Leaning TE, Questioning a Lot

I think one reason people have difficulty grasping the TE position is that we allow those opposed to TE to frame the topic with their questions.
I think the correct process for us is to define the TE position and then respond to objections. Otherwise they just lead you around to where they want you to go.

Doctor Strangelove said:

It can be a lonely thing. I hope you have friends and family who are supportive. I have had people tell me things like, "If you were really saved you would know the Bible is literally true." And such profound conversation stoppers like, "My grandparents weren't monkeys!"

Click to expand...

I happen too believe that there were two creations of man, one that a general creation that occurred via the "evolution" process and then the separate creation of Adam and even in Eden. The first is where were got our tailbones and appendix. The mixing of the original and the Adam down through time has made the two lines indistinguishable.

As far as the monkey objection, what is the difference. If TE is correct then monkeys were created from dirt and we from monkeys. Either way... we came form dirt. What is worse? Coming directly from dirt, or taking the monkey route back to dirt. Either way... we came from dirt.

Peace

Dids

This is not finalized. These are the current principles I am working with from scripture and nature.


A: The Original Creation Genesis 1:1
1. At some point, very likely 14.4 billion years ago, God spoke the "stuff" of creation into existence. This was nothing more than space and primitive matter. I interpret "heavens and the earth" as space and matter.
2. Over a period of billions of years, God molded the universe into the galaxies, black holes, nebula, and planets. All this occurred prior to Geneses 1:3.
3. God, in the formation of the planets, infuses the ground and sea with the functionality to generate life. God guides the process though development stages.
4. God presides over a period of ages we refer to as prehistoric. These ages are not detailed in the scripture. These include all the geologic periods referred to by paleontologists and archeologists.
5. Animals and other creatures develop from the Word-infused earth and sea. Starting with microscopic organisms emerging from the land and water, God allows the kinds to develop on their own, only intervening when He desires changes in individual species. Ultimately, a form of man comes into being.
6. At some point, we surmise this to be 65 million years ago. Satan, as the ruler of the earth, rebels along with 1/3 of the angels. The earth is destroyed to the point where its ability to generate life is extinguished.

B: The Gap period between the fall of Satan and the restructuring of the earth.
7. The Spirit broods over the earth. Gen 1:2

C: The Reformation of the earth and recreation of life.
8. We are now at Genesis 1:2 in the Genesis process. The earth is in a state of absolute chaos because of the rebellion of Satan and the resultant destruction of the earth. It is said to be without form and void. It is from here that the earth reformed which is detailed from Gen 1:3 to Gen 2:6
9. The reformation process begins with the restoration of light and the firmament, the clearing of the chaos, and the establishment of seas and land.
10. God re-invigorated the land and the sea to once again bring forth life. As nature shows us, the first elements of life issued from the primordial land and sea, and began to ascend to higher forms all according to the plans and purposes of God. God intervened where it was needed to guide life into acceptable forms of life.
11. Eventually one of these higher forms of life was the animal man described in the closing verses of Gen 1. This is NOT Adam and Eve.
12. God created Adam and Even from the dust of the earth and set them in the garden Unlike the animal man created in the closing verses of Gen 1, Adam and Eve were created by the direct hand and breath of God.
13. Eventually the "animal man" cross bred with the "God breathed man." This is where the sons of Adam got their wives.

didaskalos said:

This is not finalized. These are the current principles I am working with from scripture and nature.


A: The Original Creation Genesis 1:1
1. At some point, very likely 14.4 billion years ago, God spoke the "stuff" of creation into existence. This was nothing more than space and primitive matter. I interpret "heavens and the earth" as space and matter.
2. Over a period of billions of years, God molded the universe into the galaxies, black holes, nebula, and planets. All this occurred prior to Geneses 1:3.
3. God, in the formation of the planets, infuses the ground and sea with the functionality to generate life. God guides the process though development stages.
4. God presides over a period of ages we refer to as prehistoric. These ages are not detailed in the scripture. These include all the geologic periods referred to by paleontologists and archeologists.
5. Animals and other creatures develop from the Word-infused earth and sea. Starting with microscopic organisms emerging from the land and water, God allows the kinds to develop on their own, only intervening when He desires changes in individual species. Ultimately, a form of man comes into being.
6. At some point, we surmise this to be 65 million years ago. Satan, as the ruler of the earth, rebels along with 1/3 of the angels. The earth is destroyed to the point where its ability to generate life is extinguished.

B: The Gap period between the fall of Satan and the restructuring of the earth.
7. The Spirit broods over the earth. Gen 1:2

C: The Reformation of the earth and recreation of life.
8. We are now at Genesis 1:2 in the Genesis process. The earth is in a state of absolute chaos because of the rebellion of Satan and the resultant destruction of the earth. It is said to be without form and void. It is from here that the earth reformed which is detailed from Gen 1:3 to Gen 2:6
9. The reformation process begins with the restoration of light and the firmament, the clearing of the chaos, and the establishment of seas and land.
10. God re-invigorated the land and the sea to once again bring forth life. As nature shows us, the first elements of life issued from the primordial land and sea, and began to ascend to higher forms all according to the plans and purposes of God. God intervened where it was needed to guide life into acceptable forms of life.
11. Eventually one of these higher forms of life was the animal man described in the closing verses of Gen 1. This is NOT Adam and Eve.
12. God created Adam and Even from the dust of the earth and set them in the garden Unlike the animal man created in the closing verses of Gen 1, Adam and Eve were created by the direct hand and breath of God.
13. Eventually the "animal man" cross bred with the "God breathed man." This is where the sons of Adam got their wives.

Click to expand...

While this is quite contrary to a YEC interpretation, to me it seems to fall more into Gap theology than Theistic Evolution. Gap theology as well as Day-Age correlations were two of the first attempts to bridge the differences between a literal understanding of the creation accounts and new scientific understanding of the age of the earth and its pre-human history. I think they were good attempts at the time, but don't stand up well.

From the perspective of science here are a few objections:

Point 1 Why 14.4 billion years for the initiation of the universe instead of the standard scientific estimate of 13.7 billion years? No reason is given for this deviation and I think one should avoid deviating from standard estimates unless there is a sound reason to do so.

Point 6 (& 11) I am not sure what you mean by the earth having the capacity to generate life. Are you envisioning forms of life originating by spontaneous generation. If not, can you clarify what is meant?

Also why attribute the K-T extinction event to the work of Satan and not also the much more devastating end-Permian extinction? The K-T mass extinction is only one of 6 (including the current one) and was not the worst. What light, what firmament would need to be restored? I realize these ideas make sense in the framework of Gap theology, but they don't make sense as scientific concepts. The K-T extinction affected the earth, not the sun or stars or the rest of the sky.


I have a few theological differences as well--strictly personal and not speaking for anyone else.

Point 5. I never like wording that seems to say God is doing nothing except for occasional interventions. Scripture presents God as always present, always active, whether or not an "intervention" is required. It seems to me that when we restrict God to particular types of interactions with the created order, we tend to forget this. We lose sight of the grand concept of God's everyday providential care of his creation. I don't think we should speak of the evolutionary pathways of creatures as happening "on their own" as if God had nothing to do with it. Speaking providentially, God always has something to do with it.

Points 11 & 12
Personally, I don't think we can actually separate the creation of humanity from the creation of Adam and Eve. The creation account of Genesis 2 seems clearly to be speaking of the primordial creation of humanity through the creation of the first human couple. Obviously, if we agree humanity evolved we need to interpret this as primordial myth rather than historical event. For this reason I don't think it necessary that Adam and Eve be a particular, historical couple. But even if they were, I would still say they evolved rather than being created directly from dust as a separate, if similar, species.

So those are my perceptions of some weaknesses in your framework. Take them FWIW. or reject them as you see fit.

I think it is great that you are making an effort to develop this framework in the first place.

gluadys said:

From the perspective of science here are a few objections:

Point 1 Why 14.4 billion years for the initiation of the universe instead of the standard scientific estimate of 13.7 billion years? No reason is given for this deviation and I think one should avoid deviating from standard estimates unless there is a sound reason to do so.

I guess I just took the most recent date infallible science has put forth, give or take an infallible billion.
Point 6 (& 11) I am not sure what you mean by the earth having the capacity to generate life. Are you envisioning forms of life originating by spontaneous generation. If not, can you clarify what is meant?

I mean that God spoke and enabled the ground and the water of the sea to naturally and automatically generate the materials of life.


Also why attribute the K-T extinction event to the work of Satan and not also the much more devastating end-Permian extinction? The K-T mass extinction is only one of 6 (including the current one) and was not the worst. What light, what firmament would need to be restored? I realize these ideas make sense in the framework of Gap theology, but they don't make sense as scientific concepts. The K-T extinction affected the earth, not the sun or stars or the rest of the sky.

Good points... need to look into these and other like events.

I have a few theological differences as well--strictly personal and not speaking for anyone else.

Point 5. I never like wording that seems to say God is doing nothing except for occasional interventions. Scripture presents God as always present, always active, whether or not an "intervention" is required. It seems to me that when we restrict God to particular types of interactions with the created order, we tend to forget this. We lose sight of the grand concept of God's everyday providential care of his creation. I don't think we should speak of the evolutionary pathways of creatures as happening "on their own" as if God had nothing to do with it. Speaking providentially, God always has something to do with it.


I agree...

Points 11 & 12
Personally, I don't think we can actually separate the creation of humanity from the creation of Adam and Eve. The creation account of Genesis 2 seems clearly to be speaking of the primordial creation of humanity through the creation of the first human couple. Obviously, if we agree humanity evolved we need to interpret this as primordial myth rather than historical event. For this reason I don't think it necessary that Adam and Eve be a particular, historical couple. But even if they were, I would still say they evolved rather than being created directly from dust as a separate, if similar, species.

I understand what you are saying and believed that for some time. But there are differences. Like when animals and birds were created. In chapter 1 we see bird and animals being generated on different days. Yet in chapter two they were both generated at the same time. In chapter 1 the birds came on the sea day, while in chapter 2 they came on the earth day. Different days. Different mediums, different methods. There may be other differences between chapter one and two. I think chapter 2 introduces the "genreations" concept. No such thing found in chapter 1.

So those are my perceptions of some weaknesses in your framework. Take them FWIW. or reject them as you see fit.

I think it is great that you are making an effort to develop this framework in the first place.

Click to expand...

Thanks

didaskalos said:

I guess I just took the most recent date infallible science has put forth, give or take an infallible billion.

Click to expand...

I sure hope you are being ironic. You know science is not infallible. But in any case, if you took 14.4 as "the most recent date...put forth" you are far behind time. Dates in the range of 13.4-13.7 are much more recent findings.

I mean that God spoke and enabled the ground and the water of the sea to naturally and automatically generate the materials of life.

Click to expand...

Ok, sounds like you haven't fully worked out just what this would look like yet. I know it comes from Gap theology, but the idea that the earth once had, then lost, then had restored, the ability to generate life is mind-boggling outside of that conception. The materials of life are chemicals. Everything necessary to life (proteins, lipids, DNA, etc.) are simply complex chemical molecules. So, to me losing the capacity to generate life would translate into losing the capacity of forming complex chemical molecules, because if those molecules can be formed and remain stable enough to interact with each other, then life is possible.

I understand what you are saying and believed that for some time. But there are differences. Like when animals and birds were created. In chapter 1 we see bird and animals being generated on different days. Yet in chapter two they were both generated at the same time. In chapter 1 the birds came on the sea day, while in chapter 2 they came on the earth day. Different days. Different mediums, different methods. There may be other differences between chapter one and two. I think chapter 2 introduces the "genreations" concept. No such thing found in chapter 1.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are definitely differences between the opening creation accounts. More than enough IMO not to see them as originally part of the same story. I just don't find Gap theology a convincing way to explain the differences.

gluadys said:

I sure hope you are being ironic. You know science is not infallible. But in any case, if you took 14.4 as "the most recent date...put forth" you are far behind time. Dates in the range of 13.4-13.7 are much more recent findings.

I agree... I just wish they would realize they are not infallible. I cannot count the times I have been "smited by academia and science" as they insisted that anyone who disagreed with their every word was a flat earther. Truth is there is a LOT of arrogance in the scientific community. I work in a state college and I see it all the time. Hardly a day goes by that someone is putting down people who dare disagree with their pronouncements.


Ok, sounds like you haven't fully worked out just what this would look like yet. I know it comes from Gap theology, but the idea that the earth once had, then lost, then had restored, the ability to generate life is mind-boggling outside of that conception. The materials of life are chemicals. Everything necessary to life (proteins, lipids, DNA, etc.) are simply complex chemical molecules. So, to me losing the capacity to generate life would translate into losing the capacity of forming complex chemical molecules, because if those molecules can be formed and remain stable enough to interact with each other, then life is possible.

I was just discussing this with a fellow who stated that it is no surprised that life erupts spontaneously from nature. He pretty much said the same thing here. I suggested that he was correct, but that the reason nature generated life was because the creator created it in such a way that it would "bring forth life."


Yes, there are definitely differences between the opening creation accounts. More than enough IMO not to see them as originally part of the same story. I just don't find Gap theology a convincing way to explain the differences.

This is why I placed so much into the time prior to the gap. The gap is just the period of time between the last great extinction up to the re-creation.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the discussion. Yes, I have not got all this down pat yet. I know of no one that has taken this approach. I believe that all we see in nature is completely compatible with what we see in the scripture. It fits, we just need too be open enough to allow it to happen.

Peace
Dids

didaskalos said:

gluadys said:

I sure hope you are being ironic. You know science is not infallible.

Click to expand...

I agree... I just wish they would realize they are not infallible.

Click to expand...

I have never heard a single scientist claim infallibility. I don't know where the perception that science claims infallibility comes from.

I cannot count the times I have been "smited by academia and science" as they insisted that anyone who disagreed with their every word was a flat earther.

Click to expand...

I wonder if what you are actually running into is a natural impatience with people who try to be critics before they have taken adequate time to learn how scientists know what they know.

Science tends to attract this sort of criticism in a way that other fields (e.g. auto mechanics or IT technology) do not. People seem to understand that they are not experts in plumbing or writing symphonies or flying airplanes and accept the advice of plumbers, composers and pilots without quibble. Yet they seem to think that science should be open to criticism from unqualified amateurs. Then, amazed that the experts don't listen to them, they speak of scientific "arrogance".

Nowhere is the arrogance of the ignorant as blatant as in the fields of geology, palaeontology and evolution--and most recently this has spread to climatology as well. I see many scientists more than willing to teach inquirers. But I don't blame them for being disgusted with the willfully ignorant who masquerade as "skeptics" when they don't even know enough to be skeptics.

I am not a scientist myself--far from it. But when i don't understand something, I don't assume the scientists must have overlooked something. I ask about it first, I try to find out what is known.

Science is not infallible knowledge, and far from complete knowledge, but it is a way of knowing; that is why it is called "science". And most people have no inkling of how much scientists know or how they came to know it. Yet some are arrogant enough to think their two cents of ignorance entitles them to a hearing along with the experts. I expect the putdowns you perceive as academic arrogance are in response to this arrogance of the willfully ignorant.

It is always worthwhile asking, when a scientist is very confident of their conclusions, what the source of that confidence is. Not in a challenging way, but in a spirit of genuine inquiry. Once you have learned what the scientists have learned, you may be just as confident of the same conclusions, even though they strike you as outlandish now.

After all, even Einstein thought quantum mechanics was gibberish at first. Yet today, some aspects of physics could not be understood without it.

gluadys said:

I have never heard a single scientist claim infallibility. I don't know where the perception that science claims infallibility comes from. .

Click to expand...

It comes from the continual attacks by science on people of faith. We are constantly told that if we do agree with them then we must be flat earthers. That action can only be taken by those who think their statements are beyond question.

I recall years ago science told us that if we did not believe the universe was 12 billion years old, then we were ignorant.
Then they changed it to 13 billion... and then we were ignorant again.
Then they changed it to 13.4 billion, and yes once again we were all ignorant.
Then there were the bones found in England that proved there was a missing link, and if you disagreed... you were ignorant of the facts and a flat earther.
Opps.... turned out to be a hoax. But we were still ignorant anyways.
Then there was the missing link in China... and if you disagreed you were ignorant and a flat earther...
Opps.... turned out to be a pig tooth.
And of course we were all still ignorant anyways,

I suppose this post will prove I am ignorant and a flat earther.

didaskalos said:

It comes from the continual attacks by science on people of faith. We are constantly told that if we do agree with them then we must be flat earthers. That action can only be taken by those who think their statements are beyond question.

I recall years ago science told us that if we did not believe the universe was 12 billion years old, then we were ignorant.
Then they changed it to 13 billion... and then we were ignorant again.
Then they changed it to 13.4 billion, and yes once again we were all ignorant.
Then there were the bones found in England that proved there was a missing link, and if you disagreed... you were ignorant of the facts and a flat earther.
Opps.... turned out to be a hoax. But we were still ignorant anyways.
Then there was the missing link in China... and if you disagreed you were ignorant and a flat earther...
Opps.... turned out to be a pig tooth.
And of course we were all still ignorant anyways,

I suppose this post will prove I am ignorant and a flat earther.

Click to expand...

What you actually seem ignorant of is history. Do more research on what scientists themselves were actually saying when these episodes occurred. Don't believe non-scientists who throw around "science says that..." because often they are wrong.

To look at your points:
"I recall years ago science told us that if we did not believe the universe was 12 billion years old, then we were ignorant."

First, unless you are considerably older than I am (say a centenarian) you don't "recall" that at all. You heard that it was once claimed the universe was 12 billion years old. Actually the first estimate of the age of the universe was "from 12-20 billion years old" but your source didn't tell you that, did it? Since then, further study has provided more accurate estimates. Even the current estimate is not actually 13.7 but a range of which 13.7 is the average. It is considered to be accurate within 1%.

Second, science never asked anyone to "believe" an age of the universe. Scientists told us what they calculated the age of the universe to be. You are welcome to check their math.


"Then there were the bones found in England that proved there was a missing link, and if you disagreed... you were ignorant of the facts and a flat earther."

Piltdown man. Have you read the Wikipedia article on that? Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Note that it was always scientifically controversial and that the first suggestion it was actually a compound of a human skull with an ape jaw came as early as 1913.


"Then there was the missing link in China... and if you disagreed you were ignorant and a flat earther..."

I don't know to what extent "missing link" was used by scientists. It is a bad term and has not been used scientifically for many decades. Though journalists still seem to like it. It shows an ignorance of current understanding of the history of evolution to refer to a missing link. Species are connected through common ancestry, as on a family tree spreading out onto different branches, not as chronological links on a chain.


I suppose you are referring to Peking man, which is a genuine Homo erectus fossil. Fossils of the same type have been found all over the Old World now. Homo erectus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The evidence indicates they are the common ancestor of several more recent species, including our own.

If you disagree with that conclusion, you need either to establish the scientific basis of that conclusion or grant that your disagreement is not based in science at all.

"Opps.... turned out to be a pig tooth."

Oh, looks like you have got your stories confused. The pig tooth was not found in China. It was found in Nebraska. You can read the whole story on Wikipedia. Nebraska Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Note that there was never complete acceptance of the human connections of Nebraska Man in the scientific community.

So we have a hoax (Piltdown Man), a case of mistaken identity (Nebraska Man) and a genuine hominin fossil (Peking Man). In the case of the first two, there was controversy in the scientific community from the beginning, so I very much doubt anyone was told it was ignorant of them not to accept it. Why would scientist call on non-scientists to accept what many of them did not themselves? Furthermore, one of these cases is more than a century old and the other nearly a century old. Seems at the very least that scientists have learned to base their conclusions on well-checked facts, not dreams.

So, it behoves the "skeptics" to be at least as well-informed.


"And of course we were all still ignorant anyways,"

We are all ignorant until we take the time to learn. Every scientist was once an ignorant child. It is the assumption of the right to be skeptical while refusing to take the time to learn the facts that riles scientists. Even that could be tolerated if the forces of willfull ignorance were not campaigning to have their views be part of school curricula. But can you really blame scientists for their response when they see a mangling of their life's work promoted for science students?

A farmer would have the same reaction (and rightly so) if a teenager from an urban ghetto tried to teach him how to farm and was getting it all wrong. Even more so, if the teenager's ideas were being seriously proposed as national agricultural policy. A Christian would have the same reaction (and rightly so) when a non-Christian who has never read the bible and knows as much about the faith as he learned from the Simpsons gets all the basics of Christianity wrong and on that basis claims it should be suppressed by society.

Scientists are not infallible and don't claim to be. They don't ask people to "believe" scientific conclusions, but they do ask that if those conclusions seem wrong to you that you follow the same trail of evidence to come to different conclusions. In short, until you do your homework, you don't have the right to have your "skepticism" taken seriously any more than the urban teenager has a right to be taken seriously by the farmer or the non-Christian who hasn't even read the bible to be taken seriously by Christian teachers.

Scientists make mistakes often, but it is also scientists, not willfully ignorant "skeptics", who correct those mistakes--through further study of the evidence.

I don't think you will find scientists arrogant toward people of faith generally. After all, many people of faith are scientists. And many people of faith don't want to see science corrupted in the name of faith.

Nor am I saying scientists are never arrogant. Some are. It is a habit with certain people. They are even arrogant toward other scientists. In fact, to hear them, scientists often see themselves as a fractious lot with one scientist dissing another and vice versa.

But don't discount that the naming of ignorance may be deserved. Check out what the "ignorant" one is saying before assuming their intellectual superiority. Scientists are not necessarily more intelligent than their detractors, but they have spend a good many years learning science. That has to count for something.