Questions about Theistic Evolution...

[hedrick]

(addressing the OP) As I'm sure you know, there are differing approaches to the Bible. It's quite possible for someone to believe in its literal accuracy and still accept TE. While TE seems to be a minority view among BIblical literalists, it has had distinguished defenders all the way back to Darwin's time.

However that's not my view. I believe that God revealed himself, and the Bible records those revelations. Thus I think the Bible is a human document, but one that is a witness to divine revelation. As such, while the authors were competent and honest, they aren't perfect. In particular, they were limited by the historical material they had available. I don't think the Biblical authors had available any sources that would have given them accurate historical/scientific accounts of the creation, and in fact I think their sources are imperfect up to about the time of David. During the time of the kings they start citing historical records. (I'm not saying that everything before David is a myth, by the way. I don't think there's a bright line with everything legend before and everything history afterwards, but that sources and memories got better for later sections. But I think it would have given us a *very* incomplete pictures of Israel's experience with God to have started the OT at the point where everything was perfectly documented.)

They could have remained silent about creation, but they had some well-known traditions about creation, which showed key beliefs about God, so I think they quite reasonably decided to include them. By including two different traditions in Gen 1 and Gen 2 I think they provided a good enough hint that they were not dealing with literal history that they could reasonably believe no readers would be misled. If you believe, as I do, that the editors didn't intend the stories to be taken as history, then this isn't even a challenge to inerrancy. Inerrancy acknowledges that there are sections of the Bible which are not literal history, although no one that I know who holds inerrancy considers the creation stories one of those sections. (It's harder to make this argument about some later parts of the prehistory, e.g. Noah. For those it's less clear that the editors knew they were dealing with non-historical legends, although it's certainly possible that they did.)

 

[Greg1234]

In particular, they were limited by the historical material they had available. I don't think the Biblical authors had available any sources that would have given them accurate historical/scientific accounts of the creation,

The is nothing wrong with the historical account of Genesis, the interpretation, and the scientific evidence supporting Creationism. Whether or not their eyes were hindered by the shimmer of bronze or their hands limited by their goat herding apparati will hinge on an understanding of the manner of man at present, discernment based on such and the scientific evidence. An interpretation of Creation was again recounted in 1 Corinthians 15:39 and reaffirms the reflective nature of the physical. Materially derived data also continue to show this.

There is a conviction that the only thing Creationism has to account for is "poof". And due to a lack of "complexity" and "excitement" Darwinism should ride in undeterred, with the only opposition among primitive Creationists in their native land being the sound of jaws dropping at the sight of such awesomeness Though you may not be challenged for holding onto that belief, when you see the shoe maker leisurely continuing to make his shoes, despite the "magnificent" white horse in the courtyard, it is because Creationism is complex enough, to be placed in an allegory. And the task at hand may leave the car maker at a loss, when trying to revere that white horse.

By including two different traditions in Gen 1 and Gen 2

There is only a continuation.

(It's harder to make this argument about some later parts of the prehistory, e.g. Noah.

The flood event is tackled separately, and has no bearing on the extensive work done on the creation of man with the scientific data supporting it. Though attention is devoted to Creation to a higher degree than to the flood, leaving more favorable conditions for alien occupation in the latter, it again hinges on textual derivations and what to look for. To be sure, the evidence for said event keeps coming forward without the need to plunge into the strata. Neither in the case of Creation, nor the flood event.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Ok so I was taught regular science in school and YEC in church... I don't quite buy a YE theory but I'm not completely sold on the OE theory either (I don't think either has it quite right IMO as both have holes from the way I see it). And I don't see how can people can balance theistic evolution with the Bible.

I just wanted to find out more from people who believe theistic evolution. More precisely why you believe it or how you believe it while believing the bible too. I'm just curious, I'm not trying to debate or anything...

I guess my main problem that's been bugging me when I try to apply theistic evolution to my beliefs. The main one being... well... evolution (to a point... I don't think I buy animals becoming a completely new species ala dinosaurs into birds etc). I could be ok with it though until you get to man coming from apes... Basically because well the Bible flat out says God created man from dust and then states elsewhere many times Adam was the first man. I know that some view the Genesis creation as metaphorical and I could be ok with that if it wasn't taken so literal by so many others in the bible.

How do you reconcile this in your beliefs? How do you explain it? When does Genesis pass over into being literal? Or do you feel the whole thing is metaphorical? I'm just curious this, isn't an attack or anything I'm just genuinely curious. There was a thread and I can't seem to find it but this was somewhat discussed and I wanted to ask more about it.

No amount of symbolism or metaphors will ever reconcile evolutionary theory to scripture, they are in total contradiction. Most TEs just assert Genesis to be purely non-historical as a means to dismiss it as holding any real truth whatsoever, in which case the creation account can become whatever you want it to be.

 

[Mallon]

No amount of symbolism or metaphors will ever reconcile evolutionary theory to scripture, they are in total contradiction. Most TEs just assert Genesis to be purely non-historical as a means to dismiss it as holding any real truth whatsoever, in which case the creation account can become whatever you want it to be.

Interesting that you equate "real truth" with history. Do you see Jesus' parables as just a whole lot of hooey?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I recommend the Art of Biblical History by V. Philips Long. A large portion of it is available on google books, note notably the introduction and third chapter.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Interesting that you equate "real truth" with history. Do you see Jesus' parables as just a whole lot of hooey?

Nowhere am I equating real truth with history, you clearly weren't paying attention. The issue isn't Jesus' parables, its the fact that TE requires largely a dismissing of the genesis narrative in order to be integrated comfortably and satisfactorily.

 

[Mallon]

Nowhere am I equating real truth with history, you clearly weren't paying attention.

Sure I was. You said "Most TEs just assert Genesis to be purely non-historical as a means to dismiss it as holding any real truth whatsoever". This implies that you think only historical accounts hold real truth. If you didn't think this, then you wouldn't have a problem with non-historical interpretations of Genesis.

 

[Exodite]

This thread is a really encouraging read... I'm not a Christian, religious, nor even hold a belief in god (atheist, though I don't deny a god/gods) and am very interested in evolution (biological and other). I can already see many of the posters in here are much more well versed in biology than myself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But I just wanted to give credit to the sincerity of many posters here. It is obvious there is a real desire for truth not just confirmation of dogma. The bible is very poetic in it's language and so reading it to be such only seems natural. I'd recommend some topics for the OP to look at in order to evaluate evolution but it would not be in conjunction with theism, but as a phenomenon on it's own. Given the responses from a number of the posters here I'm sure they could do the same, but better explain how it can coincide with the Christian faith. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regardless evolution is very powerful, very well supported, and something that should be embraced. Something that has always seemed interesting to me is why would God, being a being of such capability, create a universe in which he must constantly intervene in order for it to work properly? If a perfect clock could be made you would not need to constantly adjust it for the time to read correct. So if God created everything, why should he constantly need to intervene for the universe to work correctly? If God is to be given the credit that the very concept that defines him deserves the universe should function as it does because it was designed to. *Random* events would only appear random because of our reference point (similar to the random definitions discussed in previous posts). Evolution could be a method through which an original plan was meant to advance. God would be outside of the universe and therefore outside of the realm of science and not falsifiable. And a belief in God would in no way contradict what we observe in nature. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again I am unconcerned with the concept of God. But just because I'm doesn't mean God is not possible, not true, not likely, or not important. But I hope you can see that people of all beliefs agree evolution is not incompatible with religion. I have only a great deal of respect for the posters who have already addressed the OP. It's up to you to decide how to reconcile what we see with what you hold sacred, but many of the people who have responded are being very sincere in their efforts to help you. hopefully I've made some sense here.

 

[solarwave]

Nowhere am I equating real truth with history, you clearly weren't paying attention. The issue isn't Jesus' parables, its the fact that TE requires largely a dismissing of the genesis narrative in order to be integrated comfortably and satisfactorily.

We don't say it isn't true, we just say it isn't historical. Things can be true yet not physically happen because the meaning and whole point of what is being said is true.