Theistic Evolution and Genesis 1:21-25

[Bulldog]

Hello. First I'd like to say that I do not wish to attack theistic evolution, I have yet to take a position. But I'm wondering what theistic evolutionists say about Genesis 1:21-25:

"Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."

(All emphasis added by me)

 

[Bushido216]

What's your point? The "kind" thing?

I can see where this is going to go. You want me to say how I can get around the fact that Genesis says that a dog prodoces a dog and evolution says that a bird produces a turtle, right?

 

[Bulldog]

What's your point? The "kind" thing?

I can see where this is going to go. You want me to say how I can get around the fact that Genesis says that a dog prodoces a dog and evolution says that a bird produces a turtle, right?

All I want to know is your view on these verses. I'm not going to debate you.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

BullDog, have you ever studied the Babylonian gods or the Egyptian gods and their associated creation myths?

Gen 1 is a beautiful deconstruction of those myths placing God above their gods. It was probably a great tool in keeping the early Hebrew from switching to either of the compeating major religions of the day.

 

[ThePhoenix]

This sort of logic was a partial inspiration for my post on genesis. See it for why you shouldn't take that book too literally.

 

[Bushido216]

All I want to know is your view on these verses. I'm not going to debate you.

You want me to trap myself into a logical fallacy. Do you realize how many times I've seen this arguement?

Anyway: Evolution works through tiny changes. Genetically speaking, each successful generation is only marginally different from their parent generation. However, it is the accumulation of these differences that leads to speciation. So, yes, each individual produces "after their kind".

 

[Bulldog]

You want me to trap myself into a logical fallacy. Do you realize how many times I've seen this arguement?

Anyway: Evolution works through tiny changes. Genetically speaking, each successful generation is only marginally different from their parent generation. However, it is the accumulation of these differences that leads to speciation. So, yes, each individual produces "after their kind".

Thanks. That's all I needed to know.

 

[Bushido216]

Yeah, sure, have a blast.

And thanks for the reputation point.

 

[lucaspa]

Hello. First I'd like to say that I do not wish to attack theistic evolution, I have yet to take a position. But I'm wondering what theistic evolutionists say about Genesis 1:21-25:

"Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."

(All emphasis added by me)

Bushido may have given you the wrong impression of TE. Your emphasis suggests the view that one kind can't change to another. In creationist jargon, it's microevolution vs macroevolution.

TEs simply say that these verses are not literal. The evidence in God's Creation says emphatically that one kind can indeed change to another kind. There are no barriers to such change and the fossil record documents changes of this kind (pun intended).

Now, I side with Karl. At the time Genesis 1 was written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians believed that animals had spirits -- minor gods. Hawks were associated with Horus, for example, and thought to be children of Horus. These verses eliminate that aspect of polytheism. Hawks can't be children of Horus because all birds are created objects of Yahweh.

Or, put another way, the verses convey a theological message and are not meant to be literal history.

 

[Bushido216]

What'd I do wrong? I said that the differences between each generation were tiny and that they accumulated to produce speciation.

What?

BTW, check out my new thread in the S,C&E forum.

 

[lucaspa]

What'd I do wrong? I said that the differences between each generation were tiny and that they accumulated to produce speciation.

I know, but you also said that the individuals produce after their own kind. Remember, creationists no longer equate kind with species. So you inadvertently told Bulldog that "microevolution" happens but not "macroevolution". Bulldog can walk away thinking that TEs don't accept "macroevolution" or the evolution of new kinds.

This is a case that you said one thing but I fear that Bulldog is going to hear something else. Between what you typed and what Bulldog read I think there may be a change in your meaning.

 

[Bushido216]

Ah, okay.

What I was trying to do was use their own lingo to explain why it was wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

Ah, okay.

What I was trying to do was use their own lingo to explain why it was wrong.

Nice idea, but remember that their lingo is often devised (by the professional creationists) to obscure meanings, not make them clearer. So their lingo often doesn't say what those same words say to us.

 

[Bulldog]

Bushido may have given you the wrong impression of TE. Your emphasis suggests the view that one kind can't change to another. In creationist jargon, it's microevolution vs macroevolution.

TEs simply say that these verses are not literal. The evidence in God's Creation says emphatically that one kind can indeed change to another kind. There are no barriers to such change and the fossil record documents changes of this kind (pun intended).

Now, I side with Karl. At the time Genesis 1 was written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians believed that animals had spirits -- minor gods. Hawks were associated with Horus, for example, and thought to be children of Horus. These verses eliminate that aspect of polytheism. Hawks can't be children of Horus because all birds are created objects of Yahweh.

Or, put another way, the verses convey a theological message and are not meant to be literal history.

I see.

 

[nine]

I find nothing wrong with these verses and what I believe. I don't take everything literally in the bible, I suppose you could say. I simply believe that all of this is true, and that evolution is just the way that God accomplished this. As far as the whole marco vs. micro evolution goes, I only believe in micro evolution (it just occurs over a very long period of time). Most everyone would agree that a wolf and various species of dogs have common ancestors. Just apply this concept over the ridiculously long amount of time (that none of us can even fathom) that this all occured.

 

[lucaspa]

As far as the whole marco vs. micro evolution goes, I only believe in micro evolution (it just occurs over a very long period of time). Most everyone would agree that a wolf and various species of dogs have common ancestors.

Nine, can you explain this a little more, please? You say you "only believe" in micro evolution, but the next sentence is macroevolution.

BTW, just to let you know, strictly speaking, no one believes a scientific theory. Intead we accept the theory based on the data. Loose language of this type has allowed some creationists to portray evolution as a faith.

Theistic evolution, being a metaphysical extrapolation from a theory, is a belief. Just as atheistic evolution is a belief for the same reason.

 

[ThePhoenix]

What'd I do wrong? I said that the differences between each generation were tiny and that they accumulated to produce speciation.

What?

BTW, check out my new thread in the S,C&E forum.

But Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium fits the facts much better IMHO.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

There is an interesting verse in Sirach that makes me think it may be supporting evolution...but you don't have that book in your version of the Bible bulldog.

 

[gluadys]

I find nothing wrong with these verses and what I believe. I don't take everything literally in the bible, I suppose you could say. I simply believe that all of this is true, and that evolution is just the way that God accomplished this. As far as the whole marco vs. micro evolution goes, I only believe in micro evolution (it just occurs over a very long period of time). Most everyone would agree that a wolf and various species of dogs have common ancestors. Just apply this concept over the ridiculously long amount of time (that none of us can even fathom) that this all occured.

I agree with you. "kind" is such a slippery term that from one perspective it is quite logical to say that all evolution occurs "after its kind". Once the kind has appeared , that is.

Some bacteria get into a symbiotic relationship and form a eukaryotic cell. Since then ALL eukaryotes have produced more eukaryotes. Never changed to a different "kind".

Some eukaryotic cells get together and form a multi-cellular organism. Since then all multi-cellular organisms have produced more multi-cellular organisms. Never changed to a different "kind".

Some multi-cellular organisms developed a bilateral body plan. All of their descendants have kept the same bilateral body plan. Never became a different "kind".

Some bilateral organisms developed a head to tail nerve running along the dorsal plane of the body and a notochord (stiff muscular rod) to hold it in place. These were the first Chordates and they have continued over hundreds of millions of years to produce more and more Chordates. Never produced a different "kind".

One can continue this, of course, through the development of vertebrates, tetrapods, synapsids, mammals, and any of the mammalian orders to specific families and genera. Or through diapsids to dinosaurs to ceratopsian dinosaurs, to maniraptors to birds. Or go a different way back at bilateral animals and follow the development of arthropods through to insects, lepidoptera, moths, etc.


Once the group is distinguished from others, all further evolution takes place within that "kind". But the "kind" is elastic, permitting infinite variations on a theme. "kind" nested within "kind" within another "kind" back to the common ancestor of all "kinds".

 

[gluadys]

But Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium fits the facts much better IMHO.

There is really no conflict here. Gould agrees that evolutionary changes are small and incremental. What he suggests is that those small changes don't have to occur at a slow, steady rate. They can occur very rapidly in short bursts of speedy evolution.

If it takes a hundred steps for Species A to change to Species B, those steps may be spread out through a hundred million years (classic Darwinian view) or they may be concentrated within a hundred thousand years (Punctuated Equilibrium). But it is still the same number of small, incremental steps.