Theistic Evolution and death

[Everybodyknows]

This thread is for those who subscribe to some form of theistic evolution.

When I was a child I was taught that God created a perfect world without death and then death entered the world through man's sin. Later my beliefs got more complex as I tried to reconcile the things I learned about evolution with the faith I was brought up with.

Evolutionary change occurs slowly as favourable genetic traits spread through populations over successive generations. Some lineages die out entirely while others thrive as environmental conditions change over time. It seems death is a necessary condition from the outset for evolution to function. Without death organisms could not change, as they are stuck with the genes they inherit. But their offspring have a chance to have better genes, so the old pass away and the new take their place.

How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?

Was man literally created from dust after life had evolved for billions of years? Did man evolve, gain immortality and then loose it again? Or was the immortal man not to be taken literally like the rest of the Genesis creation mythology?

 

[Radrook]

This thread is for those who subscribe to some form of theistic evolution.

When I was a child I was taught that God created a perfect world without death and then death entered the world through man's sin. Later my beliefs got more complex as I tried to reconcile the things I learned about evolution with the faith I was brought up with.

Evolutionary change occurs slowly as favourable genetic traits spread through populations over successive generations. Some lineages die out entirely while others thrive as environmental conditions change over time. It seems death is a necessary condition from the outset for evolution to function. Without death organisms could not change, as they are stuck with the genes they inherit. But their offspring have a chance to have better genes, so the old pass away and the new take their place.

How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?

Was man literally created from dust after life had evolved for billions of years? Did man evolve, gain immortality and then loose it again? Or was the immortal man not to be taken literally like the rest of the Genesis creation mythology?

Not all theistic evolutionists are Christians with a Bible based theology. However, for those who are, tagging the Genesis account of creation as myth becomes a necessity. The problem occurs when we see Jesus as well as other Biblical writers referring the genesis account as fact. Then the issue of whether these men were deluded crops up.

About death, please note that not all Christians believe that animals were immortal or deathless prior to the human fall from grace. They believe that animals died because eternal life is a gift offered only to humans. So for those Theistic Evolutionists it would pose no problem at all.

 

[truefiction1]

This thread is for those who subscribe to some form of theistic evolution.

When I was a child I was taught that God created a perfect world without death and then death entered the world through man's sin. Later my beliefs got more complex as I tried to reconcile the things I learned about evolution with the faith I was brought up with.

Evolutionary change occurs slowly as favourable genetic traits spread through populations over successive generations. Some lineages die out entirely while others thrive as environmental conditions change over time. It seems death is a necessary condition from the outset for evolution to function. Without death organisms could not change, as they are stuck with the genes they inherit. But their offspring have a chance to have better genes, so the old pass away and the new take their place.

How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?

Was man literally created from dust after life had evolved for billions of years? Did man evolve, gain immortality and then loose it again? Or was the immortal man not to be taken literally like the rest of the Genesis creation mythology?

God knew of mankind's (Adam and Eve) disobedience in Paradise (which in the way that the Bible narrative form comes across as a state of being that existed outside of the norms of chronological time, and therefore somehow preceded it) prior to its occurrence and prior to creating anything or anyone. God's foreknowledge and unfathomable providence in view of mankind's fall are the reason that everything in the universe exists as it is now, with death and evolution being part of the very fabric of natural (or now unnatural) order. The Biblical narrative is therefore both literally true and what many would call metaphorically true. True faith, that comes to life in the soul of a believer in Christ, gives the souls of those who come to possess it a childlike quality that makes no distinction between metaphor and literal Truth. In this state of being (which we will call for our purposes and "alternate reality") we are able, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to see things as they were before sin, as they are now because of sin, and partially, things as they will be because of the coming restoration of all things to what they are in the eternal Life in Communion with God.

In the ancient Church there are some who hold to Theistic evolution and many who reject it as untrue because it is not something that was believed or taught by the fathers or even postmodern saints of the Church. A believer in theistic evolution does not disqualify himself from the salvific Life in Christ in the Church. A lack of repentance and corresponding deficiencies in True faith are what disqualify us.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Not all theistic evolutionists are Christians with a Bible based theology. However, for those who are, tagging the Genesis account of creation as myth becomes a necessity. The problem occurs when we see Jesus as well as other Biblical writers referring the genesis account as fact. Then the issue of whether these men were deluded crops up.

About death, please note that not all Christians believe that animals were immortal or deathless prior to the human fall from grace. They believe that animals died because eternal life is a gift offered only to humans. So for those Theistic Evolutionists it would pose no problem at all.

Unless you have pets, then it should be a problem.

 

[Radrook]

Unless you have pets, then it should be a problem.

I agree 100%. Losing a pet to death is definitely not fun.

 

[bcbsr]

This thread is for those who subscribe to some form of theistic evolution.

When I was a child I was taught that God created a perfect world without death and then death entered the world through man's sin. Later my beliefs got more complex as I tried to reconcile the things I learned about evolution with the faith I was brought up with.

Evolutionary change occurs slowly as favourable genetic traits spread through populations over successive generations. Some lineages die out entirely while others thrive as environmental conditions change over time. It seems death is a necessary condition from the outset for evolution to function. Without death organisms could not change, as they are stuck with the genes they inherit. But their offspring have a chance to have better genes, so the old pass away and the new take their place.

How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?

Was man literally created from dust after life had evolved for billions of years? Did man evolve, gain immortality and then loose it again? Or was the immortal man not to be taken literally like the rest of the Genesis creation mythology?

How could Adam understand "you shall surely die" if he didn't have a concept of death? I take it that Adam and Eve were limited to a garden in about 4100 BC, outside of which the rest of world existed. Animals could die in the garden, which is why the couple understood the concept of death, but Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life which prolonged their life indefinitely until they were put out and denied access.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This thread is for those who subscribe to some form of theistic evolution.

When I was a child I was taught that God created a perfect world without death and then death entered the world through man's sin. Later my beliefs got more complex as I tried to reconcile the things I learned about evolution with the faith I was brought up with.

Evolutionary change occurs slowly as favourable genetic traits spread through populations over successive generations. Some lineages die out entirely while others thrive as environmental conditions change over time. It seems death is a necessary condition from the outset for evolution to function. Without death organisms could not change, as they are stuck with the genes they inherit. But their offspring have a chance to have better genes, so the old pass away and the new take their place.

How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?

Was man literally created from dust after life had evolved for billions of years? Did man evolve, gain immortality and then loose it again? Or was the immortal man not to be taken literally like the rest of the Genesis creation mythology?

Although I've never believed in a literal Adam and Eve, I do still take the Garden Story seriously as a God inspired, spiritual lesson and a literary figure. With that said, I think death can be reconciled with the Garden Story by answering the following questions: What is the Tree of Life, and who gets to eat from it? (Remember, there are TWO mystical trees in the Garden, but we often just focus on one of them--the bad one.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Everybodyknows]

Not all theistic evolutionists are Christians with a Bible based theology. However, for those who are, tagging the Genesis account of creation as myth becomes a necessity. The problem occurs when we see Jesus as well as other Biblical writers referring the genesis account as fact. Then the issue of whether these men were deluded crops up.

About death, please note that not all Christians believe that animals were immortal or deathless prior to the human fall from grace. They believe that animals died because eternal life is a gift offered only to humans. So for those Theistic Evolutionists it would pose no problem at all.

Thanks for your response. I can accept that animals were never deathless as that is never explicitly stated in the Genesis creation account.

I really would like to go deeper on the last part of my question concerning the origins of man. Do Theistic Evolutionists view man as evolved or created? If evolved as evidence would lead us to believe then was man ever immortal? Was the gift of eternal life only offered once a certain stage of evolution was reached?

I'm interested in exploring different ideas on this issue, so please feel free to share your personal beliefs on the matter.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Although I've never believed in a literal Adam and Eve, I do still take the Garden Story seriously as a God inspired, spiritual lesson and a literary figure.

So if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve then do you still believe in the fall? Was man made immortal and then had to taste death as a result of eating from the bad tree?

With that said, I think death can be reconciled with the Garden Story by answering the following questions: What is the Tree of Life, and who gets to eat from it? (Remember, there are TWO mystical trees in the Garden, but we often just focus on one of them--the bad one.)

How do those two questions reconcile death?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve then do you still believe in the fall? Was man made immortal and then had to taste death as a result of eating from the bad tree?

Yes, we are all still "fallen," because as the story of Adam and Eve represents, we all have a tendency to pull away from God who is the only One who can provide us with life and existence.

How do those two questions reconcile death?

The Tree of Life represents God's providence for sustaining our human life. If we don't have access to it, then we die. Plain...and simple. It also means we are NOT immortal; we each rely on God's power and provision for our continued existence. Obviously, the literary context of the Garden story infers that the rest of creation, apart from mankind (Adam and Eve), doesn't receive sustenance from the Tree of Life. So, I think you can see what that means.

 

[Everybodyknows]

God knew of mankind's (Adam and Eve) disobedience in Paradise (which in the way that the Bible narrative form comes across as a state of being that existed outside of the norms of chronological time, and therefore somehow preceded it) prior to its occurrence and prior to creating anything or anyone.

Can you please explain what you mean here, I don't quite follow?

God's foreknowledge and unfathomable providence in view of mankind's fall are the reason that everything in the universe exists as it is now, with death and evolution being part of the very fabric of natural (or now unnatural) order. The Biblical narrative is therefore both literally true and what many would call metaphorically true. True faith, that comes to life in the soul of a believer in Christ, gives the souls of those who come to possess it a childlike quality that makes no distinction between metaphor and literal Truth. In this state of being (which we will call for our purposes and "alternate reality") we are able, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to see things as they were before sin, as they are now because of sin, and partially, things as they will be because of the coming restoration of all things to what they are in the eternal Life in Communion with God.

In the ancient Church there are some who hold to Theistic evolution and many who reject it as untrue because it is not something that was believed or taught by the fathers or even postmodern saints of the Church. A believer in theistic evolution does not disqualify himself from the salvific Life in Christ in the Church. A lack of repentance and corresponding deficiencies in True faith are what disqualify us.

So, if I'm following your argument, you are saying God created the universe in a fallen state in advance because he had foreknowledge of the inevitability of man's sin? So the fall never happened as an actual event that brought man into death?

You have a very interesting take on things. Please share more.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Yes, we are all still "fallen," because as the story of Adam and Eve represents, we all have a tendency to pull away from God who is the only One who can provide us with life and existence.

How do you tie this idea in with humans evolving from lesser creatures who die (if you believe that at all)?

The Tree of Life represents God's providence for sustaining our human life. If we don't have access to it, then we die. Plain...and simple. It also means we are NOT immortal; we each rely on God's power and provision for our continued existence. Obviously, the literary context of the Garden story infers that the rest of creation, apart from mankind (Adam and Eve), doesn't receive sustenance from the Tree of Life. So, I think you can see what that means.

My question here is at what point in the evolutionary chain did God decide give man (proto-man / monkey ancestor) access to eternal life via the metaphoric tree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you tie this idea in with humans evolving from lesser creatures who die (if you believe that at all)?

You don't tie it in. One does not reflect the other, nor did the writer have evolution in mind, so there isn't going to be any hidden symbols in the story we can take as applying to evolution. Rather, it is a cosmogonic story, and it was more than likely written as a polemic against, and refutation of, the pluralistic myths in surrounding cultures of the time in which it was articulated. Its purpose was to wipe away the idea that the universe came first and birthed multiple gods. As we see in Genesis, God came first, ONE God, and he created all of the heavens and the earth. That's the "cosmogonic corrective" being offered in its ancient pages. Unfortunately, we try to do other things and meet other modern agendas with its ancient paradigm.

My question here is at what point in the evolutionary chain did God decide give man (proto-man / monkey ancestor) access to eternal life via the metaphoric tree.

As I stated previously, the Garden story is representative in it's literary nature. This means it paints a picture of spiritual meaning for us to ponder before the face of God as He has revealed it through the Jewish people; it is not providing us with a photographic type snapshot of "history as it was." The merely physical reality is that we evolved from earlier life-forms; the Garden story, on the other hand, was given by early Jews and/or Moses to inform readers of revelation about God and how to relate with Him, which is a part of metaphysical reality. The Bible was not written to answer all questions, and problems come most when we try to believe that it was written to answer all questions, or that its ancient pages contain some kind of mystical protection or that it imparts some kind of epistemic infallibility and/or ultra-literalism.

If you want to read some materials by Christians who align with what I'm suggesting to you, then you might try checking out BioLogos.org.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[truefiction1]

Can you please explain what you mean here, I don't quite follow?


So, if I'm following your argument, you are saying God created the universe in a fallen state in advance because he had foreknowledge of the inevitability of man's sin? So the fall never happened as an actual event that brought man into death?

I'm saying that God did have foreknowledge, and thus, if He created the universe as we observe and experience it now that it is perfectly acceptable to me that He did so. However, I did not say the fall never happened as an actual event. I believe that it indeed did happen as described, but that the exact nature of where, when, and how it happened is a mystery that cannot be fathomed by our rational human mind, which is why highly metaphorical language is used in the Biblical narration of Genesis wherein the fall is depicted. I compare the combining of the fall as an actual event and the acceptance of a natural order of material existence with evolution and death to the great Mystery of our Sacraments. You have asked me to define using human logic something that defies human logic. I can't do this any more than I can explain how our Eucharist can be both bread and wine while at the same time being Truly the body and blood of our Living Savior. It is both. Nobody will ever be able to explain it. We simply accept it as being beyond us and go on with our Faith in Christ and repentance unto God, which lead us into Eternal Life.

 

[truefiction1]

It might help to know that in the Orthodox Church there is no "dogma" to define redemption/atonement. The Church is of the belief that the exact mechanism by which God's death on the Cross saves us cannot be understood by human logic. We refer to Redemption as a Great Mystery. All of the language in the New Testament that is used in talking about God's redeeming death on the Cross is considered by us to be metaphorical, because it is not able to be rationally understood, by means of logical abstraction, how it is that the death of God on the Cross "rebinds" the unfathomable heights of God's Holy dwelling place (Heaven) with our material earth, as it was once bound in a mysterious place that we refer to as "the garden of Eden". It is because the Church reveres this "rebinding" as a Great Mystery, that I regard "the garden of Eden" as a great mystery, and can therefore simply believe in God's utter transcendence of my rational mind and get on with my much needed repentance for my own great sinfulness.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Great thread. I'm still refining these things also. I agree with and learn from the posts by @2PhiloVoid and like the BioLogos.org resource.

How do you reconcile the evolutionary necessity of death with God's perfect deathless creation?

It seems reasonable biblicaly to believe the devil fell before Adam and Eve existed. It also seems reasonable to believe that the devil was given some kind of role to play on the earth that was positive (before he fell). Combining these, when the devil fell the bible alludes to him being being cast down to earth. So my story goes like this:

1. God gives Lucifer creative influencing role over the evolution of the universe
2. God creates universe
3. Lucifer sins and is renamed Satan
4. God casts Satan out of heaven
5. Satan can only be cast down to earth because he had a role to play on earth that could not be revoked
6. Satan used his creative role to cause death
7. God and Satan warred in the spiritual realm over the earth
8. The Genesis story and the Garden of Eden refer to God taking ground and placing His image on mankind (the spiritual capacity to eat of spiritual life, Jesus, and to be in a significant relationship with God)
9. Thus God did not create a "death-filled" universe, it was influenced in this direction by the devil
10. Who knows what the universe would have been like if the only influence was positive

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Was man literally created from dust after life had evolved for billions of years?

Being created from dust perhaps refers to the evolution process as a whole, or as @2PhiloVoid said, we can't take too much from it (with regard to a literal creation of man) because it was written to refute the pagan writings on the subject.

Did man evolve, gain immortality and then loose it again?

Man evolved as animal, but God placed His image on Him at some point and man became a living soul with the capacity to have a deep and meaningful relationship with God. Man can lose this relationship and Jesus is the way man is reconnected with God.

Or was the immortal man not to be taken literally like the rest of the Genesis creation mythology?

I think there was an actual Adam and Eve (even if there were other humans around at the time).

 

[Everybodyknows]

Great thread. I'm still refining these things also. I agree with and learn from the posts by @2PhiloVoid and like the BioLogos.org resource.



It seems reasonable biblicaly to believe the devil fell before Adam and Eve existed. It also seems reasonable to believe that the devil was given some kind of role to play on the earth that was positive (before he fell). Combining these, when the devil fell the bible alludes to him being being cast down to earth. So my story goes like this:

1. God gives Lucifer creative influencing role over the evolution of the universe
2. God creates universe
3. Lucifer sins and is renamed Satan
4. God casts Satan out of heaven
5. Satan can only be cast down to earth because he had a role to play on earth that could not be revoked
6. Satan used his creative role to cause death
7. God and Satan warred in the spiritual realm over the earth
8. The Genesis story and the Garden of Eden refer to God taking ground and placing His image on mankind (the spiritual capacity to eat of spiritual life, Jesus, and to be in a significant relationship with God)
9. Thus God did not create a "death-filled" universe, it was influenced in this direction by the devil
10. Who knows what the universe would have been like if the only influence was positive

Thanks for sharing. There are quite a few interesting points of view coming out in this thread which is what I was hoping for.

However I'm not sure at the moment whether I believe in a literal devil. I see Satan more as a personification of our ability to choose evil, or something along those lines (haven't got it all figured out yet).
Or I even much prefer the Jewish view of Satan:

S.C.J. FAQ: Section 12.35. Jewish Thought: What does Judaism believe about Satan?
Judaism does not believe in the devil, but we do believe in Satan (who more properly should be called "the Satan"). As this demonstrates, the Jewish view of Satan is very different than the Christian one. Here's a summary of the Jewish view; you can also find information at Alyza (Gretchen) Shapiro's web site at http://www.geocities.com/alyzab/Jewish/satan.html

The word satan means "challenger", "difficulty", or "distraction" (note that it is not a proper name). With the leading ha- to make haSatan, it refers to /the/ challenger. This describes Satan as the angel who is the embodiment of man's challenges. HaSatan works for G-d. His job is to make choosing good over evil enough of a challenge so that it can be a meaningful choice. In other words, haSatan is an angel whose mission it is to add difficulty, challenges, and growth experiences to life. Contrast this to Christianity, which sees Satan as God's opponent. In Jewish thought, the idea that there exists anything capable of setting itself up as God's opponent would be considered overly polytheistic—you are setting up the devil to be a god or demigod.

The notion of an angel having free will is alien to Judaism. Free will requires the tension created by being a soul dwelling in a body. People can have free will, angels can't. There is a debate over whether they lack the potential for free will, or whether they simply percieve reality to clearly to have any choices to make. But in any case, without the fence-straddling of the human condition, there is no free will. HaSatan acts as a servant of God, not as an opponent or even disobediant child. Angels cannot sin, they cannot fall.

 

[Everybodyknows]

You don't tie it in. One does not reflect the other, nor did the writer have evolution in mind, so there isn't going to be any hidden symbols in the story we can take as applying to evolution. Rather, it is a cosmogonic story, and it was more than likely written as a polemic against, and refutation of, the pluralistic myths in surrounding cultures of the time in which it was articulated. Its purpose was to wipe away the idea that the universe came first and birthed multiple gods. As we see in Genesis, God came first, ONE God, and he created all of the heavens and the earth. That's the "cosmogonic corrective" being offered in its ancient pages. Unfortunately, we try to do other things and meet other modern agendas with its ancient paradigm.

As I stated previously, the Garden story is representative in it's literary nature. This means it paints a picture of spiritual meaning for us to ponder before the face of God as He has revealed it through the Jewish people; it is not providing us with a photographic type snapshot of "history as it was." The merely physical reality is that we evolved from earlier life-forms; the Garden story, on the other hand, was given by early Jews and/or Moses to inform readers of revelation about God and how to relate with Him, which is a part of metaphysical reality. The Bible was not written to answer all questions, and problems come most when we try to believe that it was written to answer all questions, or that its ancient pages contain some kind of mystical protection or that it imparts some kind of epistemic infallibility and/or ultra-literalism.

If you want to read some materials by Christians who align with what I'm suggesting to you, then you might try checking out BioLogos.org.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Thanks for pointing me towards Biologos, I've never come across that before.

I'm aware that the Genesis story must be read in its historic literary context, and I'm not exactly trying to read evolution or any other knowledge we have about the world into the story.

What I'm hoping, and maybe my thinking is a little to simplistic, is to find a modern narrative that ties in the spiritual meanings of the Genesis story with our knowledge of the world and universe. In the same way that the scripture uses narratives based on the author's world view to convey deep spiritual truths.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for pointing me towards Biologos, I've never come across that before.

I'm aware that the Genesis story must be read in its historic literary context, and I'm not exactly trying to read evolution or any other knowledge we have about the world into the story.

What I'm hoping, and maybe my thinking is a little to simplistic, is to find a modern narrative that ties in the spiritual meanings of the Genesis story with our knowledge of the world and universe. In the same way that the scripture uses narratives based on the author's world view to convey deep spiritual truths.

Well, I can appreciate that you're wanting to find some kind of synthesis that brings all these things together; but I'm not one who thinks you'll find that kind of thing (i.e. a modern narrative), if I understand your meaning. The best that can happen, in my estimation, is that the basic patterns which early Hebrew/Jewish minds encoded into the language and narratives will come to be recognized, in some way, as "present" in the world.

I know that what I'm proposing may seem a bit of a let down to the Modern Mind, but that is about what I think we can expect of God's revelation.

By the way, when you say "modern narrative," what specifically is it that you have in mind? Do you mean that you are wanting to find a kind of "explanation"? If you're just looking for some books/sources besides the BioLogos website then you might try the following:


Langdon Gilkey - Maker of Heaven and Earth (1959)

Conrad Hyers - The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (1984)

Denis O. Lamoureux - I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution (2009) [or his other books]

J. Richard Middleton - The Liberating Image (2005)


Peace,
2PhiloVoid