Questions for Theistic Evolutionists and “progressive creationists”

[Iosias]

1. The Bible says, “God is good,” and God described his just-finished creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw,” to “create” everything?

2. The Bible says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin. If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died?

3. According to the evolutionist’s understanding, fossils show death, disease and bloodshed before the evolution of people. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8) because of Adam’s sin. In the evolutionary view, hasn’t the “bondage to decay” always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g., I Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive”).

4. If the Genesis accounts of creation, the fall, the origin of nations, the flood and the Tower of Babel-the first 11 chapters-are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard?

5. The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. The biblical order of creation is all wrong, according to the evolutionary view. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with evolution, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution to create everything?

6. If God created an evolutionary world, then the existing earth is as it always has been and as God intended it to be. Why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and a new earth (II. Peter 3 and other places)?

7. Darwin formulated evolution theory to eliminate God from the realm of biological origins. Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)? If God “created” using the mode invented to make him unnecessary, how can God’s “eternal power and divine nature” be “clearly seen” in creation, as Romans 1:20 says?

8. Evolution has no purpose, no direction and no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an “unnecessary hypothesis?”

From here.

 

[Dannager]

1. The Bible says, “God is good,” and God described his just-finished creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw,” to “create” everything?

The same way that I understand that God also gave us illness, disease, famine, natural disasters and genetic defects. Evolution, in my opinion, is "very good".

2. The Bible says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin. If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died?

I don't think the dust represents an ape, so your question number two doesn't apply. In fact, I don't think it applies to anyone. In fact, I think you just added it to lay the foundation of a straw man. Nice try.

3. According to the evolutionist’s understanding, fossils show death, disease and bloodshed before the evolution of people. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8) because of Adam’s sin.

No, it doesn't mean that.

In the evolutionary view, hasn’t the “bondage to decay” always been there?

If, by "bondage to decay", you mean the natural cycle of life and death, then yes. If you mean something else, then no.

And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g., I Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive”).

There's no reason an actual sacrifice cannot be an appropriate counter to a symbolic problem. You just want to make it look otherwise, because you don't like evolution.

4. If the Genesis accounts of creation, the fall, the origin of nations, the flood and the Tower of Babel-the first 11 chapters-are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard?

I'm glad you're not a reporter, AV1611. No one would ever conduct interviews with someone who poses slimy questions like this.

a) I don't discard Genesis.
b) It isn't factually incorrect because it's unfashionable. It isn't factually correct because it isn't factually correct.
c) I don't discard any other parts of the Bible.

I think the same is true for all of us. And seriously, you know us better than this, but you like demonizing TEs because you don't like evolution.

5. The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. The biblical order of creation is all wrong, according to the evolutionary view.

Yep. Incredibly wrong. So wrong that no one with even an inkling of basic scientific knowledge can possibly accept a literal Genesis account.

Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with evolution, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution to create everything?

Nah. It's not supposed to reflect history, so why bother? You only have this problem understanding it because you assume it's supposed to be historical. It's not.

6. If God created an evolutionary world, then the existing earth is as it always has been and as God intended it to be. Why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and a new earth (II. Peter 3 and other places)?

Goodness, I'm not sure. God probably had reasons, though.

7. Darwin formulated evolution theory to eliminate God from the realm of biological origins.

No, he formulated evolutionary theory because no one had done so before. But if painting Darwin as being on some sort of perpetual anti-God crusade (and going so far as to create the theory of evolution to spite religion!) helps you sleep better at night, you can go ahead and keep telling it to yourself.

Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)?

No, it's not.

If God “created” using the mode invented to make him unnecessary, how can God’s “eternal power and divine nature” be “clearly seen” in creation, as Romans 1:20 says?

Evolution doesn't make God unnecessary.

Stop asking loaded questions, AV1611.

8. Evolution has no purpose, no direction and no goal.

Purpose: to increase the level of biodiversity to fall in line with the ecological situation of the planet.

Direction: towards ever more able and well-adapted organisms.

Goal: an unattainable stable ecological system.

Next time you ask a question, you should really try to get the presuppositions right.

The God of the Bible is all about purpose.

Then God should have no problem with evolution.

How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God?

I don't need to, since evolution isn't purposeless.

What does God have to do in an evolutionary world?

God doesn't have to do anything. God does what God wants. But God probably had a hand in evolution somewhere along the line.

Is not God an “unnecessary hypothesis?”

What, from a scientific standpoint? Yeah. Science is all about the methodological naturalism. So what? God will never be a part of science. That's good.

From here.

Wow. A list of questions so flawed that the author wouldn't even put his name on it.

 

[Xaero]

1. The Bible says, “God is good,” and God described his just-finished creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw,” to “create” everything?

Evolution is about living and breeding successful and every specimen must die one day, also the successful.

"Now see that I, [even] I, [am] He, And [there is] no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor [is there any] who can deliver from My hand."

I got a warning a couple of days ago when i pointed out that YECs are depicting god as a weakling's god who doesn't want physical death. But on the other hand he kills children and sucklings to punish their parents for their sins.

2. The Bible says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin. If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died?

We are from the dust, this statement is very accurate in this ancient times. The ancients could have also believed we were dropped out of heaven or came from nothing, but they knew we were of the same material than the earth!

 

[Xaero]

Wow. A list of questions so flawed that the author wouldn't even put his name on it.

I'm wondering if the YECs ever draw any conclusions based on their own thinking without the guiding help from AiG & Co.

 

[Iosias]

Evolution, in my opinion, is "very good".

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

Now from this we learn that sin did not exist before Adam because it was through Adam that sin entered the world and because death is a consequence of sin so there was no death before Adam.​

Because evolution necessitates death existing so evolution is absurd because all animals and Adam existed before death entered the world!​

 

[Xaero]

Because evolution necessitates death existing so evolution is absurd because all animals and Adam existed before death entered the world!

It's about physical death, the death we shouldn't be afraid of, like Jesus said it's the second death we should be afraid of!

 

[Iosias]

It's about physical death, the death we shouldn't be afraid of, like Jesus said it's the second death we should be afraid of!

That does not answer my question!

 

[Xaero]

That does not answer my question!

"returning to dust" is not the death we should be afraid of, it is not the kind of death that spreaded through adams sin, but the sin is disconnecting us from god so we die spiritually which finally ends up in dying the "second death".

 

[Jase]

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

Now from this we learn that sin did not exist before Adam because it was through Adam that sin entered the world and because death is a consequence of sin so there was no death before Adam.​

Because evolution necessitates death existing so evolution is absurd because all animals and Adam existed before death entered the world!​

Evolution doesn't require death. And if there was no death prior to Adam's fall, what then was the point of the Tree of Life, and what did Adam and Eve and all the animals eat?

 

[Xaero]

Evolution doesn't require death. And if there was no death prior to Adam's fall, what then was the point of the Tree of Life, and what did Adam and Eve and all the animals eat?

i also STILL waiting for any answer on how YECs think the space problem is solved since the prefall world would be overcrowded in 10-20 years

 

[Assyrian]

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

Now from this we learn that sin did not exist before Adam because it was through Adam that sin entered the world​

Animals don't sin. There was no sin before mankind sinned. No problem there.

and because death is a consequence of sin so there was no death before Adam.

Because evolution necessitates death existing so evolution is absurd because all animals and Adam existed before death entered the world!​

​

You should read the passage you quote. Death spread to all men because all men sinned. So how did death spread to animals? We have just seen that they don't sin. Paul is only talking about how death as a result of sinning affects people. When animals die it is for some reason other than the one Paul gives here because the reason Paul gives here cannot include animals.

So why is animal death before the existence of man a problem?

3. According to the evolutionist’s understanding, fossils show death, disease and bloodshed before the evolution of people. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8) because of Adam’s sin.

Another passage people quote without reading what it says. The bible say everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8). Where does the bible say the “bondage to decay” is because of Adam’s sin? Romans 8 certainly doesn't. I don't know anywhere in the bible that says this or anywhere that says animal death is the result of the fall.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

1. The Bible says, “God is good,” and God described his just-finished creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw,” to “create” everything?

I don't know, ask the author of Psalm 104, a meditation on the glory of nature.

Psalm 104:41: The lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.

Wow, here is our good God providing death for his creatures, even in nature-as-intended?

2. The Bible says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin. If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died?

Who ever said Adam was created from an ape?

Adam was a specially selected homo sapien, a biological primate, selected to be the first true 'man,' or image-bearer of God. God infused him with the image, thus transcendening the limits of biological evolution- but I see no reason to think that involved any physical transformation.

When Adam rejected the image by falling into sin, he lost that vital connection to God.

3. According to the evolutionist’s understanding, fossils show death, disease and bloodshed before the evolution of people. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8) because of Adam’s sin. In the evolutionary view, hasn’t the “bondage to decay” always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g., I Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive”).

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

Now from this we learn that sin did not exist before Adam because it was through Adam that sin entered the world and because death is a consequence of sin so there was no death before Adam.​

Because evolution necessitates death existing so evolution is absurd because all animals and Adam existed before death entered the world!​

​

Paul is specifically talking about the resurrection of humanity.

The resurrection of humanity is contrasted with death, and that to me implies that Paul is talking about human death.

Moreover, why need this be biological death? Isn't Paul talking about a resurrection into a glorified and transformed state of being? Why can't think be the 'second death,' the eternal damnation of the soul?

i also STILL waiting for any answer on how YECs think the space problem is solved since the prefall world would be overcrowded in 10-20 years

Personally, I'm still waiting for an answer as to why plant death doesn't constitute death, but animal death does.

What's the philosophical and biological difference between killing and eating planets, and killing and eating animals?

4. If the Genesis accounts of creation, the fall, the origin of nations, the flood and the Tower of Babel-the first 11 chapters-are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard?

Who said we necessarily disregard those?

The fall was reason. Adam fell into sin, his sin is imputed to us, spiritual death came as a result, and we are inclined to sin and do evil. Why disregard the fall?

And there was a flood. There was a tower at Babel. Who said a theistic evolutionist couldn't believe in those?

5. The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. The biblical order of creation is all wrong, according to the evolutionary view. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with evolution, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution to create everything?

The biblical account of creation isn't right. It's true! It's perfect! It's inspired by the Holy Spirit! Halellujah!

But who ever said that historical narratives in the Scriptures had to be in keeping with the post-Herodotan chronological pattern of keeping? Herodotus, the father of narrative history, hadn't written when these accounts first appeared.

Luke and Matthew present two different chronologies for the temptation of Christ. Are they wrong? No!

Genesis 1 tells us that God alone is God, that God alone created the universe, that the universe is well-structured, that the universe is good, and that the universe is not itself divine.

Far more in tune with the spiritual needs of an Israel assailed by Baal, Asherah, Marduk, and Chemosh, don't you think?

6. If God created an evolutionary world, then the existing earth is as it always has been and as God intended it to be. Why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and a new earth (II. Peter 3 and other places)?

First of all, your first statement is wrong. Not only does the general theory of biological evolution say absolutely nothing about the planetary body called earth, modern geology says that the earth, too, is ever-changing and ever-moving.

Since you're so fond of Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15...

Romans 8:19-21: For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Creation is waiting for renewal, not destruction! Sure things will be different, but the destruction of the old order means the transformation, renewal, and glorification of present physicality into a new unified state of physical-spiritual being.

Christ is not in the tomb! He is risen! And although his body after the resurrection had a clearly spiritual character (it could walk through walls, and appear hundreds of miles distant), it was still the physical flesh and blood that went into the tomb, transformed through the power of Almighty God!

And so too with us (1 Corinthians 15).

7. Darwin formulated evolution theory to eliminate God from the realm of biological origins. Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)? If God “created” using the mode invented to make him unnecessary, how can God’s “eternal power and divine nature” be “clearly seen” in creation, as Romans 1:20 says?

So God can only work gloriously in nature through divine intervention?

God's power is clearly seen in the sunrise, in the living nature around us. As a song I once sang with my college choir goes:

"I see his blood upon the rose, and in the stars the glory of his eyes. His body gleams amid eternal snows. His tears fall from the skies.
"I see his face in every flower. The thunder and the singing of the birds are but his voice, and carven by his power rocks are his written words."
"All pathways by his feet are worn. His strong heart stirs the ever-beating sea. His crown of thornes is twin'd with every thorne. His cross is every three."

I see the hand of God in all natural processes. I think it's a shame to put God in that kind of a box where his glory and power and honor and soveriegnty are confined to supernatural acts.

8. Evolution has no purpose, no direction and no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an “unnecessary hypothesis?”

God is not a hypothesis one way or another!

God is a living Spirit with whom we enjoy heartfelt community.

And as for evolution- God set nature upon it's course to develop homo sapiens to bear his image and call 'man,' and from them to give birth to the savior of the world. Christ is the omega-point of evolution.

 

[crawfish]

I'll probably just repeat some of what was said above, but I want to give my accounting.

1. The Bible says, “God is good,” and God described his just-finished creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw,” to “create” everything?

God is stating that material life was a positive, intentional part of creation. The prevailing thought of the time was that the gods were good, creation evil, and man just an accident. The account shows that to be a lie - we are important to God. That basic message doesn't change, evolution or not.

2. The Bible says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin. If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died?

Wow. That last is really a...silly question. However, from "dust of the ground" God means that man was created from things that already existed, not from nothing as He did with creation. Which falls perfectly in line with evolutionary theory.

3. According to the evolutionist’s understanding, fossils show death, disease and bloodshed before the evolution of people. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8) because of Adam’s sin. In the evolutionary view, hasn’t the “bondage to decay” always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g., I Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive”).

"Adam" is symbolic of man, "Adam's sin" symbolic of the free will we exhibit when rejecting God. Does he really have to be a real, literal person for Jesus' point to be true?

4. If the Genesis accounts of creation, the fall, the origin of nations, the flood and the Tower of Babel-the first 11 chapters-are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard?

That's very offensive. We do not discard ANYTHING. We believe all scripture is God-inspired, just that it is not necessarily involving literal events.

5. The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. The biblical order of creation is all wrong, according to the evolutionary view. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with evolution, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution to create everything?

No. The creation story is not about HOW God created the heavens and the earth. It's purpose is to state THAT God created everything, God stands at the head of all creation, man is below God but above the rest of creation, and that creation is good. It is also a flat denial of the other gods that were being worshiped by their Babylonian/Egyptian neighbors. A more literal account would've just confused the ancient Hebrews, and actually been less effective.

In my opinion, the account is far less impressive when taken literally. A better reading shows God's subtlety and purpose.

6. If God created an evolutionary world, then the existing earth is as it always has been and as God intended it to be. Why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and a new earth (II. Peter 3 and other places)?

I don't really understand this question. Why would the literal Genesis account make this issue any different? God created, we sinned. End of story.

7. Darwin formulated evolution theory to eliminate God from the realm of biological origins. Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)? If God “created” using the mode invented to make him unnecessary, how can God’s “eternal power and divine nature” be “clearly seen” in creation, as Romans 1:20 says?

He did not, in fact, form evolutionary theory for those purposes. He formed it because it matched the evidence he saw in nature, and that evidence has been corroborated a thousandfold since. Evolutionary theory is just the process...in no way does it make God unnecessary.

If God's eternal power and divine nature can be clearly seen in creation, wouldn't it be foolish of us to ignore the evidence we find in creation by assuming we've already got God's word all figured out?

8. Evolution has no purpose, no direction and no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an “unnecessary hypothesis?”

Evolution is just a method. It is a tool God created for His purposes, as are all the laws of nature. Just because those ways are more subtle and complicated than you can possibly imagine doesn't mean that it could not be that way.

 

[shernren]

AV, as you can see, if you're going to stuff a discussion about all 8 questions into one thread, you aren't going to get anywhere (not to mention trying to maintain four other threads on the front page all at once). Maybe you could try to find one particular question that intrigues you (the 1st one looks especially good) and focus on it.

 

[hithesh]

1. The Bible says, “God is good,” and God described his just-finished creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw,” to “create” everything?

The goodness, of God leads us to humility, the Goodness of God leads us to the Truth.
the goodness of God leads us to mercy, the goodness of God leads us to Love.
God is leading us away from the temporal bread, to the eternal bread that we were to dine on all along.

If God wished to use the Bible as a platform for science, he would have done so, he would not have hidden this in pebbles.
but our Lord is wise enough to know that if the Word did so, then the word of God,
would be a path to the bread of man. Instead of a day of undoing the yokes of oppression,
clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, we would dwell on the "science", and build a museum to cloth a mannequin.

God's goodness, is to take this away from us, at an appointed time, to lead us to the Glory of God,
and his divine goodness, not the one from the bread of man.

2. The Bible says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and would return to the dust
when he died because of his sin. If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape from
which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died?

"APE"=Dust, is similar to saying Fetus=Dust. It's s stage in our existence, but not the beginning.
We also believe that we came from "dust".

3. According to the evolutionist’s understanding, fossils show death, disease and bloodshed before the evolution of people. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8) because of Adam’s sin. In the evolutionary view, hasn’t the “bondage to decay” always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g., I Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive&#8221.

Perhaps one needs to understand Adam's "sin".

God gave Adam everything, abundance, the fat of the land, he sheltered, as a parent would his child.
Over time, Adam as a child does, tells God that he want his independence.
He tells God, as the Prodigal son tell's his father: 'Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.'

And man has roamed ever since, quite far from The Kingdom of God ever since.

"When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need."

Here is where we see the path, in utter desoltion and suffering. When all has been taken away, but the cross.

Christ does not give us eternal life, Christ is the guide to eternal life.
Christ is the light the leads us to the Kingdom of God.

Take everything that man desires to see in the word, away, and you are only left with two things:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and like unto it, Love your neighbhor as yourself".
This is when we are not far from the Kingdom of God.

But today, not today, will you understand it, because if you knew just today, then you would sell all you have, for it.

"Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.
I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers."

"While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion.
He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him."

 

[gluadys]

1. The Bible says, “God is good,” and God described his just-finished creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw,” to “create” everything?

"Nature red in tooth and claw" is a line from a poem by Tennyson, not from a science text on evolution. It is wrongly associated with evolution as it describes a world of predation whether the predators evolved or produced by intelligent design or created by God's fiat. Evolution doesn't need "nature red in tooth and claw" to create change in species. And no evolutionist claims that evolution created "everything."

Do you believe God created predator species? The bible certainly affirms that he did. How do you understand the goodness of God in light of predation?

2. The Bible says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin. If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died?

The scripture also says that all terrestrial animals and birds were created from the ground, and that all vegetation was also. We all return to the ground when we die, and there is no need to recapitulate evolution in reverse as we do.

3. According to the evolutionist’s understanding, fossils show death, disease and bloodshed before the evolution of people. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8) because of Adam’s sin.

No. It just means you have not been interpreting Romans 8 properly.

4. If the Genesis accounts of creation, the fall, the origin of nations, the flood and the Tower of Babel-the first 11 chapters-are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard?

First, TEs do not discard any part of the bible including Gen. 1-11. Interpreting the scriptures differently is not the same thing as discarding it. We trust that we are interpreting the scriptures more accurately and more in accordance with the truth God wishes us to glean from it.

Secondly, how do you know Jesus understood these passages as historical? Where does it say he did?

5. The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. The biblical order of creation is all wrong, according to the evolutionary view. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with evolution, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution to create everything?

No need. Why should God make a special case of our generation and our focus on history and chronology? The order given is consistent with the protocol of precedence in the courts of pagan gods and is appropriate for an account showing that these are not deities at all, but creations of the one God. That message was timely and needed for the generation in which the account was written.

6. If God created an evolutionary world, then the existing earth is as it always has been and as God intended it to be. Why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and a new earth (II. Peter 3 and other places)?

Actually the existing earth is not now as it always has been. It was once a sphere of molten rock which could not hold liquid water or sustain life. The life that once existed on earth does not exist today, but has changed dramatically over the ages. And eventually, the earth will be destoyed in the collapse of the sun, and the universe will succumb to heat death and all the stars will be extinguished. Even totally apart from sin and its consequences, we will one day need a new heavens and a new earth.

7. Darwin formulated evolution theory to eliminate God from the realm of biological origins.

No he didn't and he never saw evolution as inconsistent with God or promoted it as such.

8. Evolution has no purpose, no direction and no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an “unnecessary hypothesis?”

Why should the purpose of evolution be in the process itself? The purpose is in the mind and goals of the one who developed the process, sustains it and guides it to accomplish his purposes. It would be silly to think of evolution having any purpose other than God's purpose. Why would you expect a natural process to have a mind or goal independent of God's?

God's purpose for evolution is evolution's purpose.

 

[sumcallmeben]

To address #3, the whole schpiel about death and suffering not being before Adam, I'll show you what I said in reponse to a similar argument in another forum: But about the thing how pain and death didnt exist before Adam/Eve screwed up, maybe the Bible means that suffering and whatnot didn't exist in terms of humanity. After all, the Bible mainly concerns humans, and animals are considered our subordinates. Also, death is paired with suffering and pain and whatnot, so maybe the Bible meant that sufferful (I doubt thats a word) death didn't really exist before then. Before Adam and Eve, death may have been just part of life, not something to be feared.

 

[hithesh]

1.

7. Darwin formulated evolution theory to eliminate God from the realm of biological origins.

"Then his treasured daughter Annie fell ill, reawakening his fears that his illness might be hereditary. After a long series of crises, she died and Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God."

this is what led him to disbelief, not evolution.

 

[shernren]

And Darwin never really became an atheist either. He would be more, in modern terms, an agnostic, and furthermore an agnostic we could all identify with:

With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us . There seems to me to be too much misery in the world ... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.

Darwin rejected God not because evolution made God unnecessary, but made God and His presence in nature altogether too profound for him to struggle with, especially in the weakness of his simultaneous struggle to come to terms with the death of his daughter.

 

[lucaspa]

1. The Bible says, “God is good,” and God described his just-finished creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw,” to “create” everything?

It is "very good" because it gives us a universe where our lives have meaning.

2.

The Bible says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin.

It also says Adam will die "in THE day" he eats of the fruit. The Hebrew is very specific: Adam is supposed to die within a 24 hour period. Adam didn't physically die. Instead, the "death" is spiritual death, and yes, Adam did "die" spiritually as soon as he disobeyed God. He was cut off from God.

3. According to the evolutionist’s understanding, fossils show death, disease and bloodshed before the evolution of people. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8) because of Adam’s sin.

But if you look in Genesis 1, you see God gives plants to humans for food. WHY? Why do we need to eat? To keep from starving to death. Paul was trying to give Gentiles reasons to pay attention to the Judaic Torah. So he tried to tie Jesus to Adam.

how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g., I Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive”).

Because Adam stands for all of us. Jesus died for our sins. Yours and mine. We sin, you and I. Not because of Adam, but because we choose to disobey God. Adam represents all of us, which is what I Cor. 15:22 is saying. Paul wasn't consistent with his theology. He didn't care about consistency; he was in too much of a hurry. Paul was convinced the world would end in his generation and all he cared about was bringing as many people to Christ as possible. He didn't care if one argument to one group contradicted his argument to another group.

4.

If the Genesis accounts of creation, the fall, the origin of nations, the flood and the Tower of Babel-the first 11 chapters-are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard?

Well, think about it! What verses that were interpreted as meaning a flat earth and immovable earth were discarded before the discovery of evolution? Do you need a list? Did Christianity fall apart because those parts were discarded?

5.

The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. The biblical order of creation is all wrong, according to the evolutionary view. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with evolution, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution to create everything?

NO! Genesis 1 was written to bolster the faith of the Hebrews after the Babylonian Conquest. The order of creation is fashioned so that the Babylonian gods are destroyed in the order they appear in the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish. The audience understood exactly what was being done. God left us His Creation so we could figure out exactly how God created: when we were able to understand it.

6.

If God created an evolutionary world, then the existing earth is as it always has been and as God intended it to be.

Uh, no. The earth has often changed in its 4.5 billion year history.

Why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and a new earth (II. Peter 3 and other places)?

Don't you think it wrong to misquote scripture? 2 Peter 3 is trying to reassure people that the second coming hasn't happened yet. The author is using the Noachian Flood as a means of reassuring the people that God will, someday, destroy this world. This is part of the Church's attempt to deal with a crisis of faith started by Jesus in

7.

Darwin formulated evolution theory to eliminate God from the realm of biological origins.

Flat out lie. Darwin looked at evolution as discovering how God created the diversity of life. Here, read Darwin for yourself:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Doesn't sound much like getting rid of God, does it?

Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)?

Only if you are an atheist and think that "naturalism" = without God. Are you an atheist?

If God “created” using the mode invented to make him unnecessary, how can God’s “eternal power and divine nature” be “clearly seen” in creation, as Romans 1:20 says?

1. Who says God is "unnecessary" for evolution? This is atheism again. Again look at what Darwin used in the Fontispiece to Origin:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

8.

Evolution has no purpose, no direction and no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an “unnecessary hypothesis?”

As scientists, we can't say the first sentence. What we can say is that natural selection has no long-term goal. Because natural selection can't see long-term. Natural selection does have a short term goal, however: finding the best available designs for the particular environment.

I suggest you read Chapter 8 of Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. He addresses this in detail. Briefly, we have no trouble believing that God is capable of incorporating the contingent events of human history into His plan and purpose. Why would He have any more difficulty incorporating the contingent events in evolutionary history into His plan and purpose?

You seem to have a very limited god. Fortunately, God is not that limited.