Theistic Evolution and the Fall

[marlowe007]

The super-natural is beyond the realm of science. Why would you assume I do not believe this?...

Far as I know, the default view of creationists is that the scientific method should incorporate supernatural paradigms, for as Philip Johnson explains...

With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative.

 

[gluadys]

Saw this post first in the TE sub-forum. Reposting here what I said there.

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.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Far as I know, the default view of creationists is that the scientific method should incorporate supernatural paradigms, for as Philip Johnson explains...

Then I guess that doesn't make me a creationist

 

[gluadys]

The only other option in this case, is to attribute at least a degree of "consciousness" to natural selection. You really cannot see how self defeating this is to the whole concept of evolution, can you? If you would also merge the super-natural with natural selection, it is no longer science.

No more than one needs to attribute consciousness to the staff that Moses carried. It is not the instrument that needs to have consciousness, but the one who uses it.

I do believe the root Hebrew word for "life" is nephesh. Plant life is never included in the context of this word, humankind and animals are. In your case, the ingestion of an algae can become an example of death.

So then, the death of plants and bacteria and protists does not count as death? In fact, one could exclude almost all marine life, since clams, lobsters, fish, etc. are not air-breathers.

Who said it was limited to physicality? I'd actually argue the opposite, that it has little to do with physicality. Truly the apex of human evolution would lie in the inception of the human brain, his sentience and all related capacities - specifically his spiritual capacity, being the ability he acquires to share his relationship with the Creator.

My argument is that he could not have possessed the capacity to sin if it weren't for all these attributes, it is impossible.

Right, so since even air-breathing animals have no capacity to sin, the connection of death to sin and the fall has no applicability to any species other than humans.

And, given other scriptural considerations, it is even questionable if it refers to physical death or primarily to spiritual death.

 

[UpperEschelon]

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

I thought that was implied in my statement.

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.

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.

Actually, Paul said sin entered the world, and through sin death. The cause of this was the sin of man, hence the sin of man brought death not only on man, but the world as a whole.

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.

This still doesn't derail the point I was trying to make, that guided evolution assumes a direction and goal in all evolutionary processes, whereas the core definition of evolution assumes a result that is the complete opposite. The moment you infer God as the cause it is no longer naturalism, this is self defeating to evolutionary theory.

 

[UpperEschelon]

So then, the death of plants and bacteria and protists does not count as death? In fact, one could exclude almost all marine life, since clams, lobsters, fish, etc. are not air-breathers.

I would say it is more important to understand what the scriptures reveal constitutes "life" specifically, rather than using our own personal perceptions.

Right, so since even air-breathing animals have no capacity to sin, the connection of death to sin and the fall has no applicability to any species other than humans.

Death fell on the world as a whole due to the sin of man, it did not fall solely on only man. If that wasn't the case, Paul would not have phrased that statement in that manner.

 

[shernren]

Death fell on the world as a whole due to the sin of man, it did not fall solely on only man. If that wasn't the case, Paul would not have phrased that statement in that manner.

You mean, like this?

Therefore,
just as sin came into the world through one man,
and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men
because all sinned ... (Rom 5:12, ESV)

It says that sin brought death to men, not to the world. But I suppose you have some license to improve on what the Bible actually says. Creationists always do.

 

[Skilletdude]

I do believe the root Hebrew word for "life" is nephesh. Plant life is never included in the context of this word, humankind and animals are. In your case, the ingestion of an algae can become an example of death.

I have a problem with no death before the fall too... I've always asked well what about plants then? They ate nothing? You do say that plant life is never included in the context of the hebrew word which helps. However... I do not understand animals and plants that went on to eat meat. Lions, bears, crocs... venus fly trap... a velociraptor... were perfectly crafted with the tools and skills they need to survive... they were created with the intention of hunting and eating meat. I've heard it said that before the fall, they just ate plants like everything else... I don't buy this though... saying so I think makes it out that God made them with the intention of sin entering the world. But God made his creations perfect in the beginning... these were not perfect creatures if they were designed to eat meat cause they were designed for an imperfect world then.

How do you explain God's perfect designs for everything in nature if there was no death before the fall? And how would Adam and Eve understand what death was if they had not seen it in the animal kingdom?

I don't mean to drag this off topic, just a curiosity I've had and was curious peoples answers who do believe in absolutely no death whatsoever (animals too) before the fall.

 

[Assyrian]

[ Death in Adam, Life in Christ ] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Some of my favourite verses

This is what happens when you do not give scripture precedence, you move over for other ideas and concepts, which ultimately leads to compromise. I'm more than satisfied with the truth of God that Paul expounds to us right here.

The truth of scripture: The sin state of humanity is due to one man (through whom all share in this heritage of being sinners), and this sin is the root cause of death. You cannot hide behind "metaphors" forever, and especially not here.

The Fall could not have happened before the existence of man in the image of God. If death only came through that sin as Paul explains, then prior to that sin death did not exist.

So if only humans created in the image of God can sin, then animals cannot sin. Yet the verses you quoted describe death spreading to all men because all sinned, so how it it supposed to spread to animals who you realised cannot sin? If death is the wages of sin, how did animal earn death? Paul is not talking about animal death here, his description of the death that comes through sin cannot be referring to animal death. So when did animal death start? The bible does not say it was the result of the fall, is there any reason not to think it is how God created them?

 

[juvenissun]

This is where the whole "metaphor" argument gets blown out of proportion, and it becomes very clear. Metaphors are symbolic, but they represent truths. The Fall is the cause of man's separation from God, the time where sin entered into humanity and ultimately causes death. The Fall could not have happened without the choice, the choice being a cause of the free will of man. Furthermore, man could not have rebelled against God if he hadn't shared a relationship with Him. It is irrelevant what you pick and choose to be a metaphor or not, death could not have existed until man achieved his "apex" of evolution at which point the Fall would have taken place.

I have question about that. Of course, it is slightly off the OP.

Why couldn't the death start to exist on Day 5 right after animals are created? Why must it start with man?

The appearance of death has a cause, which is to spoil God's creation. If satan (assume he is the guilty one) became against God, then he would start his rebellion by introducing death to animals. At that time, he must have not known that God will create human at later time. And that would be another reason for God to create human, because animals do not resemble God.

I think many people are confused by the conditions in the Garden. To me, it is a special (limited) place, not a general place.

 

[UpperEschelon]

You mean, like this?

Therefore,
just as sin came into the world through one man,
and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men
because all sinned ... (Rom 5:12, ESV)

It says that sin brought death to men, not to the world. But I suppose you have some license to improve on what the Bible actually says. Creationists always do.

Just because I may not agree with you doesn't make me a creationist, I do not identify myself with creationists at all. In all honesty, this pitting of "evolutionist" vs "creationist" is nothing more than stupidity.

 

[UpperEschelon]

I have a problem with no death before the fall too... I've always asked well what about plants then? They ate nothing? You do say that plant life is never included in the context of the hebrew word which helps. However... I do not understand animals and plants that went on to eat meat. Lions, bears, crocs... venus fly trap... a velociraptor... were perfectly crafted with the tools and skills they need to survive... they were created with the intention of hunting and eating meat. I've heard it said that before the fall, they just ate plants like everything else... I don't buy this though... saying so I think makes it out that God made them with the intention of sin entering the world. But God made his creations perfect in the beginning... these were not perfect creatures if they were designed to eat meat cause they were designed for an imperfect world then.

How do you explain God's perfect designs for everything in nature if there was no death before the fall? And how would Adam and Eve understand what death was if they had not seen it in the animal kingdom?

I don't mean to drag this off topic, just a curiosity I've had and was curious peoples answers who do believe in absolutely no death whatsoever (animals too) before the fall.

It's not a belief I cling to per say, but rather something I acknowledge by default. I debate it in hopes of expanding on the topic, which would hopefully lead to a better understanding of it. But you do bring some good points.

 

[UpperEschelon]

The bible does not say it was the result of the fall, is there any reason not to think it is how God created them?

Hmm, good insight. Makes sense

 

[UpperEschelon]

So why did God create the Tree of Life, then?

I would obviously be inclined to believe the Tree of Life to be allegorical. It represents everlasting life, and the fact that Adam and Eve were given freely to eat of it, this would simply mean before the Fall, when they had access to the Garden, they were able to take freely of everlasting life. This wouldn't be restricted simply to "spiritual" well being or longevity.

 

[shernren]

Just because I may not agree with you doesn't make me a creationist, I do not identify myself with creationists at all. In all honesty, this pitting of "evolutionist" vs "creationist" is nothing more than stupidity.

Huhh, my totally unnecessary snarkiness was responded to kindly.

You've made my day. apologies for the attitude.

 

[Jase]

I do believe the root Hebrew word for "life" is nephesh. Plant life is never included in the context of this word, humankind and animals are. In your case, the ingestion of an algae can become an example of death.

If Adam and Eve were immortal, why did God ban them from eating from the Tree of Life, to prevent them from gaining immortality?

Absolutely nothing in Genesis indicates physical death was non-existant until the fall.

 

[Jase]

Just because I may not agree with you doesn't make me a creationist, I do not identify myself with creationists at all. In all honesty, this pitting of "evolutionist" vs "creationist" is nothing more than stupidity.

How is it stupidity? You either believe that the universe functions like science has observed and tested, or you assume God supernaturally "created" it with varying levels of involvement.

 

[Jase]

I would obviously be inclined to believe the Tree of Life to be allegorical. It represents everlasting life, and the fact that Adam and Eve were given freely to eat of it, this would simply mean before the Fall, when they had access to the Garden, they were able to take freely of everlasting life. This wouldn't be restricted simply to "spiritual" well being or longevity.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So you believe this verse is allegorical, but nothing else in Genesis is like the Fall, Adam and Eve, a young universe, etc.?

 

[Mallon]

I would obviously be inclined to believe the Tree of Life to be allegorical.

What makes you think the Tree of Life is allegorical? Are there any other passages from Genesis 1 or 2 that you read allegorically?

 

[gluadys]

I thought that was implied in my statement.

No. You said "when he reached whatever arbitrary state that God deemed "sufficient" enough,..." i.e. you implied that humanity had to reach some state first to which God responded by initiating a relationship with human beings. I don't think any arbitrary state had to be reached. God's act is the prior act, not a responsive act.

Actually, Paul said sin entered the world, and through sin death. The cause of this was the sin of man, hence the sin of man brought death not only on man, but the world as a whole.

Agreed on the first sentence, but not on the second. Paul says death spread to all men. Not to men and animals. And even when he speaks of death spreading to all men, he adds that it is because all men sinned. IOW it was not Adam's sin alone that brought death to all men. It was also their (our) own.

This still doesn't derail the point I was trying to make, that guided evolution assumes a direction and goal in all evolutionary processes, whereas the core definition of evolution assumes a result that is the complete opposite. The moment you infer God as the cause it is no longer naturalism, this is self defeating to evolutionary theory.

I don't believe in naturalism and I don't think science is naturalistic in philosophy. Only in methodology.

So I think you misinterpret the core definition of evolution when you equate it with naturalism. There are two basic claims made in the science of evolution. One is that mutations give no evidence of guiding evolution in any one direction. In particular , mutations do not arise in response to any need a species may have to adapt to a new situation. Either the mutation already exists in the species or that adaptation does not happen. End of story.

The second claim is that selection responds only to immediate survival and reproductive challenges, not to possible future challenges.


I agree with these claims. I don't agree that they necessitate a philosophy of naturalism.

Neither rules out God's understanding of evolutionary process, his foreknowledge of things to come, and his acting in the present for a future purpose via evolutionary process in ways that are not detectable to science since any such act appears to be of a piece with "natural" evolution.

Basically I don't think you can draw a line between God's action and nature's action as you can between natural action and human action. Historically the antonym of "natural" was "artificial" i.e. "made by human skill".

Somehow we have shifted the focus from human artifice to supernatural action by a deity, so that "natural" is now opposed to "supernatural" instead of "artificial" and is held to mean "not the action of a deity".


The first meaning is intelligible and scientifically testable. The latter is neither. It is simply a philosophical position that eliminates God from his creation.