Sin and Theistic Evolution

[swordofspirit]

I apologize in advance if this question has been asked often.

How can a Christian belief in evolution as a process by which God brought about life be reconciled with the concept of sin?

To elaborate: certain traits such as aggression and lust have been brought out through natural selection. (A mother who protects her offspring from predators through violence passes down an heritable, genetic tendency to be aggressive to her offspring. A male who is lustful and has sex with as many females as possible has his heritable lustful genetic traits passed down to his many offspring). For ease of discussion let's focus on aggression. This genetic trait of aggression in the offspring is demonstrated through acts of violence.

Now, we can safely assume that humans and apes had a common evolutionary ancestor, and also assume that this ancestor had some aggressive genetic trait that was passed down to humans. If humankind had received this genetic trait passed down by our ancestors, and it was carried out through acts of violence and aggression, how could there be "Adam's fall"? Even if we assume that the creation story of Adam was metaphorical, according to the Bible Adam was certainly human and certainly made in the image of God originally. How can this be reconciled?

Please answer thoroughly. I think for the sake of everyone here it is better to get to the heart of the issue than to supply weak, single-sentence answers. I realize not all of us here are scientists or theologians, but I'd appreciate adequate evidence and reasoning.

 

[metherion]

This may esily be reconciled. For something to be wrong, the creature in question must have a concept of right and wrong. For instance, it is not wrong for a cat to play with (read torture) and kill a mouse because that's what cats do. It is wrong for a human to torture and kill animals because a human can tell it is wrong.
Animals can't sin, and because animals can't sin we don't have to worry about them sinning.

If no creature before man had a concept of right and wrong, then no creature before man could actually do any wrong.

So, until man was able to do any wrong, and since man is the only creature capable of doing wrong, then there was no wrong until such a time that man learned to distinguish right from wrong. And if he first gained the ability to do that after God revealed Himself to man, and then commited the first wrong act, that would be the Fall, would it not?

Metherion

 

[swordofspirit]

Hmm...

That seems to make sense. I'm sure there are many deeper questions that could be asked about this issue, but i guess i feel pretty content with that answer.

So what you're saying is that God revealed himself to Adam at some time, which set him apart from the other animals because he became aware of right and wrong? Interesting. I appreciate the answer.

 

[Assyrian]

The Genesis account describes the fall as the result of some pretty typical human instincts: the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise Gen 3:6 It is worth comparing this list with John's description of 'the things of the world' the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life 1John 2:16. The two lists match quite closely and the description of Eve was before the fall.


These are useful instincts in any species, as is aggression, the problem only comes when we were given a choice between following our natural desires and answering a call to a much higher way of life that Genesis describes, the call to follow God and his laws. I find it interesting that the moral issue presented in Genesis 2&3 is really on the most basic, beginners level, that of taboo, it is wrong to eat the fruit - because God said so. We even failed that.

 

[metherion]

You're quite welcome.

And welcome to OT.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

This may esily be reconciled. For something to be wrong, the creature in question must have a concept of right and wrong. For instance, it is not wrong for a cat to play with (read torture) and kill a mouse because that's what cats do. It is wrong for a human to torture and kill animals because a human can tell it is wrong.
Animals can't sin, and because animals can't sin we don't have to worry about them sinning.

If no creature before man had a concept of right and wrong, then no creature before man could actually do any wrong.

So, until man was able to do any wrong, and since man is the only creature capable of doing wrong, then there was no wrong until such a time that man learned to distinguish right from wrong. And if he first gained the ability to do that after God revealed Himself to man, and then commited the first wrong act, that would be the Fall, would it not?

Metherion

In line with this thinking we should also note that Paul assigns to the Law the function of revealing to us what is right and wrong.

"If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said 'You shall not covet.' ... Apart from the law, sin lies dead."​

Romans 7:7-8

 

[swordofspirit]

Ok, follow-up question. Let's assume that God used natural selection to bring about animals including mankind, and also that what is right and wrong became applicable to humans only after God revealed himself to us. Does it follow then that God's creation was imperfect? Can God create something that does not reflect his holy nature? I'll explain.

So Adam's fall came when we committed the first wrong act. This could only occur once we were able to distinguish between right and wrong. We were only able to distinguish between right and wrong after God revealed himself to man. Does it follow then that even before God revealed himself to man there was right and wrong, even though animals couldn't distinguish between it? True, animals couldn't be guilty of their actions because they could not distinguish between right and wrong. But does this mean that God originally created our world to include right and wrong? Doesn't this take the blame of evil in our world off of mankind's actions and place it on God's shoulders, because he originally created the universe to include evil?

I suppose one could say that yes, what I have just outlined could be true. Perhaps you could argue that this in fact does not go against his nature. Perhaps a completely holy yet omnipotent God could have designed our universe to include thoughts and actions which were directly opposed to his nature. Hmm, I might have answered my own question. I would still appreciate some insight.

 

[metherion]

I would say it does not follow that there were indistinguishable right and wrong before God revealed Himself and even one creature (man) became capable of understanding right and wrong.

So, if there is no creature capable of doing wrong, and no creature capable of doing right, then there is no right or wrong because nothing can be done that would qualify as either.

So, until man came along, everything was in accord with God's will. It just was. When man came along, there was the option of going against God's will. When the ability to go against God's will, which is defined as wrong, came about then and only then did right and wrong enter the world.

Think of it like shadow. You can't have a shadow without light. In the absence of light there are no shadows. But then light comes along, and even if there is nothing actively casting a shadow the potential for shadows is now there. That's how it was with choice and right/wrong.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

Ok, follow-up question. Let's assume that God used natural selection to bring about animals including mankind, and also that what is right and wrong became applicable to humans only after God revealed himself to us. Does it follow then that God's creation was imperfect? Can God create something that does not reflect his holy nature? I'll explain.

First one would need to define "perfect". Is it the same as "good" or "very good"? These are the scriptural terms, for the bible never says the world was created "perfect".

Does it follow then that even before God revealed himself to man there was right and wrong, even though animals couldn't distinguish between it?

One of the interesting questions of philosophy, to which I believe there has never been a satisfactory answer, is this:

Is something right because God wills it or does God will it because it is right?

Metherion's response reflects the first view. Prior to the existence of a being with free will, no animal was capable of going against God's will. "Wrong" is going against God's will.

Now if we take the second view, God did not create right or wrong. The moral standard is something that exists separately from God and to which God himself conforms. You can see why Christians would have a problem with that concept.

Either way, however, God did not create wrong. Rather he created a creature capable of autonomous free will, because only such a creature could know and love its creator.

He did so, however, knowing that free will entailed the possibility (and in his foreknowledge, the certainty) that this creature would exert its own will against God's will and so fall into sin.

I like Metherion's analogy of the shadow. To create light does not create the shadow, but it does create the possibility of shadow. To create humanity in the image of God with the god-like endowment of free will does not create evil, but it does create the possibility of sin. Yet, even with its potential for sin, humanity is still part of that "very good" creation, in fact, the crown of that "very good" creation.

 

[JAL]

This may esily be reconciled. For something to be wrong, the creature in question must have a concept of right and wrong. For instance, it is not wrong for a cat to play with (read torture) and kill a mouse because that's what cats do. It is wrong for a human to torture and kill animals because a human can tell it is wrong.
Animals can't sin, and because animals can't sin we don't have to worry about them sinning.

If no creature before man had a concept of right and wrong, then no creature before man could actually do any wrong.

So, until man was able to do any wrong, and since man is the only creature capable of doing wrong, then there was no wrong until such a time that man learned to distinguish right from wrong. And if he first gained the ability to do that after God revealed Himself to man, and then commited the first wrong act, that would be the Fall, would it not?

Metherion

Good post. This is basically the position I've taken for a couple of years now. Adam was not the first humanoid but was certainly the first "man" in the sense of imaging God in ALL respects including the conscience whereby he distinguishes right from wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

These are useful instincts in any species, as is aggression, the problem only comes when we were given a choice between following our natural desires and answering a call to a much higher way of life that Genesis describes, the call to follow God and his laws. I find it interesting that the moral issue presented in Genesis 2&3 is really on the most basic, beginners level, that of taboo, it is wrong to eat the fruit - because God said so. We even failed that.

If we think about what was told, we (human race), in fact, did pretty well in obeying God's command. Adam and Eve did NOT touch what God says not to eat. I assume they must have obeyed the command for quite bit a long time, until the temptation occurred. So, if you want to associate some animal habit or spirit to human, I don't think it would apply at the beginning.

Was the Fall not only made Adam and Eve physically perishable, but also made them prossess some natures common to animals (selfish, greedy, violent etc.)? It is amazing how severe the punishment was. On this regard, I think satan won a battle against God. he destroyed God's best creation.

 

[artybloke]

I don't see the problem. Sin isn't a historical event or a genetic condition. It's something we all commit because we're all human and live in a human society where we all rub each other up the wrong way. I don't see why there has to be some historical figure to do the first sin.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see the problem. Sin isn't a historical event or a genetic condition. It's something we all commit because we're all human and live in a human society where we all rub each other up the wrong way. I don't see why there has to be some historical figure to do the first sin.

Yes, that is the CURRENT status.

But we are talking about the ORIGIN. Is this forum talked about the origin of everything? So, according to you, what is the origin of sin? Was it like a whole bunch people sinned together all of a sudden? Or was it "spreaded" from one to others? Or what?

Whatever your answer is, there will be further questions about it. That is the fun part of this forum.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, that is the CURRENT status.

But we are talking about the ORIGIN. Is this forum talked about the origin of everything? So, according to you, what is the origin of sin? Was it like a whole bunch people sinned together all of a sudden? Or was it "spreaded" from one to others? Or what?

Whatever your answer is, there will be further questions about it. That is the fun part of this forum.

I think sometimes we focus too much on the sinful act and not enough on the awareness of sin.

After all, there are few acts that are always sinful in all times and places. We say "You shall not steal" but we make allowances for the starving person who steals a loaf of bread to survive.

Awareness that what one is doing is sinful is an important part of sin. As Paul says, until the law told him not to covet, he did not know what it was to covet or that it was sinful.

The same acts we consider sinful in humans we do not consider sinful in animals because they have no awareness of what sin is. We also excuse humans who lack the capacity to understand that what they are doing is wrong.

So maybe sin did not enter the world so much by what someone did, but through someone who first realized "What I am doing is wrong."

 

[theIdi0t]

Was the Fall not only made Adam and Eve physically perishable, but also made them prossess some natures common to animals (selfish, greedy, violent etc.)? It is amazing how severe the punishment was. On this regard, I think satan won a battle against God. he destroyed God's best creation.

Well, didn't they lust for the wrong things even before the first Bite?

It seems you're making the assumption that if Adam and Eve didn't take a bite of the fruit, Cain would not have killed Abel. Which I see no support for, if Adam and Eve could have desired to do "bad" before they committed an act, than there is no reason to assume Cain would not have desired to do "bad", if Adam and Eve did not commit a "bad" act.

 

[theIdi0t]

Yes, that is the CURRENT status.

But we are talking about the ORIGIN. Is this forum talked about the origin of everything? So, according to you, what is the origin of sin? Was it like a whole bunch people sinned together all of a sudden? Or was it "spreaded" from one to others? Or what?

Whatever your answer is, there will be further questions about it. That is the fun part of this forum.

I guess the question goes, does God will us to be perfect, or does God will us to desire to be perfect? And if it is to desire to be perfect as he is perfect, does that not mean we have to see ourselves as imperfect, and God wills us to be imperfect creatures?

Was God's will that we look upon ourselves and claim we are perfect, or was his will that we look upon ourselves and see our selves in humility, as imperfect?

 

[juvenissun]

I guess the question goes, does God will us to be perfect, or does God will us to desire to be perfect? And if it is to desire to be perfect as he is perfect, does that not mean we have to see ourselves as imperfect, and God wills us to be imperfect creatures?

Was God's will that we look upon ourselves and claim we are perfect, or was his will that we look upon ourselves and see our selves in humility, as imperfect?

Are we physically better than apes? (don't you feel we are too fat, two heavy, limbs are too short and too weak, and do not have anything on skin to resist cold?)

Except our head, I don't think that we are better than apes in any other sense. So why didn't God just give apes a bigger head and a sense of sin and did not have to bother with us?

Yea, I know, God does things in His way. If so, what are we still arguing about?

So, we WERE made perfect (by any standard you look at it). Before we could live forever and keep the perfectness, we screwed it up. That is it.

 

[gluadys]

So why didn't God just give apes a bigger head and a sense of sin?

He did.

 

[Romanseight2005]

This may esily be reconciled. For something to be wrong, the creature in question must have a concept of right and wrong. For instance, it is not wrong for a cat to play with (read torture) and kill a mouse because that's what cats do. It is wrong for a human to torture and kill animals because a human can tell it is wrong.
Animals can't sin, and because animals can't sin we don't have to worry about them sinning.

If no creature before man had a concept of right and wrong, then no creature before man could actually do any wrong.

So, until man was able to do any wrong, and since man is the only creature capable of doing wrong, then there was no wrong until such a time that man learned to distinguish right from wrong. And if he first gained the ability to do that after God revealed Himself to man, and then commited the first wrong act, that would be the Fall, would it not?

Metherion

I have to admit that this does not add up to me. There is no indication in scripture that there was any death at all until Adam and Eve sinned.In fact it makes a huge deal of the fact that sin caused death. Without sin there would be no death. Why would animals kill(innocently) Your understanding of what animals do is based on what we currently see animals do, but scripture states that the ground was cursed at the fall of man. We see a change occurring that would very likely affect all of nature. I am not wanting or trying to debate, so please don't take my post as such. Death without sin just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would death be such a huge deal for humans, yet already happening to everyone else. Furthermore, wouldn't death already be part of the natural state of man if what they came from was already part of a life and death cycle?

 

[Romanseight2005]

In line with this thinking we should also note that Paul assigns to the Law the function of revealing to us what is right and wrong.

"If it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said 'You shall not covet.' ... Apart from the law, sin lies dead."​

Romans 7:7-8

But before the law was given, people were already dying because of sin. That verse must not be taken out of context, the understanding of right and wrong are written on the hearts of those who have never heard the gospel, or Judaism.
Rom 2:14-15

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
KJV