universe does look as the omnipotent God created it? Does omnipotence really gain a boost from "storehouses of ice and snow" when those do not exist?

Job is actually concerned with answering the question: how could Yahweh's nation Israel be defeated and conqueored by Babylon if Yahweh is stronger than the Babylonian gods? Perhaps Yahweh doesn't even exist! The answer proposed is: it is God's bat, ball, and backyard, so He can do whatever He wants and we can't object.

Cannot Genesis 1-3 be primarily concerned with showing properties of God rather than history?

 

[Mallon]

So you admit to using the bible as evidence correct?

Evidence for what?

 

[lucaspa]

No, it isnt primarily concerned with depicting the omnipotence of God but the recording of an actual event.

Sorry, but Genesis 1 is concerned about showing the omnipotence of God. By showing God is powerful enough to create "the heavens and the earth".

It is also concerned with showing that the Babylonian gods do not exist and providing a justification for the Sabbath. The last thing it is concerned with is giving an actual history of creation.

You're using the bible to prove Darwinism. The only difference is in Creationism, this is done through affirming the bible, in Darwinism, through degrading it for Darwin.

Oh good grief. How can you miss the point so badly? No one is "degrading" the Bible.

What Mallon (and I) are showing is that all Christians use extrabiblical evidence to determine that some interpretations of scripture are not correct. In this case, we use evidence from astronomy to show that interpretations of scripture that the earth literally does not move (and thus geocentrism) are not correct. All Christians (including creationists) allow the extrabiblical evidence to modify the interpretation of those verses.

What theistic evolutionists do is consistently alllow extrabiblical evidence to help tell them that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-8 is incorrect.

While Creationism has both the bible and data, you only have evidence through the bible.

ROFL! You are actually going to try to say that creationism has the data from God's Creation!?? That, of course, is why there are so many scientific articles affirming creationism, right? And why all creationist organizations spend so much time spinning scientific articles trying to disguise what they really say.

Greg, the history is that scientists, all of whom were Christian and most of whom were ministers, falsified creationism by the data by 1830.

There were no YECs by 1820 and no acceptors of a world wide flood by 1831.

 

[lucaspa]

Evidence for what?

The key to understanding Greg here is when he says: "You're using the bible to prove Darwinism. The only difference is in Creationism, this is done through affirming the bible, in Darwinism, through degrading it for Darwin."

The "logic" runs something like this:
1. Mallon is degrading the Bible by insisting the cosmology of the Bible is incorrect.
2. Degrading the Bible proves Darwinism. (if the Bible is incorrect, Darwinism is correct. False dichotomy, of course, and non-sequitor on top of it.)

It appears that Greg wants to turn this into a Christianity vs atheism argument. Even tho everyone knows this is a Christian Only forum and all of us here are Christian. This attempt rests on the false equations God = Bible or God = creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

Now, what would cause one to deliberately cut out part of a verse when it is being discussed, and then claim that the part cut out isn't in their Bible? Is not the respect for one's Bible to be more important than belief differences to Christians? What are we to think of Christians who feel comfortable deceived others about what the actual text of a Bible says? Is that the mark or someone who takes their Bible seriously?

Excellent questions. None of the answers i come up with are complimentary to the people who do this.

Is creationism or a literal Bible more important than God?

And what do we expect non-believers to think of Christianity when they see Christians regularly lying, even to the point of quotemining what they say is their own sacred scripture?

That is a problem, isn't it? I think it is going to make believers think that all of Christianity is a lie. And thus it is going to drive people away from God and Christ instead of bring them to God and Christ. Kinda negates the Great Commission, doesn't it?