Theistic Evolution and the Fall

[UpperEschelon]

Assuming TE

Man would have only gotten a "soul" and began a personal relationship with God when he reached whatever arbitrary state that God deemed "sufficient" enough, that is, when he evolved out of his lesser, primitive forms reaching his state of "sentience".

Let us remember that death did not occur until the fall, and hence no death existed until man achieved this "state".

Question: What would be the implications of debased humanoids reproducing and not dying for millions of years until mankind was "created" so to speak.

And by extension, what about the vast plethora of biological life that seemingly evolved and reproduced throughout not only millions, but billions of years before the Fall, when death was non-existent.

Essentially, the first "humans" would have been walking around with billions (most probably even trillions and beyond) of other humanoids. Then we have "the Fall", and hence we have this positively enormous amount of "humanoids" (ranging from the most debased to the most advanced) dying within the same margin of time.

1) such events would blatantly contradict the fossil record.
2) how could evolution have possibly worked before the fall, as natural selection could not exist.

And on a side not, if the evolution was guided, then how could it be purely naturalistic? You cannot have both. The moment you say evolution is "guided" you have redefined evolution.

Truly those who want to claim there is no "major" differences between theistic/non-theistic evolution must be fooling themselves!?

 

[gluadys]

Assuming TE

Man would have only gotten a "soul" and began a personal relationship with God when he reached whatever arbitrary state that God deemed "sufficient" enough, that is, when he evolved out of his lesser, primitive forms reaching his state of "sentience".

God is free to choose without regard to what is "sufficient" enough. God's choice would make whatever he chose sufficient.

Let us remember that death did not occur until the fall, and hence no death existed until man achieved this "state".

That is one particular interpretation of the creation accounts which many Christians do not support. It actually comes from Paul's letter to the Romans, not from the Genesis accounts. But Paul speaks only of human death and possibly only of spiritual death.

Since the interpretation is dubious, your conclusions about consequences are equally dubious.

Further, there are many examples of species which lived and became extinct before any humanoids of any sort existed. Factually, death has accompanied life since its inception.

Question: What would be the implications of debased humanoids reproducing and not dying for millions of years until mankind was "created" so to speak.

What would be the implications of bacteria reproducing for billions of years and not dying before there were any humanoids --- in fact before there were any plants or animals----at all?

And by extension, what about the vast plethora of biological life that seemingly evolved and reproduced throughout not only millions, but billions of years before the Fall, when death was non-existent.

Essentially, the first "humans" would have been walking around with billions (most probably even trillions and beyond) of other humanoids. Then we have "the Fall", and hence we have this positively enormous amount of "humanoids" (ranging from the most debased to the most advanced) dying within the same margin of time.

1) such events would blatantly contradict the fossil record.

That's for sure. Hence the interpretation of scripture that dictates no plant or animal or bacterial, etc. death before the fall must be a misinterpretation.

Paul tells us that death came on all men because all men sinned. His statement clearly doesn't apply to organisms which are incapable of sin, because they are incapable of the free choice to obey or disobey their creator.

2) how could evolution have possibly worked before the fall, as natural selection could not exist.

When scripture is more correctly interpreted re sin & death, it is no longer a problem.

And on a side not, if the evolution was guided, then how could it be purely naturalistic? You cannot have both. The moment you say evolution is "guided" you have redefined evolution.

Darwin coined the term "natural selection" to contrast with "artificial selection" in which human breeders did the selecting. "Natural selection" means no human intervention in the process. That doesn't exclude God. After all, God created and sustains the natural world. So "natural selection" is effectively God's selection since no one other than God selects. IOW "natural selection" is how God guides evolution.

 

[shernren]

Let us remember that death did not occur until the fall, and hence no death existed until man achieved this "state".

Which day were bacteria created on? Let's say there were two days between the creation of bacteria and the Fall. Now some bacteria can replicate once every 25 minutes; over those 2 days, one bacterium replicating at that rate would have about 5 x 10^34 progeny.

To put that in perspective, that's ten thousand times the number of bacteria alive on the earth today. And that's only from one bacterium. (Wouldn't God have had to create all the different species independently?)

I guess it's a good thing Adam ate the apple when he did, huh? Had he waited a mere 12 hours more, the single bacterium from the start of creation would have produced enough progeny (weighing in at 10^-12 grams each) to dwarf the mass of the earth 4,000 times over.

 

[solarwave]

Adam and Eve didn't even physically die when they sinned, they lived many years later, so does it not mean spiritual death?

I believe Genesis 2 and 3 is a spiritual story and that God either guided evolution or at least started it off in the right way.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I honestly don't see Genesis conflicting with evolution, as long as we understand evolution as God using the natural laws that he himself authored to bring about predetermined life forms.

About the "days" of creation.

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." - 2 Peter 3:8

This verse of scripture makes it clear that a "day" to God is actually a really long time, not a 24 hour solar day. Plus, if God said "let there be light" on day 1, but didn't create the sun or moon or stars until day 2, this would imply that the "day" could not have been 24 hours. Our 24 hour days are based on the solar cycle and decidedly earth bound perspective. It seems clear that the "days" in Genesis are actually referring to ages of time, not solar days.

Next, there is nothing in Genesis to say that God created the Earth first before anything else.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - Genesis 1:1

"Now the earth was formless are empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters" - Genesis 1:2

By the way this is phrased it seems to me that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Modern science postulates the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years, and the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years. The first two verses of Genesis do not in any way contradict this understanding. Why did God not explicitly say billions of years passed before he began creating on the earth? Because he is speaking to ancient Earth-bound human beings, in a pre-scientific age. Genesis is not a science book, it is a book explaining that God is our creator!

Is there evidence for the evolution of species in Genesis? I think so.

"The God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation'.." - Genesis 1:11

"Then God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds'.." - Genesis 1:24

It does not say God popped living beings into existence out of nothing, it said that he commanded the land to produce them. How might the land produce living beings? Evolution seems like a mighty fine way to do that!

What about Adam?

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground..." - Genesis 2:7

This parallels nicely with the aforementioned phrase "let the land produce". It also makes it clear that Adam was made from the natural universe, not ex nihilo. However God breathed the breath of life into him, giving him a spiritual nature, hence he was made in the image of God, though his physical form comes from the earth.

So yes, I think humans evolved from primate ancestors, but at a certain point God ordained to give a spiritual essence to a particular offspring of these ancestors, Adam, and that first man was the beginning of true humanity.

I think we must also understand that the book of Genesis clearly uses poetry in describing creation. It is not a science manual, it is a poetic account of the origins of the universe, the earth, biological life, and humanity. I am not saying that it exactly confirms all of modern science on this point, but from my reading of it, it in no way contradicts it either. Why do some get so offended at the idea that God used the natural laws he authored to bring about his creations? I have no idea.

As a final note, look into the parallel structure of the creation days in Genesis. If you view these days with parallel structure in mind, it dovetails in a quite extraordinary way with modern science, which in my mind is powerful evidence for divine inspiration.

 

[ALoveDivine]

A couple final points on this topic.

There is nothing in the bible that says God created the universe perfect. It says he created it "very good". After all we know that God will eventually destroy this universe and usher in a new one, and this new one will be truly perfect. I see God's creative process in a few different stages. First, God creates a very good but imperfect world. Next God allows us to fall from grace. Then God condemns us by the law displaying his justice and righteousness. Then God pays the price for our sin through the cross of Jesus Christ, displaying his omnipotent love. Having revealed his character he promises redemption and a truly perfect world for all those who would forsake their sin and put their faith in Christ. By this way he freely reconciles humanity to himself. Finally, he truly finishes his creation, destroying the old and ushering in the new, perfect creation.

Why might he say it is "very good" when death pervades? The way I see it this universe is very good in that it is beautiful (few can deny this) and it is very good for his purpose, which is that he may freely bring spiritual beings such as ourselves into communion with himself. Afterall, good can only be recognized in the presence of evil. If everything was perfect from the get-go, would good have any real meaning? I don't think so. Therefore it makes sense for God to first create an imperfect world for us, that we may seek him and his righteousness and be freely reconciled to him, and then for him to perfect his creation for those who have chosen to accept his grace.

Also, when the bible speaks of death entering the world with sin, I am convinced this is referring to both physical human death and spiritual death, not animal death.

 

[Ron Cooke]

In my own way, I reached the same conclusion. The Old Testament of the Bible had a long history of verbal communication passed from generation to generation before it was converted to written word. That invites mistranslation. Although "days" in human terms were an easier concept for ancient tellers to handle, God could have easily meant "days" or "ages" in His terms. Who knows how long a "day" is in God's time line?