The Bible's Compatibility with Theistic Evolution

[Deadworm]

Before you read the rest of this OP, please watch this short video in which Dr. Kenneth Miller, author of standard high school and college text books on evolution, provides a simple but compelling example of just how convincing the evidence for human evolution from lower primates really is. btw, Miller is a devout Catholic who believes in Intelligent Design!

youtube keeneth miller chimpanzees humans genes - Bing video

Many Fundamentalist Christians embrace a Domino theory of Scripture and its teaching about Creation, a view that in effect teaches that we must either literally believe in a creation process in 6 24-hour days or throw out the entire Bible, including our precious life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ and our Christian hope. Over the decades since Darwin, millions of dedicated bright young Christians confronted with this ghastly challenge have responded by saying I must be true to my self and my sense of integrity, follow the evidence, and try to sustain my faith with some loose ends and inconsistencies that I strive to resolve. But then when they are pressed to confront the Domino theory of Scripture, they feel forced to solve this dilemma by renouncing their faith. Many fundamentalists would rather fell right in their own eyes than encourage honest seekers to pursue whatever faith quest it takes to sustain a life-changing saving relationship with the Lord.

Seldom do seekers bring an OT Wisdom perspective to this debate. So here are 5 interpretive principles for your consideration that have the potential to justify a faith-sustaining theistic evolutionary, old earth position:

(1) The accidental forces of natural selection and genetic mutation that fuel evolution evoke the poetic image of divine play. an endless series of dry runs and dead ends in Mother Nature's operation of evolutionary forces. Proverbs 9 portrays Lady Wisdom in an analogous way to Mother Nature and uses the image of divine play to depict Her role in creation:

"I [Lady Wisdom] was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence, at play everywhere on his earth (8:30-31--NJB),"

(2) The lack of sustained purpose that characterizes play provides a role for chance in the creation process and implies that God does not micro-manage the operation of the laws of Nature in our universe. OT wisdom literature combines the poetic image of divine play with the role of chance in outcomes: "All are victims of time and chance (Ecclesiastes 9:11)."

(3) Notice in the Genesis creation narrative that God does not just speak vegetation and sea and animal life into being. Instead, God says:

"And God said: Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures (Genesis 1:19)."
"And God said: Let the earth bring forth vegetation...(Genesis 1:11)."
"And God said: Let the earth bring forth living creatures of ever kind (1:25)."

The expressions "Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth" play off the Ancient Near Eastern concept of the creative power of Mother Earth. Significantly, Genesis does not inform us as to how the earth or the sea brought forth life in its various forms. Thus, the poetic language might mask the hidden truth of God's use of evolutionary processes in the creation and expansion of new life.

(5) Notice too how a poetic understanding of the universe's origin seems quite compatible with Big Bang scientific theory. In the ancient near east, there was no concept of the endless vacuum of outer space. Instead, they envisaged what we call outer space as "waters" separated from the earth-forming waters by a "dome" or "firmament." Notice then how God conveys an origin model that is compatible with Big Bang theory through the false ancient Israelite cosmology:

"The wind of God moved over the face of the waters [= the vacuum of outer space] , and God said: "Let there be light," and there was light (Genesis 1:2)."

"Wind" conveys force spreading and expanding through space (= "the waters), resulting in light, a nice image of the eruption of the Big Bang from a pinpoint of unimaginable energy.

 

[David Kent]

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. If that is false in any way, the whole scripture is false. That is the most important verse in the bible,

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. If that is false in any way, the whole scripture is false. That is the most important verse in the bible,

I think you and the OP are actually in harmony with each other. There is no doubt that God did create the heaven and the earth. But we are not told exactly how He did it. I can imagine God initiating the Big Bang which produced light. The Scripture does not confirm or deny that it happened that way.

I have not previously linked "the waters" with the ancient view of space, but it clicks with me and I can "see" the wind of God blowing through space originating from a big bang. This agrees with the scientific view that the universe is expanding outward from a central point. As scientists are making new discoveries, these discoveries are making the Bible account more credible.

The problem is that many fundamentalists who want to take the Bible ultra literally, read into Scripture that is not there. The OP's theories cannot be fully proved by the Genesis account, but they cannot be disproved either. and, God doesn't have to explain all His methods in how He created the universe and our world, in order for us to receive the details of His plan of salvation for mankind. That is what the Bible is written for - to show us how God works with mankind through the ages, why the fall happened, how His plans and purposes developed through the ages, culminating in the death and resurrection of Christ and the birth of the Christian Church. When we think of one day with God is as a thousand years, the creation of the earth was completed around six days ago, and the resurrection of Christ took place 2 days ago as far as He is concerned. He is in no hurry about things.

If the geological formation of the earth took, say, a billion years (1000,000,000) then that would have been 2,750 years in God's time. Seeing that God lives in eternity where there is no start or end to time, this is a relatively short time for God to have formed the basic structure of the earth. If the Bible does not deny that it could have happened this way, nothing can actually be proved either way.

 

[David Kent]

The problem is that many fundamentalists who want to take the Bible ultra literally, read into Scripture that is not there. The OP's theories cannot be fully p

If the geological formation of the earth took, say, a billion years (1000,000,000) then that would have been 2,750 years in God's time. Seeing that God lives in eternity where there is no start or end to time, this is a relatively short time for God to have formed the basic structure of the earth. If the Bible does not deny that it could have happened this way, nothing can actually be proved either way.

The evening and the morning were the first day. How many years can be before the first day?

 

[David Kent]

Post duplicated

 

[DavidFirth]

The current TOE is incompatible with scripture. Which means the TOE is wrong. End of story.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The evening and the morning were the first day. How many years can be before the first day?

If the OP is saying that the initial Genesis account contains poetic language, then it is possible that the "days" are a period of time, but not necessarily 24 hour days. The sun and moon were created on the third day. So the days up until then could not have been 24 hour days formed by the rotation of the earth, because there was no sun or moon yet. But wait, geologists will discover by examining and carbon dating moon rocks that the moon could be a billion years old as well. And the sun. Was that created on the third day, or God strike a match and set it alight to create sunlight? And do the days after the third day change into 24 hour days? But how can that be consistent. Nothing is said about a change of the nature of the days after the third day.
So, could this description be general, poetic and not specific? Could it be a general description of the order and sequence of creation rather than an historical account mapped out with a drafting pen? We don't really know. The account is not specific enough until Adam and Eve are created, then the specific history starts and there is no longer poetic language.

There will be arguments about that, but where the Bible does not confirm or deny it, then any other alternative is just as much theory as the OP's.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The current TOE is incompatible with scripture. Which means the TOE is wrong. End of story.

How can it be incompatible with Scripture if the Scripture does not describe in absolute detail how God actually went about creating the universe and the world and giving particular time-frames instead of general "days" which could not be 24 hour ones, especially before the sun and moon were put in place, and then there is no indication that the time-frame was shortened afterward. The Scripture simply does not give enough information to support the statement that the OP was definitely incompatible with Scripture and is wrong.

 

[DavidFirth]

The word used for day in the Creation account can only mean one regular day. It cannot mean millions or billions of years.

Also, God created Man on the sixth day. Specifically, Man was formed from the dust by God. Man did not descend from any other creature. This alone is totally incompatible with the TOE.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am not saying that God did not create the universe and the earth as the Bible describes it, but there are doubts that the "days" are actually 24 hour days, and so there is a reasonable doubt that God did create the earth in six 24 hour days. And there is scientific evidence that some humans lived on the American and African continents 20,000 years ago, so Adam might not have been created as soon as 6,000 year ago. He might have woken up to life more than 20,000 years ago, given that human beings had migrated to the African and American continents at least 20,000 years ago.

I have absolutely no doubt that Adam and Eve were created by God and were real people who lived in a Garden called Eden. Jesus mentions them by name. But there are reasonable doubts as to exactly when they were created. The Bible is not as clear about that as people would like it to be.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The word used for day in the Creation account can only mean one regular day. It cannot mean millions or billions of years.

Also, God created Man on the sixth day. Specifically, Man was formed from the dust by God. Man did not descend from any other creature. This alone is totally incompatible with the TOE.

So how come the first three days didn't have a sun or moon at those time? How can there be 24 hour days without the sun? And why did the account not say that God changed His definition of "day" to that of 24 hours after the third day?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oh, by the way. I have not defected to the camp of the evolutionists by any means!!

 

[DavidFirth]

So how come the first three days didn't have a sun or moon at those time? How can there be 24 hour days without the sun? And why did the account not say that God changed His definition of "day" to that of 24 hours after the third day?

You don't think God knows how long a day is without the sun? The account doesn't say that because God didn't change the definition. You're trying to read the TOE ideas into Genesis when you should be reading Genesis and believing it. The TOE is Man's thoughts but Genesis is God's account.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You don't think God knows how long a day is without the sun? The account doesn't say that because God didn't change the definition. You're trying to read the TOE ideas into Genesis when you should be reading Genesis and believing it. The TOE is Man's thoughts but Genesis is God's account.

God's time frame is based on eternity and not on the limitations of our limited period of time. Time for us had a beginning and it will have an end. That does not mean that there will be a cessation of one event following another in eternity, but the sequence of events will never have an end to it, just as before man was created, the sequence of events in eternity never had a beginning. But as soon as Adam woke up for the first time, the particular sequence of events pertaining to this world had its beginning, and it will have its end when the world, as we know it will cease to exist.

A Bible believer can believe that the world was created in seven 24 hour days, and be a successful and effective believer, winning souls to Christ, and being a stable and long-term church member, and go to be with Jesus at the end of his life. There is no problem with that.

Again a Bible believer can believe that creation took a billion years to form the universe, the geological structure of the earth, and everything on it up to the time of Adam, and still be the same as the former Bible Believer. The Bible does not state exactly that the latter is actually wrong in his thinking about the creation of the world.

But I don't believe in evolution, that all of the plants, animals and humans developed from one single cell that came to life in the primeval sludge when a bolt of lightning hit it. That is too much like Frankenstein's monster for me. God created every species of plant, insect, bird, animal, and every race of humans as separate entities, and very human being on earth who ever lived came from a real couple called Adam and Eve.

So I believe firmly in creation, but am coming around to the belief that God took a lot longer to put it all together than the ultra fundamentalists try to tell us. Just because I am starting to accept that God may have taken a lot longer than six 24 hour days to create everything, doesn't mean that I am not a Bible believer.

And I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that my view is absolutely right and the six day folks are absolutely wrong, because there is not enough substantive evidence either way. There are a lot of questions about it. I just can't believe with all my heart that a six 24 hour day creation can produce geology that has been dated millions of years by some sort of magic. God is sovereign. He can create things any way He likes and use any method, and take as long as He likes to complete it. He can say it is six days when it might have been six billion years. How do we know? The actual reality is that we don't really know, and it would arrogance for one group to say that they are right, and the opposite group are heretics and non-believers.

And anyway, what difference does it make? God said He created the universe, and world and everything in it, and that is good enough for me. I am not going to be arrogant and disrespectful to God to demand that he gives me the blueprints and the detailed working plans of how He actually did you. You know what He is going to say to me? "What is that to you? Follow Jesus."

 

[DavidFirth]

Forget about evolution and then read Genesis 1 & 2. It makes perfect sense on its own. God doesn't need men to try to redefine it for us. It says what it says and means what it says.

Evolution, the ideas of men, have turned many from the truth of the Gospel. Please dont ever let that happen to you.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Forget about evolution and then read Genesis 1 & 2. It makes perfect sense on its own. God doesn't need men to try to redefine it for us. It says what it says and means what it says.

Evolution, the ideas of men, have turned many from the truth of the Gospel. Please dont ever let that happen to you.

I don't know whether you are referring to my posts. I did say that I don't believe in evolution. I believe in creation, but God can create in what He views as an instant of time, when according to our time scale it could have taken millions of years. You have seen time lapse photography where a building taking a year to build looks like it just took five minutes. We measure our time by the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun but God is not limited by that. It is quite possible for God to take billions of our years to create the geology of the earth and it would seem just a day's work for Him. Is God so small that He cannot do that? God said to Job, "Where you there when I formed the foundation of the earth?" That was after Him saying, "Who is he that darkens counsel by lack of knowledge?" He says, "Were you there when I stretched out the stars?" No. None of us were there. So the argument about how long it took God to create the world is inconsequential to Christian faith. But evolution is certainly incompatible with Christian faith. That is what I'm saying.

 

[NobleMouse]

How can it be incompatible with Scripture if the Scripture does not describe in absolute detail how God actually went about creating the universe and the world and giving particular time-frames instead of general "days" which could not be 24 hour ones, especially before the sun and moon were put in place, and then there is no indication that the time-frame was shortened afterward. The Scripture simply does not give enough information to support the statement that the OP was definitely incompatible with Scripture and is wrong.

The Bible DOES say that man was formed of the dust of the earth, not one of the beasts of the field... as is suggested by ToE. BTW, who says Genesis is poetic?

 

[NobleMouse]

Forget about evolution and then read Genesis 1 & 2. It makes perfect sense on its own. God doesn't need men to try to redefine it for us. It says what it says and means what it says.

Evolution, the ideas of men, have turned many from the truth of the Gospel. Please dont ever let that happen to you.

Agreed, and backing up your statement is a 2009 Pew Research study showing that one of the major reasons cited why people are leaving Christianity behind is because of the assertions made by science (and since biblical creationism is largely marginalized, we're talking about mainstream science... billions of years and ToE):

Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

What we see happening today is really a repeat of early history. The serpent told Eve that by eating the fruit she would have knowledge like God. The root word from Greek for science is "knowledge" and many today seem to think that having an educated theory is the same as knowing it is true. Adam and Eve fell for it and we're still falling for it. The following video is a good synopsis of what we have going on here in these discussions within this forum:

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Bible DOES say that man was formed of the dust of the earth, not one of the beasts of the field... as is suggested by ToE. BTW, who says Genesis is poetic?

I never said that Genesis continued to be poetic when Adam was created. The creation of Adam was straight narrative of facts. The account goes from the general to the specific when the account of the creation of Adam began.

 

[David Kent]

• John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.