Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[lucaspa]

No. The direction of lightning does not necessaily require supernatural power. But the order that we find in the natural world does.

He didn't say "direction". Mallon said lightning itself is explained by Maxwell's equations.

The order of a hexagonal shape we see in snowflakes is explained by the chemistry of water. Where do you think we should have the necessity of a supernatural power for that order?

 

[lucaspa]

I am looking for a answer I can understand, so I need to make this pretty simple:

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25 NIV)

In versus 24-25 God tells us that he created land creatures “according to their kinds” (in my words that means different species).

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 NIV)

In versus 26-27 God tells us He created man in His image and they would rule over, basically, everything He had created on earth.

If those that support evolution are supporting that God morphed some of the creatures He created in versus 24-25 into man, I have a fundamental problem with that. As a Christian how do you reconcile macroevolution, for lack of a better word, with the Bible.

On the other hand if you are saying the man has evolved from versus 26-27 to modern man, we are in agreement.

First we realize that this is a theological document. This is easier to understand if you put yourself in the position of the people of Israel at the time it was written. The major religious competition is the Babylonian religion. The Babylonian creation story is the Enuma Elish. You can find it online. Everyone then would have been familiar with the Enuma Elish. Genesis 1 is meant to destroy the Babylonian religion by destroying the Babylonian gods in the order in which they appear in the Enuma Elish. The first gods are Apsu and Tiamet, the gods of freshwater and saltwater. Their son is earth. Well, Yahweh separates water to form saltwater and freshwater and then creates earth. That destroys the Babylonian gods because they can't be gods if the physical object of which they are gods is created by Yahweh.

The Babylonians believed that animals had spirits that were semi-godlike. By being creations of Yahweh, this is refuted.

Second, "in his image" doesn't refer to what humans look like. It refers to their power. In the Enuma Elish, humans are created as the servants and playthings of the gods; they have no power of their own. In Genesis 1 humans are created for their own sakes. "in his image" was a phrase used at the time for an ambassador who had the power to make binding treaties without referring to the king (remember how slow communication was then). So Genesis 1:26 is saying the same thing 2 different ways: humans have the power of God in regard to what they do to the earth. What they do is as tho God did it.

Finally, God's Creation tells us humans are the latest species in a long series of species. Yes, we did evolve from species that were non-human. Get used to it.

What you want is for us to be special because God created us specially. Sorry, but that is your ego speaking. We are special only because God chooses to regard us as special. We are totally dependent on God.

 

[Mallon]

He didn't say "direction". Mallon said lightning itself is explained by Maxwell's equations.

Without going back and checking, I believe that it was shernren, actually.

 

[lucaspa]

So, are you saying in order for a Christian to accept macroevolution they must reject what the Bible says about creation?

No. But it means that we must read the creation stories in Genesis the way they were meant to be read: as theology and telling us the Who and why of creation, not the how. The creation stories tell us theological truths, not historical ones.

What Mallon is saying is that Christianity has a long history of allowing extrabiblical evidence to tell us how we should interpret scripture. The classic example is Luke 2:1. Our extrabiblical knowledge tells us that only Romans were enrolled in the census. That has become so entrenched that the NIV has a false translation to say just that. The Greek really says "whole world" as in the entire world, not just the Roman world.

The Bible teaches flat earth. But when extrabiblical evidence showed that the earth was round, we reinterpreted those verses. Same with the verses that says the earth is immovable. I see you trying to reinterpret Psalm 19:6 to mean movement thru the galaxy. David could not possibly have meant that. But you use extrabiblical evidence about the galaxy and the sun's movement in it to reinterpret the verse. Wrongly.

Mallon, Papias, Gluadys, I and the vast majority of Christians simply do the same thing with Genesis 1-3.

 

[Anthony022071]

But you think God is not with evolution. Do you see the contradiction?

It's not a contradiction. I don't assume that the theory of evolution is a true explanation of how species originated. Evolution in the sense of speciation happens,but I don't believe in the theory,which is a narrative of the history of organisms.

Pretty much it does. It sets up the condition of ultimate truth: there is nothing but the material. Just like Christianity sets up the ultimate truth: God exists and created the material universe. Both of those provide the basis of their respective philosophies. You can have pursuit of intellectual truth under either of those philosophies. And do.

A mere proposition about ultimate reality does not amount to a philosophy.
Philosophy draws out moral inferences and implications from ideas and elaborates upon them.

It makes all the difference in the world. "Don't know" is a very different view of nature than "only nature exists". The effect on explanations is also different.

It makes no difference,in regard to how phenomena are explained,whether you never admit the supernatural because of lack of knowledge or because of conviction. The explanations will be the same.

Science doesn't try to get the ultimate truth because it can't know the ultimate truth. But if you say "only nature exists" then you have made a statement of ultimate truth.

MN is the adaptation of that belief for the purposes of science.

It's not a "determination". It's a limitation.

You said that science determines that we can't look for a supernatural component. Anyway,it is an unjustifiable limitation on reason.

It's something science cannot do. It cannot directly look for a supernatural component. Science would like to. I personally, wearing my scientist hat, would like to know whether the "natural" component is sufficient or whether we need a supernatural component. But I can't. All I can say is that what we have is sufficient as a material component.

Knowledge of nature is not limited to what science can and cannot see and experiment upon. There is also common observation and logical reasoning. MN puts an unjustifiable limit upon reason. The naturalistic view is unjustifiable to begin with. The fact that the supernatural cannot be tested does not mean that it should be excluded from all explanations of phenomena. If the supernatural causation exists in nature,then it should be considered. How things are explained will not affect the outcome of experimentation. They are two separate aspects of science.

God-of-the-gaps again. This is not reasonable by Christianity. Since God created a complete universe, there are not going to be any gaps.

No,it isn't a god of the gaps. It is about discerning necessary power,and what natural things can and cannot do,and bringing our knowledge of God's power over nature to bear upon our understanding of natural phenomena. God is present to all of the natural world,but he does not act upon the natural world in a uniform manner.
Some things have life,which is spirit from God,and most other things are dead. Some phenomena show order in their movements and functions,some appear to be mostly random,and order and randomness can be seen in different aspects of the same phenomenon.

 

[Anthony022071]

He didn't say "direction". Mallon said lightning itself is explained by Maxwell's equations.

He used the word "path". I thought "direction" was the better word.

The order of a hexagonal shape we see in snowflakes is explained by the chemistry of water. Where do you think we should have the necessity of a supernatural power for that order?

The order that exists in chemical elements is created by God,just as the substance is. The shape of snowflakes is not really order,but design. Order is what we see in the workings of an organism.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

The writer does not distinguish those views as his own.

Sure he (Pope Benedict) does. That's what is being done when someone ends the statement mentioning the scientist's findings, and them comments on them, as he does throughout his quote. Besides, even if he didn't, he mentions the scientists findings in explaining his view (the point of the whole document) without contradicting them. So even though only one of these conditions would be sufficient to show that Benedict supports macroevolution, including common descent and evolution of humans from apes, the presence of both makes it even more clear.

Here is the Pope's statement for reference. It's quite clear.

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
​

I know what the pope's views on evolution theory are from his books "In the Beginning","Truth and Tolerance",and "Credo for Today",and from various quotes of his.

I too have read many quotes, and they all support the evolution of humans from apes when the subject comes up. Feel free to mention any others (in addition to those below) that made you think otherwise. Thanks for the good start below.

In the book "Creation and Evolution",he says that the theory of evolution is not a complete,scientifically proven theory

Of course that's true. No scientific theory is "complete", because information is always being added, and no scientific theory is "proven" because science never "proves" anything - just establishes things as extremely likely, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Those aren't proof, and any scientist will affirm that about how scienc works (including real scientists on this board).

,and that because of the immense time span it covers,it cannot be verified in a controlled environment.

Of course it can't. That's hardly relevant. After all, the existence of the Roman empire can't be replicated in the lab, yet it's foolish to doubt that. You are resorting to Last Thursdayism, you know.

He doubts macro-evolution,so he must also doubt that all organsisms have a common ancestor.

Not only does he not doubt macroevolution (if you think he does, please supply a quote, in context), but YOU have stated that macroevolution is real, because speciation, by definition, is macroevolution.

.
​

The theory of evolution is itself atheistic and materialistic in character,because it proceeds from MN and so it explains the history of organisms as if they came to exist only because of natural processes.

Like those atheist, materialist theories of Gravity, heliocentrism, germs, and so on?

When the pope talks about evolution,he does not usually distinguish between the scientific theory and the mere concept,which can mean any kind of development,or between macro-evolution and micro-evolution,which is really just speciation. So if he supports theistic evolution,it is not an uncritical belief in all the particular claims of evolution theory,as it is with most theistic evolutionists.

We saw in his previous quote that he clearly supports the evolution of humans from apes. Here is yet another ones, and there are plenty more. He is, of course, of the belief that God is behind this evolution of humans from bacteria - because he supports theistic evolution.

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
(His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI)
​

In case you are interested, there are schismatic, breakaway groups that do endorse creationism, like the society for saint Pius the tenth. Here is their website: http://www.sspx.org/

And of course, some protestant churches, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

Then you wouldn't get other Catholics bringing this up, and you wouldn't need to care what Benedict thinks. I'm not sure if you do or not, but in case you didn't know I thought I'd pass that along.....

Have a nice evening-

Papias

 

[Deaver]

No. But it means that we must read the creation stories in Genesis the way they were meant to be read: as theology and telling us the Who and why of creation, not the how. The creation stories tell us theological truths, not historical ones.

What Mallon is saying is that Christianity has a long history of allowing extrabiblical evidence to tell us how we should interpret scripture. The classic example is Luke 2:1. Our extrabiblical knowledge tells us that only Romans were enrolled in the census. That has become so entrenched that the NIV has a false translation to say just that. The Greek really says "whole world" as in the entire world, not just the Roman world.

The Bible teaches flat earth. But when extrabiblical evidence showed that the earth was round, we reinterpreted those verses. Same with the verses that says the earth is immovable. I see you trying to reinterpret Psalm 19:6 to mean movement thru the galaxy. David could not possibly have meant that. But you use extrabiblical evidence about the galaxy and the sun's movement in it to reinterpret the verse. Wrongly.

Mallon, Papias, Gluadys, I and the vast majority of Christians simply do the same thing with Genesis 1-3.

I agree the NIV provides a poor translation for Luke 2:1. The NIV is not my choice of translations. The problem is we do not have the original manuscripts, Therefore, I believe we should look at many translations and ask the Holy Spirit to help us discern their meaning.

There are hundreds if not thousands of words written about Psalm 19:6 and how it does or does not support geocentricity. No need to add more. I know this may seem like a leap of faith and perhaps it is, but I believe that it is certainly possible that God inspired David to write about something he didn't fully understand.

I just happen to believe that when we look at the facts all around us, both from the scientific community and from what we observe everyday, it is easier to see that the Bible is very very accurate.


And last but not least truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote.

 

[Mallon]

I know this may seem like a leap of faith and perhaps it is, but I believe that it is certainly possible that God inspired David to write about something he didn't fully understand.

Is it also possible that God inspired Moses to write about something he didn't fully understand.

 

[Greg1234]

When the pope talks about evolution,he does not usually distinguish between the scientific theory and the mere concept,which can mean any kind of development,or between macro-evolution and micro-evolution,which is really just speciation. So if he supports theistic evolution,it is not an uncritical belief in all the particular claims of evolution theory,as it is with most theistic evolutionists.

Pope Denies Evolution Theory on Easter

 

[Deaver]

Is it also possible that God inspired Moses to write about something he didn't fully understand.

Sure it is. But because they didn't fully understand it doesn't mean that it was wrong, it just means they didn't understand it. Remember the writers of the bible were inspired by God. It is not like you or me, well at least me.

 

[Deaver]

First we realize that this is a theological document. This is easier to understand if you put yourself in the position of the people of Israel at the time it was written. The major religious competition is the Babylonian religion. The Babylonian creation story is the Enuma Elish. You can find it online. Everyone then would have been familiar with the Enuma Elish. Genesis 1 is meant to destroy the Babylonian religion by destroying the Babylonian gods in the order in which they appear in the Enuma Elish. The first gods are Apsu and Tiamet, the gods of freshwater and saltwater. Their son is earth. Well, Yahweh separates water to form saltwater and freshwater and then creates earth. That destroys the Babylonian gods because they can't be gods if the physical object of which they are gods is created by Yahweh.

The Babylonians believed that animals had spirits that were semi-godlike. By being creations of Yahweh, this is refuted.

Second, "in his image" doesn't refer to what humans look like. It refers to their power. In the Enuma Elish, humans are created as the servants and playthings of the gods; they have no power of their own. In Genesis 1 humans are created for their own sakes. "in his image" was a phrase used at the time for an ambassador who had the power to make binding treaties without referring to the king (remember how slow communication was then). So Genesis 1:26 is saying the same thing 2 different ways: humans have the power of God in regard to what they do to the earth. What they do is as tho God did it.

Finally, God's Creation tells us humans are the latest species in a long series of species. Yes, we did evolve from species that were non-human. Get used to it.

What you want is for us to be special because God created us specially. Sorry, but that is your ego speaking. We are special only because God chooses to regard us as special. We are totally dependent on God.

I have not developed the knowledge to multi quote, so I will offer a single reply.

Even though there may be points of similarity the method of creation and the theology of creation are vastly different. Liberals are more apt to say these similarities provide conclusive proof that one story was derived from the other (or that both were derived from a still older original).

The conservative belief is the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Even the date of authorship is contested between liberals and conservatives: According to liberal theologians, the Babylonian account of creation was written in the 12th century BCE, centuries earlier than the Biblical account; According to conservative Christian theologians, the opposite happened: the Babylonian account was written after the Biblical account.

Also, I do not need to get over anything. Just because God created man last does not mean we evolved from previous species, it simply means we were created last.. No one has any facts that conclusively prove that “we did evolve from species that were non-human”.

I do agree that we are dependent upon God.

God obviously did not create us exactly like himself because God has no physical body. Instead, we are reflections of God's glory. Most likely, our entire self reflects the image of God. We will never be totally like God because he is our supreme Creator. Knowing that we are made in God's image and thus share many of his characteristics provides a solid basis for self-worth. Human worth is not based on possessions, achievements, physical attractiveness, or public acclaim. Instead, it is based on being made in God's image. Because we bear God's image, we can feel positive about ourselves.

However, whether you chose to believe it or not, I choose to believe that we are special.

 

[Mallon]

Sure it is. But because they didn't fully understand it doesn't mean that it was wrong, it just means they didn't understand it. Remember the writers of the bible were inspired by God. It is not like you or me, well at least me.

Oh, I see. You're still trying to argue for scientific concordism. That's still wrong. We know from the other verses I provided that Psalm 19:6 doesn't refer to the sun's movement through the galaxy because the other verses describle the sun as moving along the firmament, which wasn't out in space.

 

[Deaver]

Do you want to bet on this one?

I am missing your point.

 

[Deaver]

Oh, I see. You're still trying to argue for scientific concordism. That's still wrong. We know from the other verses I provided that Psalm 19:6 doesn't refer to the sun's movement through the galaxy because the other verses describle the sun as moving along the firmament, which wasn't out in space.

I am not the one trying to use this scripture to support a scientific argument. My comment was simply the converse to someone's comment that this verse promotes geocentricity, and that one could argue if they choose that it does in fact show motion between to two spheres, without fully understanding why. In most if not all scripture that talks about the sun's movement, it is simply a observation. When we talk about the sun's movement, in everyday language, we see the sun's movement not the earths rotation.

 

[Mallon]

I am not the one trying to use this scripture to support a scientific argument. My comment was simply the converse to someone's comment that this verse promotes geocentricity, and that one could argue if they choose that it does in fact show motion between to two spheres, without fully understanding why. In most if not all scripture that talks about the sun's movement, it is simply a observation. When we talk about the sun's movement, in everyday language, we see the sun's movement not the earths rotation.

You've ignored the other verses I provided, though. Not only is the sun said to move along the firmament, but the earth is also said to be immovable. So presuming you accept heliocentrism -- since that's what it sounds like -- why do you reject what the Bible says about cosmology?

 

[Deaver]

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.

 

[Mallon]

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.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Doveaman]

But they are not contradicted by scientific evidence.

Doveman doesn't appear to grasp was constitutes scientific evidence, which is why I gave up the discussion.

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.

 

[Doveaman]

I was referring to the "male and female He created them". And that, in Hebrew, is "men" and "women". Not Adam and Eve.

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).

“For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance...He chose David His servant...He brought him to be the shepherd of His people Jacob.” (Deut 32:9, Ps 78:70-71).

And why don't you read all of Paul instead of a bit out of context. For instance, you should have looked at the OT to realize that Paul is saying something forbidden in scripture, that the sons can be punished for the sins of the fathers:

You are making it obvious you don’t understand what Paul is saying.

Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the
children be put to death for the fathers
2Chron.25:4 "But he slew not their children, but [did] as [it is] written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin."

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. Our children are not punished for the sins we commit. However, Paul in Romans 5 is describing the sin-nature we inherited from fallen Adam.

“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).

Just as the sin-nature is inherited through one man, so also righteousness is inherited through one man. The sin-nature is inherited by all men born in the image of Adam, and righteousness is inherited by all men born-again in the image of Christ.

“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).

You are confusing fact and theory. I know I've done this for you at least once, Doveaman, but let me do it again.
Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed. The *theory* states that a person dead will not come back to life.

I am often told by your fellow internet scientists that a scientific theory is so well evidenced that it is considered a fact. So don’t blame me for this confusion. Blame your fellow internet scientists.

However, the story is not talking about an ordinary donkey; it is talking about a miracle. God intervenes so that Balaam's mule (not donkey, BTW) can talk. So, I believe a mule with the intervention of God is capable of talking.

That’s great! I believe this too.

This might also explain the talking serpent in Genesis 3.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]