Misconceptions about Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution)

[theFijian]

Actually, it was this one:

darwin's beliefs - Christian Forums

Metherion

Ah old times, I'd forgotten that we used to have an open Christians side to the forum.

(i'll stop being off-topic now )

 

[shernren]

To play the devil's advocate a little:

Doesn't the Bible distinguish between God's works of creation and God's activity of sustenance? If I were a creationist, I would be able to accept that God is active in sustaining the universe via natural processes, all while denying that God could conceivably have used those natural processes to create the universe - precisely because the period of creation seems to have a definite ending in Genesis 1, and therefore we should not expect to see continuity between God's activity of creation then and God's activity of sustenance today.

I can hold this view while denying the charge of deism.

 

[gluadys]

To play the devil's advocate a little:

Doesn't the Bible distinguish between God's works of creation and God's activity of sustenance? If I were a creationist, I would be able to accept that God is active in sustaining the universe via natural processes, all while denying that God could conceivably have used those natural processes to create the universe - precisely because the period of creation seems to have a definite ending in Genesis 1, and therefore we should not expect to see continuity between God's activity of creation then and God's activity of sustenance today.

I can hold this view while denying the charge of deism.

Well, it gets a little fuzzy if what is being sustained is reproduction. Did God's activity of creating humans end with Adam and Eve? Or are you and I also God's created beings?

I think scripture sees every person as a created being in their own right. So when God sustains the process of reproduction, one consequence is an activity of creation.

On a larger scale, if God sustains the process of evolution, one outcome is the creation of new species. Are they not just as much created species as any that inhabited the Garden of Eden?

 

[shernren]

Well, it gets a little fuzzy if what is being sustained is reproduction. Did God's activity of creating humans end with Adam and Eve? Or are you and I also God's created beings?

I think scripture sees every person as a created being in their own right. So when God sustains the process of reproduction, one consequence is an activity of creation.

On a larger scale, if God sustains the process of evolution, one outcome is the creation of new species. Are they not just as much created species as any that inhabited the Garden of Eden?

Ah, but while I may be the first shernren to have ever walked the planet, I am neither the first man nor the first human, so that my birth is in some sense "less creative" than the creation of Adam and Eve.

God can sustain reproduction within the "created kinds", and even the creation of successive human souls after the pattern of the first human souls, while having ceased to create new "created kinds".

==

As a TE I'm not sure if there is a ironclad Biblical argument for either the advanced creationist (separation of creative and providential activities) or the TE view. On the creationist side one could point to God's rest on the seventh day. Not only is that a proof-text in itself, but it fits in with the tenor of the creation passage as a whole. If the point of Genesis 1 is to tell us about the supernatural creation of the world, and not its natural sustenance, then it only makes sense that at the end the supernatural creation ceases. Or how would we recognize natural order if at any moment God could just pop a new created kind like unicorns or satyrs?

For the TE there is the continued use of the term bara to describe God's redemptive acts in salvation history, such as in Isaiah to describe the calling out of Israel, and the Psalmist's having been "formed in the womb" (Ps 139).

Also, the arguments in Hebrews 4-6 could be used to show that the seventh day is clearly non-literal, in which case the creationist argument simply falls apart, but the creationist can counter by saying that the rest of Hebrews is only patterned after the seventh day without being exactly identical to it - or he can take an OEC tack and say that the seventh day is an actual period of time though not necessarily a day long. Indeed, although YECism tends towards literalistic interpretation, it would be very much in line with YEC thought in general to have the idea that we are all living in the seventh day right now, where God has ceased to create, and where creation is being made "very good" once again, but through God's salvation plan rather than through God's supernatural creativity. I suspect a creationist, if pressed, would view God's redemptive interventions as being something somewhere between creative and providential, just like the creation of new human souls has to be a supernatural act but not necessarily a novel one.

I would say though that many creationists simply do not think this far about providence. For many of them evolution is wrong simply because God isn't "involved" somehow. But I have seen creationists get far enough to point out the putative difference between creation and providence. And I am not sure at that point whether I can dismiss them outright.

 

[gluadys]

As a TE I'm not sure if there is a ironclad Biblical argument for either the advanced creationist (separation of creative and providential activities) or the TE view. On the creationist side one could point to God's rest on the seventh day. Not only is that a proof-text in itself, but it fits in with the tenor of the creation passage as a whole. If the point of Genesis 1 is to tell us about the supernatural creation of the world, and not its natural sustenance, then it only makes sense that at the end the supernatural creation ceases. Or how would we recognize natural order if at any moment God could just pop a new created kind like unicorns or satyrs?[snip]

I think it would be difficult textually. Since the bible was not written with evolution in mind there is certainly nothing clear on the matter to be derived from the text.

So that takes us back to a deeper issue. Do we rely solely on the text and tradition to interpret the text? Or may we also use the testimony of creation itself?

After all, both scripture and tradition point to the creation itself as revelation. So what does creation reveal? And why should its revelation of itself not be just as relevant to interpreting scripture as e.g. Revelation 12:9 is to interpreting the "serpent" of Genesis 3?



I have been thinking lately about the interrogation scene near the end of Orwell's novel 1984. The interrogator holds up three fingers and asks Winston how many fingers he sees. "Three" Winston replies.

"No, you see four fingers."

Winston agrees he sees four fingers, not three, but the interrogator knows he is only saying what the interrogator wants him to say. He makes it clear that they will not be done until Winston himself is convinced he sees four fingers, not three.

I get the impression that the deity of creationists is somewhat like Big Brother, insisting that one must be convinced that one sees not creation as it is, but as the text interpreted literally says it must be even when they are in stark contradiction.

 

[theFijian]

I found this link I had bookmarked ages ago, I'll give it a read through again and post anything pertinent.

New Scientist - Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

 

[heweeps]

I am just a country boy who believes the Bible as the Word of God. I see adaption happening amongst creation. I see accident happening in creation, but mules do not reproduce. I see manipulation that seems to fail on a constant basis, Monsanto comes to mind. I wait for the day a monkey has a human offspring.

If evolution was a real thing, man would improve ethically and morally but man doesn't unless he is born again. And that is spiritual. Technology does not equal improvement in a species. The basic desires of the human being world over is shalom, always has been. whether man has a belief in God or not. And man does not rise to that with out God.

And yup, I am brain washed, by the blood of Jesus.

keith

 

[Mallon]

I am just a country boy who believes the Bible as the Word of God. I see adaption happening amongst creation. I see accident happening in creation, but mules do not reproduce. I see manipulation that seems to fail on a constant basis, Monsanto comes to mind. I wait for the day a monkey has a human offspring.

If evolution was a real thing, man would improve ethically and morally but man doesn't unless he is born again. And that is spiritual. Technology does not equal improvement in a species. The basic desires of the human being world over is shalom, always has been. whether man has a belief in God or not. And man does not rise to that with out God.

And yup, I am brain washed, by the blood of Jesus.

keith

It appears that your understanding of evolution is poor, keith. For example, evolution doesn't state that monkeys suddenly gave birth to humans. There's no reason why you can't be both a country boy AND informed about the theory of evolution.

P.S., we ALL believe the Bible to be inspired by God, here.

 

[heweeps]

Mallon, I may be more informed than is obvious. There is no evidence for evolution. It is as you say theory. God is fact. He is either a liar or not. We don't even know what happened 5000 years ago but evolution posits theories from millions of years in the past. 2 or 3 theories that support each ether are not as reliable God supporting His own Word.

Rib count is a pretty amazing testimony.

keith

 

[Mallon]

Mallon, I may be more informed than is obvious...

Apparently not.

 

[heweeps]

Mallon thanks for that link. That is something I did not know. But that just points more to creation by God. Quite amazing that in such early writings that the rib was mentioned as the starting point for Eve.

keith

 

[Mallon]

Mallon thanks for that link. That is something I did not know. But that just points more to creation by God. Quite amazing that in such early writings that the rib was mentioned as the starting point for Eve.

keith

Indeed. The fact that men have one less rib than women is evidence for fiat creation; also, the fact that men and women have the same number of ribs is evidence for fiat creation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Subscribing, will try and think of some, there must be more.

Me also

 

[mathetes123]

I can honestly say that I don't think I've met an anti-evolutionary creationist on this forum who actually understands the position of evolutionary creation. It seems that misconceptions about our position abound. Therefore, I thought it might be helpful if we started a thread that dispels the fallacies about what it is that we believe. Maybe we can point others to it when they err in their characterization of us (maybe make this a sticky thread?). I picture this thread as a numbered list that we can all contribute to and I'll add everyone's contributions to the first post, starting with my own (if you have any additions or changes you'd like to make to any of the contributions, please let me know):

Misconceptions about evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution)

1. The fact that evolutionary creationists do not accept the Genesis creation stories as historical accounts does not mean that we do not take the Scriptures seriously. The Bible is a mix of parable, poetry, historical narrative, and many other types of literary genres. We must approach each book and each genre with humility and with open hearts and minds, and not try apply the same blanket interpretation to all parts of the Bible. Despite the fact that we do not accept the creation stories are historical accounts, we maintain that God is the Creator of all and that He ordained and sustains everything in the universe, as professed by the Nicene Creed. The opening chapters of Genesis profess invaluable teachings about the fallen nature of man, the compassion of God, the promise of a Saviour, the relationship of man with God and nature, and the sanctity of marriage.

2. Evolutionary creationists do not believe that biological evolution is mentioned in the Scriptures; it isn't. However, just because the Bible doesn't make mention of evolution doesn't mean that evolution is false. The Scriptures do not mention germs, heliocentrism, or atoms, either, and yet Christians have come to accept all of these.

3. There is no single evolutionary creationist position about the existence of Adam and Eve. Some ECs accept that Adam and Eve were historical people from which we are all descended. Others believe that Adam and Eve represent the human race. These positions are all compatible with evolutionary creation.

4. Evolutionary creationists believe that God is equally capable of creating through natural processes like evolution as He is through supernatural ones. Simply because a natural process like evolution (or gravity, or conception, or weather) can be described without reference to the supernatural doesn't mean that God is not involved. The Bible is clear that God is capable of working through both natural and supernatural processes. We do not limit God's actions to one or the other.

Evolutionary creationists affirm that the ordinary processes of nature are a normal and constant field of God's activity. They recognize that authors who describe natural processes without naming God are being neutral about God working through nature, not excluding God from nature. Science qua science is not able to affirm or deny the power of God to act through nature and reflects this limitation by a neutrality of silence which ought not to be interpreted as an expression of atheism.

5. Evolutionary creationists recognize that evolutionary creation is not a scientific position. In other words, science cannot be used to show that the evolution of biodiversity was brought about via God's sustaining hand. Note that this is NOT the same as saying that evolutionary theory is not scientific; it is. Our position is a theological one that argues that God used the scientific process of evolution to create biodiversity.

6. Evolutionary creationists are not all theologically liberal. The beliefs of ECs run the gamut from conservative to liberal Christianity. Even one of the founders of Christian fundamentalism, B. B. Warfield, accepted evolution.

7. Evolutionary creationists do not hold the works of science or scientists to be inscrutable, absolute truth. The ideas of evolution, geochronology, the Big Bang theory, physics, everything has come a long way since they were proposed. Showing Darwin had a bad idea about something or was wrong in something will have no effect, as he may very well be wrong in one aspect but right in another. There is no magical cornerstone that will pull all of theistic evolution down around everyone's ears, no holy prophets of science whose words you can disprove to prove the whole idea false. Ideas stand on their own merits, not on the character of their originator, nor on the words of their originator, but on what they have become through use, time, and change. And that time and change that refines and corrects ideas is not a threat to true ideas, nor the truth of God

Theistic evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible:

1) The Bible clearly brackets each literal day of creation with a morning and an evening, indicating they are literal days.
2) The Bible literally states that God rested on the seventh day and this is why He gave the Jews the sabbath. Our weeks are based on this same seven days.
3) Evolutionists tell us the birds evolved from the reptiles, whereas in the order of creation, the Bible tells us the birds came first.
4) Evolution tells us that death preceded man. The Bible says that death came after original sin and was the penalty for sin. Evolution therefore undermines the literal translation of Adam and Eve as literal persons, reducing it to no more than an allegory, undermining the doctrine of original sin, and therefore undermining the gospel itself.
5) If the first Adam was not a literal figure, should we call into question the last Adam (Jesus) as a literal figure.

 

[gluadys]

Theistic evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible:

1) The Bible clearly brackets each literal day of creation with a morning and an evening, indicating they are literal days.

Please explain this logic? How does the use of the words 'morning' and 'evening' indicate the days are literal (I presume you actually mean 'historical'.)

2) The Bible literally states that God rested on the seventh day and this is why He gave the Jews the sabbath. Our weeks are based on this same seven days.

The Bible also prescribes a sabbath of seven years and an jubilee sabbath after seven times seven years. And it tells us that a day with God is as a thousand years. How does prescribing a sabbath every seven days make the original sabbath a literal day?

3) Evolutionists tell us the birds evolved from the reptiles, whereas in the order of creation, the Bible tells us the birds came first.

How do we know the days of Genesis 1 are intended to be understood chronologically? Is it not possible that the creation of birds is placed on the fifth day to parallel the 2nd day (as the 4th parallels the 1st and the 6th parallels the 3rd?) Long before evolution became a topic of controversy, Christian and Jewish scholars understood from the creation of light on day one while the sun was not created until day 4 that the days were probably not the sort of days we experience.

4) Evolution tells us that death preceded man. The Bible says that death came after original sin and was the penalty for sin. Evolution therefore undermines the literal translation of Adam and Eve as literal persons, reducing it to no more than an allegory, undermining the doctrine of original sin, and therefore undermining the gospel itself.

The death of humankind came by sin, but where does scripture say that there was no death at all prior to the fall?

How does allegory undermine the doctrine of original sin?

How does the theory of evolution rule out Adam and Eve as literal persons?

5) If the first Adam was not a literal figure, should we call into question the last Adam (Jesus) as a literal figure.

If Jesus is the last man in the same sense that you think Adam is literally the first man, then he is not literally the last man since there have been many generations of men since his time. So is not Jesus figuratively the last Adam? Why not then the first Adam?

 

[heweeps]

The post that outlines the: "*Misconceptions about evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution)*"
is a slippery slope for anyone who calls themselves a Christian to post. By denying the events as outlined in Genesis we deny God. One of the very tenents of Christianity is that the Bible is the very word of God.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2Ti 3:16 Webster)

By denying that tenant we take up the work of Satan as outlined in Genesis and call God a liar. God is not a liar.

And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent. (1Sa 15:29 Webster)

The path this doctrine will take is the very denial of Christ and his sacrifice and resurrection and ascension into heaven. Presenting Adam and Eve as the human race can only lead to presenting Christ as a segment of the human race.

The Bible is a dangerous thing in the hands of the unregenerated, both to themselves and others.

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2Co 3:6 Webster)

God is Spirit and His words are recognized by His Spirit which He give to whom He will. Trying to understand what He says by relying on the human spirit and understanding is a failing task.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 [KJV])

 

[theFijian]

The post that outlines the: "*Misconceptions about evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution)*"
is a slippery slope for anyone who calls themselves a Christian to post. By denying the events as outlined in Genesis we deny God. One of the very tenents of Christianity is that the Bible is the very word of God.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2Ti 3:16 Webster)

By denying that tenant we take up the work of Satan as outlined in Genesis and call God a liar. God is not a liar.

And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent. (1Sa 15:29 Webster)

The path this doctrine will take is the very denial of Christ and his sacrifice and resurrection and ascension into heaven. Presenting Adam and Eve as the human race can only lead to presenting Christ as a segment of the human race.

The Bible is a dangerous thing in the hands of the unregenerated, both to themselves and others.

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2Co 3:6 Webster)

God is Spirit and His words are recognized by His Spirit which He give to whom He will. Trying to understand what He says by relying on the human spirit and understanding is a failing task.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 [KJV])

A bit long-winded but another excellent outline of the crass misconceptions that people have about Evolutionary Creationists!

Denying a literal interpretation equals denying the Bible: Check!
In-tow with the Devil: Check!
Denial of Christ as Lord and Saviour: Check!
Rejection of the Holy Spirit and reliance on human wisdom and understanding: Check!

Good job!

 

[Assyrian]

The post that outlines the: "*Misconceptions about evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution)*"
is a slippery slope for anyone who calls themselves a Christian to post. By denying the events as outlined in Genesis we deny God. One of the very tenents of Christianity is that the Bible is the very word of God.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2Ti 3:16 Webster)

By denying that tenant we take up the work of Satan as outlined in Genesis and call God a liar. God is not a liar.

Wasn't that a snake? If you think it is talking about Satan then aren't you are doing the very thing you accuse TEs of, 'denying the events as outlined in Genesis'? Of course interpreting the snake metaphorically isn't a problem for Christians. God doesn't lie as you go on to point out, but if you learn about God reading the bible you will realise he does love to speak to us in metaphors, parables, symbols, allegory and poetry.

And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent. (1Sa 15:29 Webster)

The path this doctrine will take is the very denial of Christ and his sacrifice and resurrection and ascension into heaven. Presenting Adam and Eve as the human race can only lead to presenting Christ as a segment of the human race.

The Bible is a dangerous thing in the hands of the unregenerated, both to themselves and others.

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2Co 3:6 Webster)

God is Spirit and His words are recognized by His Spirit which He give to whom He will. Trying to understand what He says by relying on the human spirit and understanding is a failing task.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 [KJV])

So if you know all this, why cling so fearfully to the literalism, to the letter of Genesis, to an interpretation of the text you certainly don't need the Holy Spirit to see?

 

[cupid dave]

Misconceptions about evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution)

1. The fact that evolutionary creationists do not accept the Genesis creation stories as historical accounts does not mean that we do not take the Scriptures seriously.

?

Genesis is 100% correct when read literally, which the church people have not been doing.


1) It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.
(Gen 1:1)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html


2) The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth was without form:
(Gen 1:2)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html


3) There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras.
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg


4) A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmos
(Gen 1:3-5)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg


5) There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together.[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'](Gen 1:9)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg


6) Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water.
(Gen 1:10)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html


7) The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom.[/
(Gen 1:11
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html


8) The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE," given authority over circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html


9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.
(Gen 1:27
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg


10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation.
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id21.html


11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:


Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html[/font]


12) The 22 names in the genealogy compare directly with the 22 extinct species in the ascent to Modern man.


http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id143.html


The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J. Sawyer,


http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_76?pf_rd_p=258372101&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=list&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D[/font]

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Theistic evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible:

1) The Bible clearly brackets each literal day of creation with a morning and an evening, indicating they are literal days.
2) The Bible literally states that God rested on the seventh day and this is why He gave the Jews the sabbath. Our weeks are based on this same seven days.
3) Evolutionists tell us the birds evolved from the reptiles, whereas in the order of creation, the Bible tells us the birds came first.
4) Evolution tells us that death preceded man. The Bible says that death came after original sin and was the penalty for sin. Evolution therefore undermines the literal translation of Adam and Eve as literal persons, reducing it to no more than an allegory, undermining the doctrine of original sin, and therefore undermining the gospel itself.
5) If the first Adam was not a literal figure, should we call into question the last Adam (Jesus) as a literal figure.

One the sun wasn't made yet so how can there be day and night? Also God's aren't our days.