Theistic Evolution = Oxymoron

[Crusadar]

Here is a point I often bring up with theistic evolutionists in which I have yet received a satisfying answer from - except maybe that I am grossly distorting how naturalistic evolution really works (which I think is a copout).

So here it is again. From a strictly philosophical point of view there is nothing that says that the slow process required by evolution was not the creative method use by God, as long as we do not attribute the entire process to chance coupled with natural selection. However evolution at its core not only postulates that chance and natural selection alone resulted in all life that we know it, it rather demands it.

With that being said, since theistic evolutionists are very adamant in their belief that God created via evolutionary methods, it has come down to the question of whether or not God would use such a process as evolution. Using only what scripture tells us about the nature of God, can one justify why God would use evolution? Remember now only scripture, not concocted theories to cram God into a process that is neither mentioned nor supported by His own word.

To begin lets look into scripture for what it says about the nature and character of God and how logically God cannot fit into the evolutionary mold that men have made for Him.

Keeping in mind however that by God, we mean an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and infinite being who is beyond all our imagination. It then becomes erroneous for us to limit our understanding of God to only that which we can understand and perceive to be of reality since He is beyond our comprehension.

It still is necessary though that we embark on an understanding of such a being by the very thing He has instilled in us in that our logic in a way reflects a very minute part of God’s own infinite logic – in that we are capable of thinking and reasoning as He is. And thus in order to get a picture of what God’s character is like we must associate with Him terms that have meaning for us.

For if we know a person’s character we can make a fairly accurate guess at the methods that he would use to solve a particular problem. Since an individual’s character determines their methods, what does scripture reveal to us about God’s character and how He could have used a method such as evolution - which is against everything that God stands for.

In Matthew chapter 5 we are given a very clear character description of God, in that since Christ claims that if we have seen Him we have seen the Father – meaning that they are the same in character.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:3

Is it just my understanding or does it reflect God’s character in that those who are poor in spirit are those who will inherit the kingdom of heaven. And according to what exists within the evolutionary struggle for the survival of the fittest, where is this notion of the poor in spirit? For if one is poor in spirit one becomes food for the spirited! So why does the Word of God teach what is opposite of His creative process – unless it is not His creative process.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5

What is this? The meek shall inherit the earth, but that is not what is seen in the preferred method of creation for theistic evolutionists is it? The meek does not inherit anything, rather they become trophies for the dominant. Isn’t it strange that a Creator who teaches us to be meek would use a creative process that denies His own character of humility - even unto death? Did Christ really mean what He said then about being meek and poor in spirit? But according to evolutionary theory this is not the case! How can God the creator who teaches us to be meek use a creative process which violates His very character of meekness?

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Matthew 5:7

Now is there such a thing as mercy in the struggle of life? For if there is then evolution would cease to occur!

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

And what of lovers of peace, what becomes of them but martyrs, where their continued struggle pervades all aspects of life from the lowest of living organisms to the highest – man himself.

And so to justify the evolution as the preferred method of creation by God, invalidates the very character of the one whose mouth the above words came from.

And I say fall on your knees before God, and pray that we may rid ourselves of the lie of evolution - before it is too late.

 

[Gold Dragon]

It is important to look at the character of God. Part of the reason you think that evolution doesn't jive the character of God is because of a misunderstanding of evolution and for clarifying those points, I will use scientific sources.

While the beatitudes are a beautiful image of Christ calling blessed those not normally considered blessed, they are not verses that define the character of God and how he chooses to act.

These verses are about God's view of time.

[bible]2 Peter 3:8[/bible]
[bible]Psalms 90:4[/bible]

These verses are about God's view of suffering and struggle.

[bible]Genesis 32:24-28[/bible]
[bible]Luke 24:25-26[/bible]
[bible]Luke 24:46-47[/bible]

Regarding "survival of the fittest", it is a common misunderstanding that this phrase accurately describes what happens in the process of natural selection which is a key mechanism of evolution. Or that qualities such as meekness and peacemaking are not important in evolution. This link from PBS describes it well.

PBS : Evolution FAQ

8. Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?

Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.

Here is their response to the statement about evolution being random chance.

PBS : Evolution FAQ

7. Is evolution a random process?

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

Thanks for your efforts to give TEs a chance to explain and defend our position in a friendly manner and I hope to continue to help you understand our POV even if you never end up agreeing with it.

 

[herev]

Here is a point I often bring up

yes it is

with theistic evolutionists in which I have yet received a satisfying answer from

and I suspect you never will, perhaps you are not open to hearing it?

- except maybe that I am grossly distorting how naturalistic evolution really works (which I think is a copout).

maybe

So here it is again. From a strictly philosophical point of view there is nothing that says that the slow process required by evolution was not the creative method use by God, as long as we do not attribute the entire process to chance coupled with natural selection.

Not just philosophical, but from a Biblical point of view as TE's interpret it!

However evolution at its core not only postulates that chance and natural selection alone resulted in all life that we know it, it rather demands it.

Can God not use and guide natural selection? We TE's do not attribute it to chance.

With that being said, since theistic evolutionists are very adamant in their belief that God created via evolutionary methods,

actually, we're more adamant that we can believe God did use evolutionary methods and still be accepted as Bible-believing, spirit-filled, born again Christians

it has come down to the question of whether or not God would use such a process as evolution.
Why would God create mosquitos? I dunno. If it were up to me, I'd have left that one out, but he didn't. How can we possibly decide for the Almighty whether or not he WOULD do anything that is not in contradiction with his attributes.

Using only what scripture tells us about the nature of God, can one justify why God would use evolution?

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:9)

Remember now only scripture, not concocted theories to cram God into a process that is neither mentioned nor supported by His own word.

oh, boy, here it is again

To begin lets look into scripture for what it says about the nature and character of God and how logically God cannot fit into the evolutionary mold that men have made for Him.

to state that God "cannot" goes against my core beliefs about God

Keeping in mind however that by God, we mean an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and infinite being who is beyond all our imagination.

amen and amen

It then becomes erroneous for us to limit our understanding of God to only that which we can understand and perceive to be of reality since He is beyond our comprehension.

It would also be erroneous to limit God to a literal interpretation. In fact, it would be erroneous to limit God, would you not agree?

It still is necessary though that we embark on an understanding of such a being by the very thing He has instilled in us in that our logic in a way reflects a very minute part of God’s own infinite logic – in that we are capable of thinking and reasoning as He is.

But how many times have we been told that we should ignore the "world's" thinking and reasoning and simply accept by faith?

And thus in order to get a picture of what God’s character is like we must associate with Him terms that have meaning for us.

But our language is not capable of adequately painting a picture of God--this is why John the Revelator uses such imagry in Revelation--there are no words to accomplish this.

For if we know a person’s character we can make a fairly accurate guess at the methods that he would use to solve a particular problem.

I would think that guesses would be outside of your normal theological framework when discussing such issues. Why guess?

Since an individual’s character determines their methods, what does scripture reveal to us about God’s character and how He could have used a method such as evolution - which is against everything that God stands for.

Do you really want an answer? I'd start by dropping the comment that evolution is against everything that God stands for. That may be why you have not gotten a satisfactory answer. You have already begun with the idea that the answer is wrong. That's not a frame of mind that is conducive to dialogue.

In Matthew chapter 5 we are given a very clear character description of God, in that since Christ claims that if we have seen Him we have seen the Father – meaning that they are the same in character.

How do you know this is what it means? I agree, but are you not interpreting? Could it not refer to other attributes?

Is it just my understanding or does it reflect God’s character in that those who are poor in spirit are those who will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

I have no idea what you mean here. Are you saying God would agree with Jesus? Well, of course.

And according to what exists within the evolutionary struggle for the survival of the fittest, where is this notion of the poor in spirit?

Mankind has to eat. Protein is an important part of the diet, hunting would have been necessary to survive. I don't understand your point.

For if one is poor in spirit one becomes food for the spirited! So why does the Word of God teach what is opposite of His creative process – unless it is not His creative process.

You have completely lost me here.

What is this? The meek shall inherit the earth, but that is not what is seen in the preferred method of creation for theistic evolutionists is it?

The meek shall inherit the earth is a New Covenant teaching--it is an apocalyptic style that was very common in the time of Jesus and the centuries leading up to that time. It was intended as a source of hope for the oppressed. It has nothing to do with the food chain.

The meek does not inherit anything, rather they become trophies for the dominant.

see above, you are making too large a jump in your exegetical attempt for this passage.

Isn’t it strange that a Creator who teaches us to be meek would use a creative process that denies His own character of humility - even unto death?

God's character also is one of infinite wisdom, so why try to limit him to just one character? I find nothing in the Bible that supports your claim that God would not create a situation in which the food chain exists. Try this scripture from Matthew 14:

13When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.


15As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17“We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered. 18“Bring them here to me,” he said. 19And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

or this one from Luke 5:

4When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water, and let down[b] the nets for a catch.”

5Simon answered, “Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets.” 6When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. 7So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink.

or this one from John 21

1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias.[a] It happened this way: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3“I'm going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We'll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

5He called out to them, “Friends, haven't you any fish?”

“No,” they answered.

6He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[b] 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.

10Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

Now, according to your logic, since Jesus and God advocate meekness and by your definition of meekness, the low end of the food chain should be spared, why would Jesus encourage and assist men to catch those poor fish? Why would He even serve fish to others? Why wouldn't Jesus teach them a vegan style of life? Why wouldn't he have restricted his meals for them to wine and bread? See where your logic is failing here? All according to the scriptures, too, I might add

Did Christ really mean what He said then about being meek and poor in spirit?

I would think so, don't you?

But according to evolutionary theory this is not the case! How can God the creator who teaches us to be meek use a creative process which violates His very character of meekness?

your logic has completely failed in this one.

Now is there such a thing as mercy in the struggle of life? For if there is then evolution would cease to occur!

mercy has nothing to do with it. Mercy is showing restraint when a punishment is DUE. This would suggest that you believe animals on the low end of the food chain are recieving their due (that's more hindu thought, I believe) and that God should show them mercy by stopping what was naturally due them.

And what of lovers of peace, what becomes of them but martyrs, where their continued struggle pervades all aspects of life from the lowest of living organisms to the highest – man himself.

I have no idea what you mean here?

And so to justify the evolution as the preferred method of creation by God, invalidates the very character of the one whose mouth the above words came from.

Again, you have failed to convince me. But at least it was a novel approach.

And I say fall on your knees before God, and pray that we may rid ourselves of the lie of evolution - before it is too late.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

let's just look at one small piece of the OP, i don't really have the time nor desire to rebuttal the whole thing

With that being said, since theistic evolutionists are very adamant in their belief that God created via evolutionary methods, it has come down to the question of whether or not God would use such a process as evolution. Using only what scripture tells us about the nature of God, can one justify why God would use evolution? Remember now only scripture, not concocted theories to cram God into a process that is neither mentioned nor supported by His own word.

it has come down to the question of whether or not God would use such a process as evolution


1-the universe is radically contingent, furthermore it is voluntaristic. (both have extraordinarily important consequences in this discussion) Meaning that God did not have to create the universe in any particular way.

2-so the issue is NOT how WOULD God create, but how He actually did. to answer that question you need to look at the universe, not your navel, for the answer is not in there, but out there.


Using only what scripture tells us about the nature of God, can one justify why God would use evolution?


Now why would i desire to do this? for Romans 1 clearly teaches that God is known in creation, and at least two of His attributes are on display for us there. Evolution is mechanism, means, how. Scripture teaches virtually nothing about technique but has a focus on: Who and why. The why is for His glory.

not concocted theories to cram God into a process that is neither mentioned nor supported by His own word.


I am unaware of any TE who desires to cram God anywhere, especially not into any process (although i suspect process theology would disagree with me here). Lots of things are not mentioned in Scripture, SO WHAT? quarks, lasers, radios, my house for example. Does that mean that these things are unreal? or unimportant? or rather does it mean that they aren't mentioned in the Bible because they are unnecessary for the purpose of the Book? Besides that, why should i look into the Bible for details about a modern scientific theory? The church can't even figure out issues like: baptism-who and mode, church government, etc etc.

Now if you desire to talk about the metaphysical extension of scientific thought into the realm of world views, now there the Bible is at its level. Why, for what purpose, ultimate meaning and significance, etc. at this level the Scriptures are essential, for that is what they address, that is their purposes. Otherwise you are mis-understanding the levels of the discussion, badly. and trying to cram your interpretation of the Scriptures into a very little box called modern science.

so who is really doing the cramming? You are-trying to put God into a box labelled science, nay-let Him run the universe.

 

[grmorton]

Here is a point I often bring up with theistic evolutionists in
which I have yet received a satisfying answer from - except maybe that I am
grossly distorting how naturalistic evolution really works (which I think is a
copout).

So here it is again. From a strictly philosophical point of view there is nothing
that says that the slow process required by evolution was not the creative
method use by God, as long as we do not attribute the entire process to
chance coupled with natural selection. However evolution at its core not only
postulates that chance and natural selection alone resulted in all life that we
know it, it rather demands it.

With that being said, since theistic evolutionists are very adamant in their
belief that God created via evolutionary methods, it has come down to the
question of whether or not God would use such a process as evolution. Using
only what scripture tells us about the nature of God, can one justify why God
would use evolution? Remember now only scripture, not concocted theories to
cram God into a process that is neither mentioned nor supported by His own word.

To begin lets look into scripture for what it says about the nature and
character of God and how logically God cannot fit into the evolutionary mold
that men have made for Him.

Yes, lets look at how unscriptural your interpretation is. This is something
(slightly modified) I wrote when another guy asked how it all fits together.

It is my contention that you anti-evolutionists grossly ignore the grammar of
the Bible, treating it like you all treat science. If you agree with it you use it,
if you don’t, you ignore it. Consider the grammar and what is actually said in
Genesis 1 and I think you will have to agree that the Bible is perfectly
consistent with evolution. Let’s start in the middle of Chapter 1.


First, Nowhere can you find in Genesis 1 a statement saying, "God brought
forth grass and herb yielding seed." I know many will object that God created
the grass and herb yielding seed. But look at what it ACTUALLY says(hopefully
in PLAIN language):


And God said, "…."

Oh, God is saying things, he isn't creating things, but anti-evolutionists miss
that subtlety. Where is the verb Created that applies to God? It isn't there.
What is inside the quote?



"Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed."


Where is God in that phrase? Who or what is bringing forth? A simple grammar
teacher would tell you that the earth is the subject of that sentence and is
the thing doing the action--which is, bringing forth.!!!! God didn't bring forth,
the earth DID, but, anti-evolutionists never pay attention to that subtlety.
Did the earth do it at God's command? Of course, but that doesn't mean God
created the grass directly. He used the earth just like he uses us to spread
the gospel. Both might be inefficient, but God seems to indicate that He isn't
that interested in efficiency as we would judge it.


Now, look at the next verse. Genesis 1:12 It tells us what happened after
God's command. What was it? Amazingly, God doesn't appear in this sentence
either. Here it is: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself"



The Bible clearly says that the EARTH brought forth grass. It DOESN'T say,
"God brought forth grass". The Bible is telling us that the earth was an active
participant in creating the life forms. Yes, it was at Gods command, but then
so are the laws of gravity which govern the motion of the planets.



Genesis 1:20 has a similar structure.



"And God said,"…" God is saying things, not doing them. God delegated to the
waters the teeming with life:



"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life."
Notice that the word God does not appear



God orders the water to teem with living creatures, but then in the next
verse, it does give God the credit for creating the creatures, but then God
gets the credit in Genesis 1:11 as well. God still performed the activity
through the agency of water. There really isn't an inconsistency between
these two verses when viewed from the TE perspective.



Genesis 1:24 Once again, "And God said"…" Again, God is saying. God is the
subject, 'said' is the verb. It doesn't say 'And God created'. It says And God
SAID. Why is it so difficult for anti-evolutionists to see that subtlety? This is
why the days of proclamation is the way to go. God is proclaiming things in
this chapter. All of the "God made's" or "God called's" are after a proclamation.
This is the writer giving credit to God. It is the part of the Days of
Proclamation interpretation which makes the most sense. (see
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm) When God said, "let
there be light", God didn't say, "Let there be light and it was so". God didn't
say the "and it was so" The writer did that to inform his readers in effect "look
around--it is so" But YECs and anti-evolutionists miss that subtlety.



NOW, when it comes to mankind, God clearly indicates in his statement that
he does that DIRECTLY.



And God said"…" What did he say? "Let US make man in our image…" That is,
God is ordering HIMSELF to make mankind. This is the only place where God
actually says HE is going to do something directly. Which is why my
interpretation holds to the special creation of mankind as I describe
elsewhere.



The important point is that all these verses here clearly indicate SECONDARY
causation. God was the prime cause, but he USED matter to create life, with
the exception of mankind. It is what the Bible says. It is the plain reading of
scripture. It is the YEC reading which is twisted. They have God creating
rather than SAYING.



The order of events in Genesis 1



The Days of Proclamation view holds that the proclamations were those made
by God PRIOR to the creation. Nowhere does it say, "and God said "Let there
be light instantaneously". In none of the statements is there an indication
that what God said must be fulfilled INSTANTLY. Indeed, when God gave the
prophecy of the Messiah, it didn't happen instantly either.



Because of this, I believe that Genesis 1 is largely pre-temporal, which aligns
well with an ancient Hebrew view of the Torah.

“The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third
person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it
preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.”

Ramban cites Shabbath 88b which is part of the Babylonian Talmud. It says:

“R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, the ministering
angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe!
What business has one born of woman amongst us?' 'He has come to receive
the Torah,' answered He to them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure,
which has been hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four
generations before the world was created.”

http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabba...h_88.html#PARTb


Surely one can't claim that a 5th century text was corrupted by modern
science. It is an ancient view and fits quite well with modern science, if
interpreted and fit in correctly.


Evolution


Nowhere in the Bible can you find a sentence with the subject 'animal', the
object animal and the verb 'brings forth' Find one, I dare you! That means
that no where is the statement found "animals bring forth animals after their
kind". Nowhere in the Bible can anyone find a statement "animals reproduce
animals after their kind". Nowhere can one find in the Bible the statement
"Animals reproduce after their kind" Indeed, nowhere can one find the two
words "animals reproduce" together in the Bible.



But in spite of this obvious LACK of Scriptural support, almost all YECs and
antievolutionists THINK, erroneously that the Bible DOES contain such a
statement. It doesn't and that means that the Bible does not rule out
morphological change in the animals. It doesn't rule out speciation. This entire
rejection of evolution is based, in my view, upon a gross misreading of the
text. All those phrases, after their kind, means OF VARIOUS KINDS, which is
entirely different. The earth brought forth animals OF VARIOUS KINDS. The
earth brought forth grass and herb OF VARIOUS KIND. It says nothing about
their sexual proclivities.


Plain reading is all this is.


When it comes to the flood, when the earliest commentator in Christendom,
that of Philo, seems to indicate a local flood, a Mediterranean flood, one
doesn't have to believe the YEC version either. They can't claim historical
christian precedence.


Chance in the Bible

You mention chance and act as it if is a horrible godless thing. It isn’t.
Consider the Urim and Thummim. Most authorities believe it was an object
which relied on chance. The ancient Hebrews thought God ruled chance which
is why the tribes cast lots for the land. Thus, if the Bible indicates that God
controls, chance, the anti-evolutionary argument that chance would leave
God out of our universe is also not supported Biblically.


Here is something from an article I was privileged to co-author with Gordon
Simons:

“One of the difficulties raised by the rejection of chance in nature lies in the
fact that God ordered or allowed the use of such systems at critical places in
the biblical history. If God is incompatible with chance in his dealings with this
world, it seems odd that He allowed and commanded the use of such
systems. The Urim and Thrummim which the priest carried is widely believed
to have been a tool for casting lots before the Lord.7 The Hebrews believed
what Prov. 16:33 says "The lot is cast into the lap, but every decision is from
the Lord." Prov. 18:18 would indicate that the Jews thought God was the true decision maker when chance was involved. That verse says: “Casting the lot
settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart.” In 1 Chron. 24:1-5, 1
Chron. 24:31 and 1 Chron 25:8, David cast lots to determine the order of the
service for the sanctuary officials. God used the chance lots of the sailors to
identify Jonah as the source of their troubles (Jonah 1:7). In Lev. 16:8 God
told the Israelites to cast lots for the sacrificial goat. God told Joshua to cast
lots in order to identify Achan, the guilty keeper of the Canaanite booty. In
Joshua 18:8, we see Joshua casting lots for the assignment of land to the
various tribes. In Acts 1:24-26, the disciples used chance, the casting of
lots, to determine who should take over the apostolic ministry of Judas.
Because of the biblically widespread use of chance to determine God’s will, it
is truly amazing that many modern Christians reject chance in biology as being
totally incompatible with God’s control. “


“If God can’t control chance, how can he control the lots above? God
predetermined the result yet used a tool of chance. If God can not use
chance, then one must logically conclude that God didn’t foreknow how the
land would be divided among the tribes, that God didn’t foreknow that Jonah
would be picked, that God did not foreknow that Achan was the one who
would be chosen or that Matthias would step into the apostolic line. This is a
position which basically says that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. If God
can use chance in his dealings with Israel and the early church, then why do
we say He has no ability to use chance in biology? God can, has and does
control the stochastic process even if we don’t understand how it happens.
“

The rejection of chance is unbiblical, unscriptural and insulting to God.

 

[gluadys]

Here is a point I often bring up with theistic evolutionists in which I have yet received a satisfying answer from - except maybe that I am grossly distorting how naturalistic evolution really works (which I think is a copout).

Seems to me we have discussed this before. And you are right. You are grossly distorting how evolution really works. Sorry, if you think that’s a cop-out. It’s still true.

However evolution at its core not only postulates that chance and natural selection alone resulted in all life that we know it, it rather demands it.

No, it doesn’t. First distortion.

With that being said, since theistic evolutionists are very adamant in their belief that God created via evolutionary methods, it has come down to the question of whether or not God would use such a process as evolution.

Wrong question. The correct question is “what does the created world tell us about how it was created?” In other words, we do not ask what God would do, but what God did do.

2nd distortion.

Using only what scripture tells us about the nature of God, can one justify why God would use evolution? Remember now only scripture, not concocted theories to cram God into a process that is neither mentioned nor supported by His own word.

Evolution is supported by evidence. It is not contradicted by scripture. Some passages of scripture are susceptible to being interpreted as support for scripture, but that is a matter of exegesis and opinions differ. Some, of course, choose to interpret scripture in a way that contradicts evolution. In any case, the created world takes its cue from its maker, not from human opinion, so we are back to the key question:

“What does the created world tell us about how it was created?”

To begin lets look into scripture for what it says about the nature and character of God and how logically God cannot fit into the evolutionary mold that men have made for Him.

3rd distortion. The evolutionary “mold” was not made by men for God.

Keeping in mind however that by God, we mean an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and infinite being who is beyond all our imagination. It then becomes erroneous for us to limit our understanding of God to only that which we can understand and perceive to be of reality since He is beyond our comprehension.

Right. And since science, including the theory of evolution, does limit itself to the range of our understanding, we agree that it cannot speak of God. It would be stepping out of its bounds to say anything about God.

For if we know a person’s character we can make a fairly accurate guess at the methods that he would use to solve a particular problem.

Can we? That is not my experience. It seems to me that character is only one factor that enters into how a person acts. Logic is another, and often people use different logical approaches so that even though both have a similar character, they use different working methods. I would suggest that character is a better predictor of what people will not do than of what they will do. We know for example, that God will not deceive.

evolution - which is against everything that God stands for.

4th distortion. It is your opinion that evolution is against what God stands for. You have no basis for that opinion but your mis-understanding of evolution.

For if one is poor in spirit one becomes food for the spirited!

5th distortion. If you think this is what evolution says, you have no understanding at all of evolution.

What is this? The meek shall inherit the earth, but that is not what is seen in the preferred method of creation for theistic evolutionists is it? The meek does not inherit anything, rather they become trophies for the dominant.

6th distortion. Depends on what you mean by “meek” doesn’t it? Are you aware that the most successful life forms on earth, both in terms of absolute numbers, in terms of diversity and in terms of mass of living substance, are bacteria? Where do bacteria stand on a scale of meekness? In any case, I have not seen bacteria in anyone’s trophy case, nor have I seen their trophy cases.

Now is there such a thing as mercy in the struggle of life? For if there is then evolution would cease to occur!

7th distortion. Well, mercy and altruism are not really the same thing, but it is well established that species which practice some form of altruism and/or cooperation are quite successful---more so than species which do not.

And what of lovers of peace, what becomes of them but martyrs, where their continued struggle pervades all aspects of life from the lowest of living organisms to the highest – man himself.

8th distortion. One way in which species develop successfully is to learn to live in different habitats so as to avoid intense conflict with others of their species. Perhaps Isaac imitated them when he chose to move from his well rather than engage the people of Gerar in conflict.

And so to justify the evolution as the preferred method of creation by God, invalidates the very character of the one whose mouth the above words came from.

Hmmm…. I haven’t seen any invalidation of scripture yet.

And I say fall on your knees before God, and pray that we may rid ourselves of the lie of evolution - before it is too late.

Nor have I seen evolution shown up as a lie yet.

I don’t think you have made your case, Crusader.

 

[Non-ape Jase]

Great post, Crusadar

 

[Vance]

Great post, Crusadar

Any thoughts on the numerous posts in response?

 

[California Tim]

NOW, when it comes to mankind, God clearly indicates in his statement that
he does that DIRECTLY.



And God said"…" What did he say? "Let US make man in our image…" That is,
God is ordering HIMSELF to make mankind. This is the only place where God
actually says HE is going to do something directly. Which is why my
interpretation holds to the special creation of mankind as I describe
elsewhere.

First of all, that was an impressive post in which a lot of effort was invested - and I appreciate that. I am on the YEC side of the fence nonetheless and saw this one issue above jump out at me. Are you by chance insinuating that based on the Biblical account(regardless of literal or figurative translation), mankind was not a product of evolution, while simultaneously not discrediting evolution of other species (specifically macro-evolution)?

 

[California Tim]

These verses are about God's view of time.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Not that I agree with this argument as it applies to creation, but even if I did, using this standard of time, we can adjust the time used in the creation of all up to about 6000 years. So for TE to work we're still off by a few billion years. Right?

 

[grmorton]

First of all, that was an impressive post in which a lot of effort was invested - and I appreciate that. I am on the YEC side of the fence nonetheless and saw this one issue above jump out at me. Are you by chance insinuating that based on the Biblical account(regardless of literal or figurative translation), mankind was not a product of evolution, while simultaneously not discrediting evolution of other species (specifically macro-evolution)?

Thank you for the kind words. I believe that mankind is both a product of evolution AND a direct creation of God. The genes we possess in our bodies clearly unites our bodies with the great apes. The nature of the evidence consists of common mistakes in our genes. If you sent 4 different people to 4 different cities without their common knowledge and ask them to copy the encyclopedia Britannica by hand and then when you got the 4 copies, you found that the same paragraph mistake was made in the same volume at the same page in all 4 copies, you would suspect collaboration.

Having done that, what are the chances that all 4 of you in those separate
rooms will choose to insert the same paragraph(spaces removed) into the
very same spot in all 4 manuscripts. If that happened, I would say y'all
cheated! Or I would say that the 4 manuscripts were COPIED, meaning one
original and 3 copies.

This is exactly what has happened with the processed pseudogenes in man,
gorilla, chimp and gibbon. In the DNA a working gene has the components
connected as follows:

control-coding-noncoding-coding-noncoding-coding

When this gene is copied into RNA so that it can be translated into a
protein, the control is removed, the noncoding parts removed, the coding
parts connected and a tail put on it. It looks like:

coding-coding-coding-tail

Occasionally the gene in this processed state is re-converted to DNA and
re-inserted back into the cellular DNA at some RANDOM location. In the
new state, the gene is useless, broken. The instructions in the control
segment are lost.

Now we all agree that designers don't design (intentionally) objects that
don't work. GM does not pay an engineer to design suspension systems
that amplify the road bumps. Nor do they pay him to build suspensions
which are not in proper working function (i.e. a suspension connected to
the trunk lid.)

The common argument for biochemical similarity says that man and apes are
similar because of similar design. But in the case of a processed gene,
the thing we are similar in doesn't work and has no function!
The common reply is that there is a function but we don't know what it is.
But this won't work. In the Chimp pseudogene, part of the processed
pseudogene was deleted by a second error in DNA transmission. This proves
that for the chimp, no useful function was carried out by the processed
pseudogene because the chimp lives quite nicely.


One can also see it in the chromosomes. There is a nested set of commonalities. The | lines are lines of inferred descent. The periods are there for formatting purposes alone. --> are lines of descent as well. At the Q brilliance the line splits in two. Study this. Understand that all lineages below a certain event have that event in their genes.

inferred.ancestor(2n=42)-----slow.change-->monkeys.2n=42-72

|

fission.to.2n=44----rapid.change----->gibbons.2n-38-52

|

two.fissions.to.2n=48

|

multiplication.of.NORS--Inversions.of.III,.IV,.X,.XII->Orangutan

|........................................................(2n=48).

Loss.of.NORs.from.2,9

|

Q.brilliance--------------------------

|....................................|.

Loss.of.NOR.from.18.......Loss.of.NOR.from.XV...

|....................................|

inversions.of.4,9,17.......Inversion.on.XII

|....................................|

C.bands.on.1,.9,.16,.Y.....Terminal.C.bands--------------

|....................................|..................|

Fusion.of.2.Interstitial.C.bands.on.VII..Translocation.of.V,.XVII

|....................................|..................|........

..Humans.2n=46...Inversions.of.IV,.IX,.XVII....C.bands.on.XIV,XVI

.....................................|..................|

...........................Chimpanzees.(2n=48)....Loss.of.NORS

..................................................from.XIII,.....

......................................................XIV,XVIII..

............................................................|

........................................Inversions.of.VIII,X,XVII.

.........................................................|

.................................................Gorilla.(2n=48).

.....~.J..Marks,."Chromosomal.Evolution.in.Primates,".in.Steve.

Jones..et.al,.editors,.The.Cambridge.Encyclopedia.of.Human.

Evolution,.(Cambridge:.Cambridge.University.Press,.1992),.p..301

This data is real, it must be dealt with in any coherent interpretation of scripture. I solve this conundrum in a way most people don't like, but it actually does allow mankind to be a special creation of God but with a genetic commonality with the apes. Here is how.

From my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm. If you can find another way to both honor what we see--the science and what we read--the Scripture, I would be interested in it:

The apes have 48 chromosomes; we have 46 (Johanson and Edey, p. 138, 275). If we arose from the apes,(as I believe we did) there must have been a chromosomal fusion (there are also other differences like inversions of certain segments etc). The data clearly shows that it man's chromosome 2 is the combination of two ape chromosomes. The banding in chromosome 2 are identical to the banding in 2 ape chromosomes. ( Yunis and Prakash, 1982, p. 1526)

The biggest piece of evidence in my mind connecting us to the apes is a) the extreme similarity in DNA (99%) and b) the existence of pseudogene insertions at the same locations in man, chimp, gorilla and orangutan. (Max, 1986, p.42; 1990, p. 48) A pseudogene is a BROKEN gene which is found in a part of the genome far removed from its normal position. The pseudogene has lost the control information which informs the cellular machinery how to make the protein and thus it does nothing. Since the pseudogene does not perform any useful function it can not be claimed to be the result of design. Designers do not design broken parts! Thus the pseudogene is an error in DNA copying. As noted above, this same error has been found at the same location in the four species listed above. What are the odds of this happening by chance? About the same as this: Let 4 different people go to four different towns with the instructions to type a copy of Gibbon's _Decline and Fall_. Sometime during the typing each of the 4 are to stop, randomly select one paragraph from somewhere else in the book and insert the paragraph where they stopped. They then continue typing the rest of the book. Do you believe that the 4 people would not only choose the same paragraph, but also choose the same spot to insert it into their copy? If you believe this, then you can believe that the pseudogene was produced by pure chance. To believe this is pure lunacy. Thus the pseudogene requires that the humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutan be related. Any Biblical interpretation which expects to survive the scrutiny of modern science needs to handle this piece of data. Currently no conservative view of the Bible addresses this problem.



Biblically, it states that God made man from the dust of the ground, that He breathed the breath of life into the man, and that the man was alone--no Eve. This would appear to contradict evolution. God is also described as being actively and supernaturally involved in the creation of man. And that man's spirit is somehow different from that of the animals. Is there a way to put all this together? I believe there is.



Assume that God was ready to create a being who was "made in His image". During this time, there was among the physical ancestor of man a very rare mutation -- a chromosomal fusion. But this error was almost always fatal. God took one of these creatures, a still born, fixed him, and blew his breath into him. Why do I have God make Adam in this fashion? Because of what God said when Adam sinned. If you remember the verse Genesis 3:19 God said, "for dust you are and to dust you shall return." A dead body is "dust." Adam came from dust and to dust he now will return.

Those who will object that a dead body is not "dust" should consider this. If you say that 'dust" must be DUST, then why does God call the living Adam 'dust'? Genesis 3:19 states, "...for dust you are and to dust you will return." (NIV) When that was spoken Adam was a living being and so the dust does not mean dirt! And one can not ignore the fact that when Adam died he would become a corpse(i.e. a return to dust).



Thus Adam was created from the product of a chromosomal fusion. This allows us to explain the existence of the pseudogene; something no other Biblical interpretation which believes in a specially created Adam can explain. But Adam was alone. He had not evolved in the normal fashion and so there was no population of creatures like him with whom he could mate. He also could not talk. Adam's physical parent could not talk and so he could not learn from them. God taught Adam to speak. That is what God was doing when he brought all the animals to Adam.



In this scenario, it is not necessary for Adam to have been created as a full grown individual. The language lessons may have lasted years before Adam finally realized that he needed a mate. At that time, God created Eve in the fashion described.



This is the only way that I have found to be able to retain a historical view of Genesis and still account for the biological evidence which indicates genetic connection with the non-human primates. While this view is very different, it does not violate anything that the Bible states. For those who prefer some form of divine intervention in the creation of man, this is the basis upon which this view should be judged. But additionally, this does not violate any scientific data either; something Christians ought to be interested in.

***end of web page extract***
This view avoids all the arguments with science, allows us to have our historicity and allows us to avoid a God who creates everything to look like it is old and evolves when supposedly it didn't. Such a God in my mind would have been deceptive.

 

[Vance]

Glenn, I highly respect all the work you have done, and appreciate your efforts to explain how even a Genesis written as literal history could be consistent with evolution and an old earth. I found your cite a long time ago, and copied what I call your "uplift" scenario into Wordperfect and saved it in my file along with other important concepts and ideas in origins. As you know, I don't feel any need to cling to historicity, and so am willing to accept a wider array of possibilities, but if historicity were necessary, then something along the lines you describe would be necessary. As you say somewhere on your site, this scenario is not necessarily THE way God did it, but an example of the way He could have done it and still have meant Genesis to be read historically.

The fact this such a possiblity exists is what is important, since it diffuses the idea that evolution completely contradicts a literal, historical reading. Either way, it is important that we are willing to accept the realities of the evidence from God's Creation AND the salvation message throughout the Holy Scripture.

 

[grmorton]

Glenn, I highly respect all the work you have done, and appreciate your efforts to explain how even a Genesis written as literal history could be consistent with evolution and an old earth. I found your cite a long time ago, and copied what I call your "uplift" scenario into Wordperfect and saved it in my file along with other important concepts and ideas in origins. As you know, I don't feel any need to cling to historicity, and so am willing to accept a wider array of possibilities, but if historicity were necessary, then something along the lines you describe would be necessary. As you say somewhere on your site, this scenario is not necessarily THE way God did it, but an example of the way He could have done it and still have meant Genesis to be read historically.

The fact this such a possiblity exists is what is important, since it diffuses the idea that evolution completely contradicts a literal, historical reading. Either way, it is important that we are willing to accept the realities of the evidence from God's Creation AND the salvation message throughout the Holy Scripture.

I couldn't have said it better. I most assuredly would not do as Non-ape Jase did in another thread and arrogantly claim that my intepretation is THE interpretation of God. I, and my interpretation, could be wrong.

But as you say, the fact that an interpretation of Scripture exists which allows Genesis to be historical (which is important to me) means that the battle really is not beteen YEC and TEs but between two Scriptural interpretations which want historicity. These would be the YEC interp. which requires the rejection of all things we see, all astronomy, all anthropology, all genetics all physics, all chemistry etc and my interp which accepts all this but maintains Biblical historicity.

The sad thing is that no YEC leaders took the science problem seriously enough to search for an alternative interpretation. They chose to pursue the path where everything science says is false. That is a losing strategy. It has marginalized us from modern society.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Not that I agree with this argument as it applies to creation, but even if I did, using this standard of time, we can adjust the time used in the creation of all up to about 6000 years. So for TE to work we're still off by a few billion years. Right?

The authors of those verses are not suggesting a formula for interpreting days in Genesis but are trying to illustrate how God's perception of time is very different from ours.

They could have used millions instead of thousands and the meaning would have been the same.

 

[California Tim]

Those who will object that a dead body is not "dust" should consider this. If you say that 'dust" must be DUST, then why does God call the living Adam 'dust'? Genesis 3:19 states, "...for dust you are and to dust you will return." (NIV) When that was spoken Adam was a living being and so the dust does not mean dirt! And one can not ignore the fact that when Adam died he would become a corpse(i.e. a return to dust).

Once again, you have taken great care to present a detailed case. If I may dissent on this issue: To clarify the verse I highlighted above in your quote, I believe you will find sufficient evidence that Adam was actually created "out of the dust" as cross referenced here:

And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen 2:23)

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. (Gen 3:19)

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Gen 3:23​

Dozens of later verses use the very same Hebrew word used in the underlined phrases above. Each time the phrase means to "take from". Here is the link with all the verses using the term: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/t/1105873722-9144.html

There you will find verses unrelated to creation which clarify the proper application. Here is just one of the many examples you will find at the link I posted above:

And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put [it] upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: (Lev 4:34)​

From this, it seems reasonable to conclude that in the Genesis account, God literally meant to convey that man was formed originally directly from the dust. The only alternative to that would have to be a figurative interpretation, but even that leaves one to wonder the purpose of the mere mention of the method of creation "from the dust" if evolution were part of the process anyway.

 

[grmorton]

Once again, you have taken great care to present a detailed case. If I may dissent on this issue: To clarify the verse I highlighted above in your quote, I believe you will find sufficient evidence that Adam was actually created "out of the dust" as cross referenced here:

And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen 2:23)


In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. (Gen 3:19)



Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Gen 3:23​

​

That really doesn't affect my interpretation. Our bodies are clearly made up of chemicals and elements found in dirt. Ultimately, our entire bodies even today are created from the elements absorbed by plants and then ingested by our mothers, used by the fetus. And when we are weaned we eat those same plants or animals who ate the plants. Everything we are made of comes ultimately from the air or the land. These verses are clearly connecting us to our natural environment.

Dozens of later verses use the very same Hebrew word used in the underlined phrases above. Each time the phrase means to "take from". Here is the link with all the verses using the term: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/t/1105873722-9144.html

Most people like Brown-Driver-Briggs more than Strongs Here is what BDB defines it as:

1) to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away
That doesn't say what was fetched.

There you will find verses unrelated to creation which clarify the proper application. Here is just one of the many examples you will find at the link I posted above:

And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put [it] upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: (Lev 4:34)​

This seems to be a stretch. It isn't the verb here that is important. It is what was taken. I have no doubt that God took something to create man but what it was is something else. When I die, my body first becomes a corpse--inanimate, lifeless. The corpse then decomposes to dirt. This clearly shows that we are dirt. Even when we are alive, we are merely walking talking dirt. One way I like to phrase it is that we are matter storms. We grow, move around for a while and then fizzle out, kind of like a thunderstorm.

From this, it seems reasonable to conclude that in the Genesis account, God literally meant to convey that man was formed originally directly from the dust. The only alternative to that would have to be a figurative interpretation, but even that leaves one to wonder the purpose of the mere mention of the method of creation "from the dust" if evolution were part of the process anyway.

Ultimately the material God used was from the dirt. We are dirt. It is not figurative to note that my body is dirt. My corpse is dirt. We are formed from minerals taken from the dirt and used by our bodies. An ape corpse is equally dirt. If you don't beleive that our bodies are ultimately dirt, what exactly are they?

 

[California Tim]

Ultimately the material God used was from the dirt. We are dirt. It is not figurative to note that my body is dirt. My corpse is dirt. We are formed from minerals taken from the dirt and used by our bodies. An ape corpse is equally dirt. If you don't beleive that our bodies are ultimately dirt, what exactly are they?

Specifically I am interested in the first quote I used from your earlier post as it relates to this line of reasoning. Specifically:

NOW, when it comes to mankind, God clearly indicates in his statement that
he does that DIRECTLY

Aren't you indicating there is a special mention of the way God created mankind compared to the account concerning the rest of creation?

 

[grmorton]

Specifically I am interested in the first quote I used from your earlier post as it relates to this line of reasoning. Specifically: Aren't you indicating there is a special mention of the way God created mankind compared to the account concerning the rest of creation?

When I said 'directly' I meant that God did it directly. That is different from saying God did it directly from dirt. Let's look at Genesis 1:26

It says
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

In this passage dirt isn't mentioned either directly or indirectly. But it does indicate that unlike the previous Genesis 1 commands, God commanded himself to do something. What he did was take earth matter. We don't really know the form of it. Was it sand? Was it shale? Was it limestone? Was it igneous? If you say it was dirt, not all dirts are the same. Was it a corpse that he then fashioned into a living being which resurrection would mirror that of the second Adam. The only thing we can really say about the make up of Adam was that he was made of the stuff of the land. We don't know what the previous form of that stuff was when God scooped it up. But we do know the genetic data which absolutely links us to the apes.

I would challenge you to stop thinking like your fellow yecs who look for any and every reason to avoid the conclusions of what they see and who look for every excuse NOT to accept anything new. That is what YEC is--a reason not to accept anything new.

Why don't you start looking for a way to actually unite the observations of science (which are not going to go away no matter how long you wish for that) and the statements of the Bible. If you don't like my attempt at uniting the two data sets, then come up with your own interpretation but quit being a nihilist who denies the existence of data which doesn't fit into your views. All views have some data which doesn't fit but YEC has it by the bucket load. The goal is to minimize the misfit, not deny that it exists.

If God is true then there is a fit, but you will never find it if you don't look.

 

[Maccie]

The OP said

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:3

Now I was always given to understand that 'poor in spirit' meant someone who had a teachable spirit, one who was not convinced they were always right, who was prepared to learn from others and God.

 

[ignorant and stupid]

For if we know a person’s character we can make a fairly accurate guess at the methods that he would use to solve a particular problem. Since an individual’s character determines their methods, what does scripture reveal to us about God’s character and how He could have used a method such as evolution - which is against everything that God stands for.

An interesting thought. Thank you for sharing it