Philosophical / Logical problems with YEC, OEC and Theistic Evolution

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Theistic evolution has many forms. I personally think that God created the Universe with natural laws and with such motions that it naturally lead to everything He planned without a need to do everything supernaturally.

As I've said, you have to rectify within this position the idea the theological purpose of Christ coming to Earth and dying for our sins, if it we were created in such a natural configuration - moreover, you also have to rectify Genesis in how it talks about how animals and humans were vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30), and the theological conclusions that both the Bible draws on this about the redemption of man (Isaiah 65:25), and even how the Earliest Church Fathers drew conclusions about Genesis, (like Irenaeus, who in "Against the Heresies" explicitly endorses such a worldview).
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
All of those things are fodder for a Church Council. Remember that the Church fathers disagreed on any number of things. For example, nearly all of the sub-apostolic fathers were premilleniaists, yet the Church decreed chiliasm to be a heresy and that amillenialism is the defined teaching of Christianity.

I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone's beliefs or opinions on creationism. But the matter is not decided.

Can you name a Saint who denies Creationism, though?
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
From what i understand, the numbers and conclusions you refer to aren't as concrete as they would have you believe.
Especially radiometric dating.
How so?

You may be interested in Michael Heiser's work.
He's an ancient languages scholar, Bible expert and theologian.
He's a Christian.
Many lectures to be found on Youtube.
You don't have to agree with everything he says, but you can learn a lot.

I'll look into him.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I consider the marrying of theology with evolutionary science as apostacy and idolatry.

That's quite the judgment to make on people who might be well intended - even Ken Ham believes that OEC will be saved.
 
Upvote 0

gideon123

Humble Servant of God
Dec 25, 2011
1,185
583
USA
✟59,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Speaking as a scientist ... who has Faith in God ...

I do not expect Science to have a "clear lens" when it comes to something as complex as the 'development of life'. How could Science possibly have those answers? Who was here on Earth 4 billion years ago, when life began?

Only God himself.

When Science speaks about 'evolution', it is a theory based on what can be observed now. Much of the theory is really about adaptation, and how DNA and RNA change and adapt. That part of the theory is standing on good ground. There is a lot of data. But any theory about the birth of life involves a projection, a huge leap backwards in time. It is far too early for scientists to claim victory yet. And there is no reason for your pessimism. We -I am now speaking for scientists as a whole - we need much more time. And by that, I mean thousands of years more time. Perhaps after we have traveled through space and seen many planets, after many aeons in the future, then we will know better. Right now, we do not.

I don't expect Science to have a clear crystal ball, when it comes to theories about the birth of Life, or the birth of the Universe. There is too much that we dont know. I am fascinated when scientists offer ideas. But they are only 'informed speculation'.

So I am quite content to put my faith in God. His purpose for us, and His love for us, are much greater than we imagine.
 
Last edited:
  • Prayers
Reactions: TheLostCoin
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Good question.
I've heard many accounts of results being all over the place, tests being repeated until the preferred results came out, labs refusing to test fossils from layers not deemed old enough, things like that.

The powers that (shouldn't) be want us to believe things.
I'll look into him.
Yeah, he's got a website too. drmsh.com
He was behind the "Stichin is wrong" thing.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,488.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.

I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.

However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.

Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?

This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.


With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.

Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.

With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).

I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought. :destroyed:

Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.:help:

Good job. Welcome to the real world where things aren't always as easy and simple as everyone makes it out to be.

I'm a theistic evolutionist and old earth creationist. And I agree that it does complicate the simplistic interpretations of scripture that many hold. But it is what it is. Sometimes you just have to accept reality as it is, and...what that means for scripture really comes second to what is physically apparent in the real world.

If a passage in job talks about a fire breathing beast but such a concept seems unrealistic given the real world, we have to examine such a passage with a grain of salt. If scripture says that a woman was made of a rib bone...then all we can really do is examine alternative meanings or examine alternative explanations given the history and nature of scripture. Or we can throw reality out of the window and become young earthers.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Good job. Welcome to the real world where things aren't always as easy and simple as everyone makes it out to be.

I'm a theistic evolutionist and old earth creationist. And I agree that it does complicate the simplistic interpretations of scripture that many hold. But it is what it is. Sometimes you just have to accept reality as it is, and...what that means for scripture really comes second to what is physically apparent in the real world.

If a passage in job talks about a fire breathing beast but such a concept seems unrealistic given the real world, we have to examine such a passage with a grain of salt. If scripture says that a woman was made of a rib bone...then all we can really do is examine alternative meanings or examine alternative explanations given the history and nature of scripture. Or we can throw reality out of the window and become young earthers.

The fire-breathing seven-headed beast known as Leviathan is something that at least is more logically explainable.

Based on other religious texts around the same time period and shared region, Leviathan - which appeared directly in other religious texts and served the same function - is a symbol of chaos before Creation and God's destruction of chaos, which He destroyed when He created the world, which He will destroy again (the chaos of the fallen world) when Christ comes again to renew Creation.


And this isn't just a complete contemporary reading of it - many Church Fathers viewed Leviathan as a symbol of death and hell, which Christ conquers - which is shown in a lot of various classical Western and Eastern Orthodox iconography of the Last Judgment.


f85361ec1c66aa18e207504cb6601167--last-judgement-the-doom.jpg


107jq11.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Because its the core faith of Christianity. While the literalism of Genesis is not.

Why would Christ need to redeem us if the pure naturalistic explanation of the world is what it is?
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,165
3,655
N/A
✟149,047.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As I've said, you have to rectify within this position the idea the theological purpose of Christ coming to Earth and dying for our sins, if it we were created in such a natural configuration - moreover, you also have to rectify Genesis in how it talks about how animals and humans were vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30), and the theological conclusions that both the Bible draws on this about the redemption of man (Isaiah 65:25), and even how the Earliest Church Fathers drew conclusions about Genesis, (like Irenaeus, who in "Against the Heresies" explicitly endorses such a worldview).

I think I do not have to rectify what Genesis says, because we do not know the genre of the book and its 5,000 years old.

I do not have to rectify any individual Christian opinion in history, because its not the official creed of the Church. I could argue by Philo, by Origen etc.

I do not see any problems with the work of Christ, so, I do not see any need to rectify something there...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,489
8,995
Florida
✟324,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The rejection of Evolutionary theory.

I reject evolutionary theory as an accident or a coincidence. But I certainly don't believe in a 6000 year old earth or a literal six day creation. I believe God created all things and nursed the creation along right up to the modern day.

Origen said of Genesis:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

And he based that entirely on the wording itself.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Because we sin.

Okay, but why wouldn't God create us in a perfect state of harmony like in Heaven? What is omnibenevolent or logical of having us suffer and die for millions of years, just to take that away instantaneously at the end of the world? Surely one would be better than the other - even if suffering and dying led to a greater good.

Man's rebellion in traditional Christian theology makes more sense of the necessary of Christ's redemption, because Christ took on fallen human nature and redeemed it by His death and resurrection, being the fact that the Person of God died.

It also allows free will, indirectly, by God allowing mankind to choose to follow Him or not - to choose to re-enter Paradise or not.

Moreover, my main objection to your post is logically sound extrapolation which can occur if you can just dismiss certain interpretations of the Bible for purposes of contemporary pragmatism. Why should I believe Saint Paul isn't a bigot, sexist, or a homophobe if something as important and foundational like Genesis can be dismissed for pragmatic reasons? Moreover, why should I care about abortion? Or even murder for that case? Maybe Saint Paul and God was wrong about not worshiping false gods, and we should for the purposes of tolerance adore Krishna! Maybe Hitler was right and I can throw away the 5th Commandment for pragmatic purposes!

There needs to be a necessarily correct ideology which underlines how one interprets the Bible, and I don't think that we can just arbitrarily draw that up to fit our pre-conceived notions of the world.

It's why there are 30,000 Christian denominations which all have varying degrees of moral standards - some much higher than others (we can agree that the Continuing-Anglicans are much better at preserving morality than the Episcopalians).

To slightly change the quote of Christ - the Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,165
3,655
N/A
✟149,047.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Just a thought:

Thesis - antithesis - synthesis

If there are two truths that contradicts each other, then their synthesis is a solution.

If one truth is, that a car is blue and the second truth is that the same car is yellow, then the outcome is that the car is green (green is composed of blue and yellow).
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,165
3,655
N/A
✟149,047.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Okay, but why wouldn't God create us in a perfect state of harmony like in Heaven? What is omnibenevolent or logical of having us suffer and die for millions of years, just to take that away instantaneously at the end of the world? Surely one would be better than the other - even if suffering and dying led to a greater good.

Man's rebellion in traditional Christian theology makes more sense of the necessary of Christ's redemption, because Christ took on fallen human nature and redeemed it by His death and resurrection, being the fact that the Person of God died.

It also allows free will, indirectly, by God allowing mankind to choose to follow Him or not - to choose to re-enter Paradise or not.

Moreover, my main objection to your post is logically sound extrapolation which can occur if you can just dismiss certain interpretations of the Bible for purposes of contemporary pragmatism. Why should I believe Saint Paul isn't a bigot, sexist, or a homophobe if something as important and foundational like Genesis can be dismissed for pragmatic reasons? Moreover, why should I care about abortion? Or even murder for that case? Maybe Saint Paul and God was wrong about not worshiping false gods, and we should for the purposes of tolerance adore Krishna! Maybe Hitler was right and I can throw away the 5th Commandment for pragmatic purposes!

There needs to be a necessarily correct ideology which underlines how one interprets the Bible, and I don't think that we can just arbitrarily draw that up to fit our pre-conceived notions of the world.

It's why there are 30,000 Christian denominations which all have varying degrees of moral standards - some much higher than others (we can agree that the Continuing-Anglicans are much better at preserving morality than the Episcopalians).

To slightly change the quote of Christ - the Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible.

Many thoughts and questions... I will respond to the first one: Because it was for some reason better to be evolved to that state than to be created "fiat". Our path of learning is making us more perfect than angels.

God does only what is best.

On the other hand, the rebellion of Adam or of humanity is not put aside just because we accept evolution path to Adam... I am not sure why do you think so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Just a thought:

Thesis - antithesis - synthesis

If there are two truths that contradicts each other, then their synthesis is a solution.

If one truth is, that a car is blue and the second truth is that the same car is yellow, then the outcome is that the car is green (green is composed of blue and yellow).

Ah, so you are a Hegelian.

Not a bad point to consider.
 
Upvote 0