Religion and evolution

[TG123]

Because living things evolve, and have been doing so on this planet for at least several billion years.

-CryptoLutheran

What have human beings evolved from?

God said He created Adam and Eve in His likeness and image.

 

[Dunban]

Yeah I sure hope we don't get in the "its just a theory, its wrong" discussion like on most threads of this ilk.

I've been trying to avoid such butthurtness for quite awhile.

I think we already have.

I used to say that, in fact. I'm kind of ashamed I used to be so ignorant. I truly knew nothing about it, yet I just went by what I heard other religious people tell me. I parroted whatever I heard from the religious people I respected.

 

[Dunban]

What have human beings evolved from?

God said He created Adam and Eve in His likeness and image.

Exactly.

For most Christians, this is an uncompromisable position.

It's "either the bible is right and literally true on this or it isn't" and there's entirely no middle ground. I could explain all of this in great detail, since I used to think this way.

 

[Dunban]

This is far less an issue among Mainline Churches, especially outside of the United States. In Britain or Europe one will find it's simply not the issue that it is in the US.

-CryptoLutheran

I wish I lived there. Fanaticism annoys me.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

What have human beings evolved from?

God said He created Adam and Eve in His likeness and image.

Adam and Eve had the ability to create, that is the likeness and image of God.

 

[Isambard]

Well, God created the world so I don't believe there is a problem between science and Him.
Please explain why you believe the theory of evolution is a "fact".

Here you are
15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Pt 1 - YouTube

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Scientifically religion migh be a accident. A by product of using our "theory of mind" (which we use to see humans as people, agents, psychic forces) in a more general sense to view causation of what atheists call natural events. So for example a flood may be viewed as a action of an angry God rather than a fluctuation in weather patterns. In fact stuff like that is still known by the name "act of God" in the British legal system, and the Koran sees God's agency behind processes and events atheists would put down to natural forces, like the growth of grain etc. Read "The God Instinct" for further information on the concept of God and theory of mind.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is mostly for the Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters that post here. Does your faith support or deny a belief in evolution? Is evolution compatible with your faith or religion?

Working with others extensively who are Jewish (both ethnically and in lifestyle) - even though they are Messianic Jewish (Jews believing Yeshua is the Messiah), the issue you noted is one that is very close to home for me.

And on the subject, I'd like to share some thoughts on things I've learned when studying the Jewish worldview on the matter.

Growing up, my thoughts were similar to others such as Tim Keller - who noted the following in his paper from Bio Logos (for brief excerpt):

God took one out of the population of tool-makers and endowed him with ‘the image of God’. This would have lifted him up to a whole new ‘plane of life’. On this view, then what happened? “If this…alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind it would be of course quite untenable. God…has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26)….Yet it is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s vice-regents (Gen 1:27,28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.”
Can Genesis Be Compatible with Evolution? Tremper Longman and
​

It seems reasonable to say that Genesis 3 the creation is finished. And it's at this point I don't see an easy reconciliation between a 6,000-year human genealogy and the conclusions of natural history. The most controversial genealogies, in Genesis 5 and 11, seem designed to prevent us from extending them via the usual method of inferring missing generations

I wonder on whether creation was "finished" in the sense of no more development - for even after the Lord saw that his creation was "good", there was still the dynamic that the creation itself goes through periods of change/alteration and adaptation. Differing species can arise over time, be it due to environment change or breeding and many other things.


Nearly all Christians hold to the view of progressive revelation....meaning that God started simple w/ humanity and moved forward with more detail, knowing that certain things would need to be conveyed a certain way to get a job done. For some examples, consider how you talk to your children...or how I talk to my 5yr old sister in simple terms that she can understand and identify with. When my sister is 20yrs, of course it'd be insulting to speak to her as I do now when she's 5...as her understanding is more developed.

For another example......I recall an incident happening in another country--- South America, I believe....where there were doctors working with some primitive tribes who had a very high infant death rate. They tried to explain to the midwives how they needed to wash before assisting in a birth on account of germs. However, the people had no idea what they were talking about and would not heed the advice. Finally, in desperation, they used the people's own spiritual outlook by telling them that by going through a special ritual of hand washing they would ward off the evil spirits that were causing the deaths of the infants. For that was something they could identify withj and it worked. Now, was it true in an absolute sense? Of course not....but nonetheless, it became a vehicle to get these people to do what they needed to do to save lives.

And likewise, so it can be seen with the scriptures. For Humanity was much younger when Genesis was written and did not have the benefit of thousands of years of change in their perspective. One often assumes that they would even understand or be helped what what concerned them by telling them the whole evolutionary story...but these people lived in constant fear of impending anarchy, invading armies, disease, starvation, weather, wild animals and many other dangers. Truly, they were far more at the mercy of the elements than you and I are.

The Story of Genesis tells the story of a God who was in complete control of all things...and things came about as a result of this God's power. God used their understanding of the world that was based on their observation of the world around them to teach them these things. What possible good would it have been to tell them things they could not possibly understand or relate to? That would hardly give them any sense of security in following this God. Look at your own life now. What you understand about God now and life with Him is going to be quite different to what you will know in 30 years. For God meets us where we're at, coming down to our level. And thus, the truths conveyed by the Genesis account are what we need to know and believe.

There are others who've done a better job on addressing the issue, if interested....and for more, one can consider looking up online/investigating......each under their respective titles (even though I disagree with aspects of what some others have noted):

• The Creation of an Evolutionist: "Evolutionary Creation..." ( )
• "Gerald Schroeder <<< Finding the Intelligence Within the Design 17-22" ( )

Dr G Schroeder is truly a brilliant individual and I think some of his views make alot of logical sense. I like what he said here in "Gerald Schroeder <<< Finding the Intelligence Within the Design 17-22" ( ) . He has a very interesting take on Genesis 5 as well. As he noted:

Days containing ages sounds strange. Nevertheless that is what we twice read in Genesis: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Eternal God made heaven and earth" (Genesis 2:4). And again "This is the book of the generations of Adam in the day that God created Adam" (Genesis 5:1). It took an Einstein to discover how ages could be squeezed into a day. The laws of relativity taught the world that the passage of time and the perception of time's flow varies from place to place in our most amazing universe. A minute on the moon passes more rapidly than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the Sun passes more slowly. The duration between the ticks of a clock, the beats of heart, the time to ripen oranges, stretches and shrinks. Where ever you are, time seems normal because your body is in tune with your local environment. Only when looking across boundaries from one location relative to another very different location can we observe the relativity of time. If you can not understand how this can be, do not despair,. The other approximately 5 billion inhabitants of the Earth are in a similar quandary. We look back in time, studying the history of the universe. From our vantage we find, correctly, that billions of years have passed. But, those same Sages told us, the Bible sees the six days of Genesis looking forward from near the beginning, from the moment that stable matter formed from the energy of the big bang.

The Age of the Universe - Professor Gerald L. Schroeder
Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. "Physicist Speaks on Genesis and Science"

​

Gerald Schroeder is one of the best ones I think you could investigate---concerning theistic evolution, as Brother Gerald Schroeder is a scientist/Orthodox Jewish theologian.. an Orthodox Jewish author and lecturer at Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center, who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality. Others may disagree, but its amazing whenever it comes to presenting the perspective of evolutuon from the perspective from Jewish Thought.

Of course, he is not alone..as in our own times, most Jewish denominations accept the science of evolutionary theory and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, endorsing the stance of theistic evolution in the process.

On the issue of Jewish thought/evolution, it has been the case that several modern Orthodox Jewish scientists have interpreted creation in light of both modern scientific findings and rabbinical interpretations of Genesis....where each of these scientists have claimed modern science actually confirms a literal interpretation of Torah. They all accept the scientific evidence that the age of the Earth and the age of the universe are on a scale of billions of years, with them also acknowledging that the diversity of species on Earth can be explained through an evolutionary framework. The most significant aspect, though, is that each of them interprets certain aspects of evolution as a divine process, rather than a natural one only---and therefore, each of them accepts an evolutionary paradigm while rejecting some aspects of Darwinism.

Outside of Gerald Schroeder, others to look into would be Nathan Aviezer-another Jewish physicist, who interprets the six days of creation as broadly referring to large periods of time, an interpretation for which he cites rabbinic sources, including Maimonides and Nachmanides. The physicist/teacher---Judah Landa--was already mentioned earlier as another solid character to investigate when it comes to others reconciling the Torah with factual evidence in the scientific world.

There's also the work of Zoo Torah/Zoo Torah - by Rabbi Natan Slifkin as seen in the following:

• 
  Rationalist Judaism
  
  
• The Torah/Science Controversy
  
  

Some accept Evolution in the sense of how one in DEISM would see it, with God does not interfering with the world or creating miracles...and others believe God made life before leaving it to be bound to the rules of evolution/subject to the laws in nature he had set up. As Jewish physicist/teacher---Judah Landa--said best, "Evolution was designed and guided, just as the putting together of words and sentences into book forms is accomplished only by design and guidance...... A book is designed by its author, evolution was (and continues to be) designed by the laws of nature (which in turn, were designed, we believe, by God)"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

...living things evolve, and have been doing so on this planet for at least several billion years.

There was another discussion elsewhere that sought to go in-depth on the issue, here:

.. what about all the archaeological finds we have discovered like the famous Lucy skelton, an ancient Australapithecine hominid that is estimated to be over 3 million years old? Donald Johansen's find was enormous. We have found australopithecines, homo erecus, homo habilis, neanderthals, etc. What are we to make of these hominids? Just flukes? Anthrolopologists and archaeologists analyzed their teeth, bone structures, what was found in their immediate vicinity within a few feet, and they've drawn some logical conclusions. I guess I'm wondering if we all have given the research, findings, conclusions, and actual reading its due diligence, or just cast it off as absurd because it might not jive with the Bible, approaching the OT as a history and science text? What are we to make of these skeletal finds? What do we make of mammoth discoveries like Oduvai Gorge, the Leakey finds, Johansen's discoveries, etc?

As said best elsewhere:

... God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil—an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences.


This view can fit whether the humans in question constituted a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine that God interacted with all members of the group and essentially initiated the relationship that exists today. If the initiative was with a single human couple, then that relationship could spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population came to dominate.... It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the earth, and to have moral consciousness. We are to image God (see our question on the "Image of God"). In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus..
​

For a better description, one can go here to the following:

• Denis Alexander, “How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?” (Dec 2011)

Some are of the mindset that man evolved, to the point where the Lord bestowed upon him the image of God---thus making it possible for him to share links with others in the Primate family and yet be distinct when his intelligence underwent RADICAL changes. And on the issue of man being related to apes, there'd be nothing wrong with this (In my opinion). Secifically, Under the Scientific classification of Anthropoids:

Sub-Order: Anthropoidea,
Infra-Order: Catarrhine,
Super-family: Homonoidea,
Subfamily: Homininae,
Tribe: Hominini,
Species: Human.
​

The other "tribe" under Homininae is: Panini, Species: Chimpanzees. Humans are different for other primates in that we don't have an insulating layer of hair - allowing us to control body temperature through sweating. AND Our females go through a menopause sometime quite early in life, while other primates don't.And this wouldn't be an issue for "Creationists" in any way. Dr. Porsche built the original "Bebe" Renault, and the Economy models of the early Mercedes rear engine vehicles - AND the Volkswagens (in 1939). When one looks at the "guts" of the three (and of others he did) one can see a distinctive commonality of design, and similar features among all three - making it clear that the same "thought process" produced all three vehicles. BUT Nobody would try to prove that a Volkswagen was a "Bebe Renault" - but could easily demonstrate that the same "creator" was involved in both of 'em.

Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the fall....but I disagree. For the Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed His image on representative Homo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called Homo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3.8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28.11-19). I don't see anything wrong with advocating that God may've made two species that have similarities and may've indeed come from the same stock while choosing to impart one aspect of Himself into one of the groups to make them far superior/advanced than all others in creation.

Not too long ago, there was an article from BIO Logos I came across..and I thought it was intriguing when it came to discussing what's seen in Genesis and renconcilling that with Anthroplogy. For more:

• Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary? | The BioLogos Forum
• What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 2 | The BioLogos" ​

• Models for Relating Adam and Eve with Contemporary Anthropology | The Bio"" ()​

What they offered seemed insightful and, IMHO, it does bring up an entirely different realm of conversation when considering Genesis and how God described the role of Man (as well as the Devil) and the story of creation all the way up to Genesis 6/the Flood.​

Although I think the story of Adam/Eve is literal, I think the interpretation of it often gets missed. Where scripture says "God made man from the Dust of the Ground", I've always been curious as to why many say its somehow impossible for the Lord to have made other species similar to man (i.e. apes, primates, etc) and then with man, breath his spirit into man....with the Gift of God's Spirit imparted being what set man apart.​

The text doesn't say that only having 4 fingers/thumbs is what makes man in the "Image of God"...as other creatures share similar genetic make-up on some parts & have the same body parts. Yet that doesn't mean that we're the same fully. If apes /other species and humans were 100% the same in all things, it'd definately place an entirely different spin on the film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."​

​

​

​

Seeing the Film puts an enitrely DIFFERENT spin on what it means to be in a Zoo---and makes one wonder what would happen if indeed was the case that something was naturally able to develop that'd be against man. For animals have learned to use tools, as well as to communicate on high levels of intelligence/network...even using tools to do things. Though never on the level as man, there's no saying that it could not happen where intelligence/development grew enough where a threat to man's survival occurred. Of course, if that happened like in "Planet of the Apes, they I'd say Apes would be seen as another creation of the "Beasts of the Field" (Genesis 1:24-25)...and having to fight against other species evolving would be an extension of the mandate from God to "Have Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-31). ..with both connected and what's seen in anthropology with "common links"/similar actions kept in place...

Concerning the theory of men being related to "beasts", there's actually another theory that says one of the beasts of the field would be the Nephilim from Genesis 6:3-5/ Numbers 13:32-33 ......and that the Nephilim were a species of primate not made in the "Image of God." Many believe they were on a differing evolutionary route than the group of primate that Hashem placed his Spirit in to create man...with man being the one that the Lord chose to work with and the Nephlim being the leftovers who evolved over time. Many ponder over the possibility of the Nephilim being a species of proto-human..basically an unknown or primitive species of human....and others feel that perhaps the Nephilim from Genesis 6 were the result of men breeding with other primates/blending to create a race of giants. Either way, they were far less evolved than man..​

For more, one can go here to the following:​

• Why Mylipin; / Myliypin; (Nephilim) - Michael S. Heiser
• Neanderthals | Reasons To Believe
• Neanderthal Project
• Neanderthal Nephilim?
• GIANTS OF THE BIBLE
• Who Were the Nephilim?
• Cavemen Are People Too!
• Neanderthal = Nephilim?
• Nephilim - Michael S. Heiser
• Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science
• Reasons To Believe - Were Hominids Human?
• Neanderthal and Nephilim - Are They the Same?
• Neanderthal/human interbreeding - The Panda's Thumb
• 2] Nephilim Skeletons Found, by Fred Harding, Tekline Publishing ...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

An interesting tidbit: The early, original Fundamentalists weren't Young Earth Creationists, at least not most of them. Young Earth Creationism didn't come into vogue until much later after the "Scopes Monkey Trial". The 1961 book, "The Genesis Flood" more-or-less is credited with bringing Young Earth Creationism from a view held by some Fundamentalists to the view of Fundamentalism.

With the political ans social upheaval of the 60's, it shouldn't be surprising then that evolution became attached to "the opposition" by the growing, conservative religious right and moral majority; and thus Young Earth Creationism was hoisted up as a banner of Christian moralism against the secular immorality and evil in such things as evolution. That sentiment has been branded upon the religious landscape of America as many a Christian has indulged themselves of that particular kool-aid.

For the record, many of the early Fundamentalists were actually Old Earth Creationists, fully accepting of ancient geology (as it had been a long established fact in the scientific community, before Darwin, that the earth was at least millions of years old; and that didn't seem to bother many).

So true.

From Justin Martyr to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and many others - many of the early church fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a figurative sense, and subscribed to the notion that that the "days" referred to in Genesis 1 were probably not literal 24 hour days - with there being room for differing interpretations.


Specifically, There were many Church Fathers who did not view the 6 days of Genesis as literal days. And since the early church was not unanimous in taking the days of Genesis as 24-hour days, there's no reason why the modern church should be. Giiven the fact that many in the early church viewed the days of Genesis to be something other than 24-hour days, I think the modern church is free to believe that as well. For if some Christians want to postulate that the days were something else (not an attempt at order, but instead, long ages of time), it's disingenious to act as if you can suddenly say they don’t believe the Bible. For those who believe that the Genesis days represent long ages believe the Bible as much as Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, etc., etc.

THree very influential church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine) did not see the Genesis days as 24-hour days.

And they were not the only ones since there were many very influential people in the early church who did not believe that the Genesis days were 24-hour days. This was a view that has existed from the earliest writings of Christianity.

Origen is one of those who stands out (who, in the following excerpt, argues AGAINST a strictly literal interpretation of the Scriptures):

And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (Contra Celsus, Book VI, Chapter 60; )

​

Outside of him, there are others to consider that say much on the issue. In example, when dealing with the scriptures, there are certain things which come to mind:

"You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
​

Truthfully, how does one reconcile this with this passage later from Genesis?

Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty (930) years... (Genesis 5:5)
​

Logically, if the Lord meant "day" in the former passage as YEC define define "day"--i.e., 24 hours, sunset to sunset--then how did Adam live for 930 years? THis is where study of the Church Fathers is important - for in example, one can consider how St Justin Martyr sees this:

For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' (2 Peter 3:8 ) is connected with this subject. (Dialog with Trypho, Chapter 81; )

​

The SAME theme of a day being as a thousand years to God comes up in the following:

St. Ireneaus of Lyons:
And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 23; )
​

Additionally, one can see the same here as well:

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren has borne seven. (Treatises 11:11; )

​

To note, The Church actually owes the greater part of her ecclesiology (i.e., our understanding that there are no Sacramental Mysteries outside the Church) to Cyprian, and his teachings were ratified pretty much without reservation by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
We also have St.Augustine, (who deems it impossible to conceive what kind of days the six days of creation were):

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! (City of God, Book XI, Chapter 6; )

​

Clement of Alexandria is one of the most intriguing people to study on the issue - as this theologian did most of his work in the late 100s AD and the early 200s AD as well as being the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. According to Clement:

Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power. For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist....That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival;

-Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 16, 205 AD

​

Clement of Alexandria echos the thought that we cannot know from the Scriptures exactly when or how long, in human reckoning, creation took place. On a side note, it should be remembered that Origen and Clement and the Alexandrian School as a whole were very allegorical in approach - with them never denying the Historicity of Jesus Christ and noting He was a real character/person. But their allegorical views went hand in hand with how Church Fathers thought in general.

It is a well known thought that for the Church Fathers many events do not have to flow in sequence or in step-by-step order - for they had a very strong concept of mysticism and the reality of contrast. For Clement, the Church Father advocated that things were not created in succession and were instead all created at once. Essentially, all things (the earth, stars, sun, moon, animals, even time itself) all leapt into being instantaneously and the “days” in Genesis are simply present so that the reader may know which creations were most important to the Lord. In his view, the larger the day, the more important to God the creation was.

This is the view known as “instantaneous creation” - a fairly popular view in the early church. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293 -373 AD), Augustine (354-330), and Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – 368 AD) all believed in the concept as well - and the reasons why it was important/popular in the early Church were largely due to how a prominent Jewish theologian who was a contemporary of Christ believed it. Specifically, it was the case that Philo Judaeus (20 BC – 50 AD) said the following:

And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement

-Philo Judaeus, The Creation of the World, III, 30 AD
​

There is clear similarity to Clement of Alexandria’s reasoning when studying Philo’s. For Philo said directly that the days in Genesis are not days...but instead merey a means of ordering/arranging the creation.

What many in YEC do not understand is that it was not simply a matter of all things being seen as they do today - for in many ways, the CHurch Fathers were opposite of Old Earth Creationists (what I lean toward often) because they believed in a younger earth, due to the fact that they believed that all creation happened instantaneously. It was not a matter of not believing that many things did not take substantial time - and that is why many in YEC tend to take a lot of things OUT of context when claiming that all things the Fathers believed had to deal with the creation days taking place in 24 hour days.

For according to the Church Fathers, there were no creation days. Rather, God said it and it happened all at once, immediately. ....and from there, the lineage from Adam began, with counting generations telling them that only a few thousand years had elapsed. Essentially, when things began, it was quick - but the time leading to the beginning of all things was substantial (as Old Earthers and others in TE hold to) _ and the point in noting that is that none of them thought the days in Genesis were strict, 24-hour days.For young-earth creationists to insist that the early church was virtually unanimous on this point is avoiding the facts as they happened.

There's no logical way to escape the fact that what the Fathers believed in with regards to the Bible where Genesis [and the 4th Commandment] was concerned was “instantaneous creation.” - supposing that because God could do anything [He can] and can make whatever He wills occur in a moment [He's not bound by time] that He would never take 6 days to create everything. And this occurred because, in their worldview, they seemed to feel that it impugned on God’s omnipotence for Creation to take an entire week. ..for why should God speak, they reasoned, when He can accomplish His will with a thought instead.

For more, one may wish to consider John Tobin - who did an excellen job compiling list of references, his arguments being that the Early Church Fathers didn't believe Young-Earth Creationism as is expressed today - and that their version of what a Young Earth model was like differed VASTLY from how many in Evangelical culture see it today.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

An interesting tidbit: The early, original Fundamentalists weren't Young Earth Creationists, at least not most of them. Young Earth Creationism didn't come into vogue until much later after the "Scopes Monkey Trial". The 1961 book, "The Genesis Flood" more-or-less is credited with bringing Young Earth Creationism from a view held by some Fundamentalists to the view of Fundamentalism.

Philo (a Jewish scholar) was distinct in rejecting attempts to date the origin of the world (Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.1) - which leaves open the possibility that he would be open to an old-earth - and his views were well regarded amongst many in the early body of believers when it came to the original Fundamentalists. For more, one can consider Philo, Allegorical Interpretations 1.2; Who Is the Heir of Divine Things 34....

Ernest Lucas. "Interpreting Genesis in the 21st Century," Faraday Paper No 11: PDF is an excellent source of study - as his paper suggests that the early chapters of Genesis should be read as a theological text expressed in symbolic stories addressed to ancient Hebrews, and not as a scientific text - for when reading it in this way the narratives become highly relevant to us today. Moreover, an excellent resource dedicated to addressing the issue of how the Church Fathers saw issues can be seen in Andrew J. Brown, The Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation Re-evaluated, PSCF 57 (June 2005): 134-145 and Davis Young’s 1988 article, “The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation,” both of whic contributed to the debate over the interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1 by drawing on Augustine’s most significant work on this biblical text

For other places to consider...

• On the Six Days of Creation
• Genesis, Creation and Evolution - Orthodoxy
• Genesis 1: days or ages? - Evidence to Believe
• The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary
• Young Earth, Old Earth, and Not Having To Know the Answer
• Early Church Fathers Didn't believe Young-earth Creationism
• "Young Earth Theory" and the Early Church Fathers - Orthodox Christianity
• Were the Early Church Fathers Young Earth Creationists? - Evidence for God/Science
• Reasons To Believe : Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers' Perspective on Genesis

As said best elsewhere by one believer:

One can be a faithful, committed Christian and believe that evolution is very likely scientifically true. You can be a Christian and believe that God perhaps intentionally set the path of life on its evolutionary path, that He intentionally drew human beings out of the line, breathed His Spirit into us and made us in His Image. Some people call this “theistic evolution” – as opposed to “naturalistic evolution,” which I described in the previous paragraph. It’s not about a huge cosmic accident, but rather, about God doing exactly what He wanted how He wanted to do it. Believing this does not necessarily need to conflict with a belief in God, Jesus or even in the Truth of the Bible as God’s Word.
​

Any type of naturalism that leaves out the Lord being in control is within the realm of what's Unbiblical (more here and here) and this was well understood by the early church, as they were more sensible than a lot of the new innovations coming out from much of the YEC movement today - and it's something which has already been noted here when it comes to remembering that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by unconditional fiat or divine decree.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Because living things evolve, and have been doing so on this planet for at least several billion years.

-CryptoLutheran

If I may say...

While I agree that human language often is reflecting real things (And thus, the language of scripture should be taken seriously), it is never reflecting all things. We choose how specific our language will be, for example, in many cases. Thus, when it comes to evolution, I would say the idea of a species reflects a reality, but not necessarily one that sums up the whole. For God didn't quibble with the names Adam gave the animals, but he didn't give Adam the names he called them himself either.

For the idea that a species "turning into" another species - say a dinosaur becomes a chicken - is a problem for God seems to me to be no different than saying that it was a problem for God when I went from being a child to an adult, or when the cheese I ate yesterday went from being a bit of a cow to a bit of me.

To say any of this is NOT to say there is no horse, or no human being. Rather, it is essentially an apophatic approach - things are not less because we do not grasp them wholly, but they are all that we grasp and more. Technically, one does see that principle come into play when the Lord does miracles....defying the laws of nature.

The Exodus Account is one of the greatest examples---as there was much "MUTATION"/Random occurrence...with materials/elements that had absolutely NO connection being SUDDENLY made to connect. Some quick examples, as found in the lengthy account and instructions surrounding the tenth plague and the Exodus (Exodus 11:1-13:16).

Exodus 7
...10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

..7 This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that I am the LORD : With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. 18 The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.' "

​

A Staff turning into another object ENTIRELY like a snake has serious ramifications......and is a continuation of what was said in Exodus 4:1-17 when God first called Moses/told him to throw down his staff and see it transform. The section of Exodus 4:1-17 narrates dialouge between God and Moses regarding the signs He will perform before Israel and Pharoah.....and it is framed by explicit references that will bring Moses' staff info focus. Exodus 4:3-9 goes into depth about the three signs (i.e. the turning of his hand into leprosy, the turning of the staff into a snake and the waters turning into blood)......indicating that the extent of the Lords power over the realm of nature to do things that seem SCIENTIFICALLY impossible

The miracle of turning WATER into Blood was even more of a radical miracle than the turning of a staff info a snake. And as evidenced when it came saying that even in vessels of wood/stone water was turned into blood, the extent of the first plague shows that it cannot be explained simply as the result of natural causes.Its interesting to note that in John 2, Jesus did the same thing with water transmutation..........except that He turned the Water into wine, with no record of his adding anything else to it that was necessary for it to transform as other often had to do when making wine.

For another example Exodus 8:17 and Psalm 105:31 come to mind when the Lord spoke, and there came swarms of flies, and gnats throughout their country....simply from Moses throwing handfuls of dust into the air and seeing it transform. Where is it the case that GNATS are somehow related to Dust---or have the same mechanics as Dust does? Was it necessary for Gnats to be guided step by step into becoming another thing ALTOGETHER? No---as God can do ANYTHING.

There are many other miracles besides this where the natural laws of nature seemed to be violated in order to prove a point. Since the Bible unquestionably teaches that God brought the universe into existence (Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6) and that He owns and rules it all by his own Purposes (Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 10:14), this certainly would be possible. God can do what seems to be impossible ....and with man going through jumps in his evolution, why would it not be possible?

I must say that there are many reasons for evolution makes logical sense. For we seem to presuppose evolution quite often, even though many find it very inappropriate to "presuppose" common ancestry since we know this to be a fact of life - as Common ancestry is still common ancestry, even without evolution. But how it develops is intriguing in/of itself. Part of me was reminded of amazing creatures such as Pangolins, also known as &#8220;scaly anteaters,&#8221; due to the scales they posses (and being the only real mammals with scales). With the Pangolin, I had seen such creatures before in books - but never looked much into it after that. Studying them more in action, I was like "God is amazing in how much he can create ." When you look at them, they look like they're in chainmail worn by knights. Mini-soldiers ready for battle. .....

​

San Diego Zoo Kids - Roly Poly Pangolins ​

Attenborough's Pangolin (Natural World, BBC1 9 Nov '12) ​

Mammal versions of Rollie Pollie bugs/pillbugs/cellarbugs (with those bugs being what my cousins and I used to play with for hours rolling them ) - and it's a trip that a mammal can have the same features as bugs ..or really crustaceans (as creatures such as pillbugs are terrestial crustaceans and are more closely related to lobsters, shrimp and crayfish ). Of course, for me, it's also amazing to see some of the aspects from Theistic Evolution that come into view when seeing convergent evolution and how certain species - differing as they are - will still share similar traits even in completely differing environments.....evolutionary convergence being the observation that some unrelated groups of animals or plants have, though natural selection, converged on similar &#8220;designs&#8221; when they find themselves in similar environments. The classic examples are the placental and marsupial mammals (both, for example, have evolved mole-like forms), the vertebrate and cephalopod eyes, the fusiform shape of dolphins, fish, and ichthyosaurs. And to see similarities in species like Pillbugs and Pangolins is no different than seeing how some animals do things others only expect with others - like how in some ways, monotremes are very primitive for mammals because, like reptiles and birds, they lay eggs rather than having live birth....the only examples being the duck-billed platypus and four species of echidna (also known as spiny anteaters) - with it being the case that pangolins are related to the echidna :​

​

​

Even in knowing what an actual enchinda was, it is amazing when seeing the differences between them and pangolins - and yet the pangolin in its design is a parallel image of itself.​

With Convergent Evolution, although Charles Darwin famously concluded On the Origin of Species with a vision of "endless forms most beautiful" continually evolving, more than 150 years later many evolutionary biologists see not endless forms but the same, or very similar, forms evolving repeatedly in many independent species lineages. For example, a porpoise's fishlike fins are not inherited from fish ancestors but are independently derived convergent traits. ...and the same applies for the Pangolin.​

• A Real-Life Example of &#8220;Convergent Evolution&#8221; | Proslogion
• Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful - Page 142 -
• Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem - Christian Apologetics UK
• A Theology of Purpose: Creation, Evolution and the Understanding of Purpose - Science and Christian Belief

To be clear, I am not one who is 100% for anything and everything done in the name of Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary theory - as my views have tended to go toward Progressive Creationism (from the larger system of Old Earth Creationism) - and one can get basic information on the issue if choosing to go to Old-Earth Creation - Progressive Creation & Evolutionary Creationism (Theistic Evolution ) - Similarities and Differences between Old-Earth Views or Progressive Creation: An Overview - Evidence for God from Science ​

That said, there are still aspects within Theistic Evolution that I can see having a lot of merit - and so long as Intelligent Design is present, there are many other things I don't have a problem with ultimately. For myself, seeing Pangolins is just a testament to the fact that either evolutionary theory is true ...with it being GOD who's behind spontaneous developments that seem "random" to us when they're in fact planned...or it's the case that God sometimes does things for the sake of humor and to throw us off so we'd not think categories could fully capture his genius. Like some animals he made were done specifically because he said " I think I'll take pillbug and mix it with mammal - just because I can!!" ​

​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The sad truth is, Christians are known more for what they are against rather than what they are for.

Sad but true and something many have been working to address/go against for some time...

 

[Supreme]

Jews and Muslims are similar to Christians in this regard. Some Jews and Muslims accept evolution as part of God's plan, whilst others view it as blasphemous. I think Jews tend to be more open minded in accepting evolution than Muslims do, however.

 

[dlamberth]

God said He created Adam and Eve in His likeness and image.

Spiritually speaking, our true self is our soul. That's what is made in the image of God. Not our body. Our body is made from the earth, and like all things of the earth, it evolved into what it is today.

.

 

[gord44]

Evolution is the best we got. That's why it's taught in schools. It's backed by years and years of research in which scientists try and disprove each others theories in hopes of coming to some sort of truth about where we came from. It's based on the best facts we have. It's not based on opinion. Scientists aren't out there to disprove religion, they are out there trying to figure out stuff. Biblical literalists then get all bent out of joint when well researched finding go against their ego based beliefs.

Evolution isn't perfect, but for now, we have nothing better that is based on factual research.

 

[Dunban]

I remember a few years back, watching a segment from a show where Dawkins had a Christian university professor on, who taught and believed in evolution. I think his name was John Lennox or something, and Dawkins was entirely dumbstruck how someone could call themself a "Christian" and still believe in evolution. He simply could not get over that fact, it was humorous.

 

[Dunban]

Adam and Eve had the ability to create, that is the likeness and image of God.

Likeness of God refers to our nature, cognition and ability to think rationally and about spiritual things. It has nothing to do with our bodies appearances.

In creationism, you're a pile of dirt (despite the fact that the human body is over 90% water) and in evolution, you're an evolved animal.

I ask everyone: What is worse? Would you rather be a pile of dirt or a "monkey"?

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Likeness of God refers to our nature, cognition and ability to think rationally and about spiritual things. It has nothing to do with our bodies appearances.

In creationism, you're a pile of dirt (despite the fact that the human body is over 90% water) and in evolution, you're an evolved animal.

I ask everyone: What is worse? Would you rather be a pile of dirt or a "monkey"?

I'm not really sure about your questioning here. I merely stated we had the ability to Create, that is our nature, it is also the nature of God, thus we are created in his/her/it's image and likeness.

 

[Dunban]

I'm not really sure about your questioning here. I merely stated we had the ability to Create, that is our nature, it is also the nature of God, thus we are created in his/her/it's image and likeness.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just adding in my own thoughts. I didn't feel like quoting the other guy, who was arguing against what we said.