Theistic Evolution

[Pats]

these arguments make me sad I made the mistake of wandering into the origins theology board here on CF a few days ago. I do not like to see the way brothers and sisters in Christ will attack each others beleifs.

This has always bothered me on all of the debate boards, sis.

But I think some of the issues discussed in those areas are worth exploring, for certain folk at certain times, and I was very grateful for those knowledgable on the issues there when I was searching for answers and switching from YEC to TE.

It's not all bad, and some of us even try to set good standards in the way we debate.

 

[Lyle]

I agree, debating skills amoung many are not all that great. This threa dis a good example. People were asked what this theory actually is, not whether it was right or worng or personal convictions. We are eager to throw our $0.02 in about everything. This is why debates in Theology are so bad and never bring much fruit, because people do not stick to the main issues and questions. Instead they try and set up counter defenses with issues and topics that have nothing to do with what is being discussed...

i say this because i have been shown guilty of this in the past. A wise man listens more then he speaks and his words are carefully chosen.

 

[cubanito]

I am a creationist. I rejected macroevoluyionary theories long before I became a Christian. Furthermore, if I was convinced that macroevolution were true, it would not alter my belief in Christianity. However the oft repeated objection to theistic evolution that it is incompatible wirh a loving Gd is very faulty. If that reasoning were corect, then the current presence of pain and suffering would also be impossible/ God achieved His redemptive plan after thousands of years of pain and suffering, by the Cross, a particularly gruesome instance of evil, pain and suffering heaprd on an innocent victim. There is no qualitative difference between billions of years of suffering to achieve a proper genetic makeup for man, and thousands of years of suffering to achieve a proper circumstance for redemption of this same mankind. There can be not a second of purposeless cruelty attributed to God.
Now some may object that there's a fundamental difference between the evil after the fall and the supposed billions of years before it. That difference would be the moral agency of Adam, by whose choice evil was brought into the world (BTW, unlike almost all other religions which blame women for just about everything, Christianity places the blame for the fall on Adam, saying of Eve that she was merely deceived). However, please note that at the Cross, it was an innocent victim that was unjustly and most cruelly punished as a means of redemption. It is in fact the methods which God chooses that are under consideration. If God could use a method so cruel and unjust at the Cross, indeed the whole of the Incarnation was a humiliation, then why not macroevolution? We simply are incapable of comprehending the full breadth of God's motives and means.
Now, I want it clearly understood I do not believe in theistic evolution. It is because I find the evidence against macroevolution to be much greater than for it. Thus I have no problem with the "Theistic" part of "Theistic Evolution." God can choose whatever method he wishes. I am not His judge. When one objects to Theistic Evolution on the basis of "billions of years of cruelty" one has in fact become a judge over God, thinking one's moral compass can decide what is Good and Evil. There is but One Judge of God's actions, and it aint me or you! Do we STILL believe Satan's promise that we "...shal be as gods, knowing good and evil?" Certainly there was some truth in Satan's statement, thanks to Adam's direct disobedience (for never was Eve commanded by God not to eat of that fruit), we have gained a partial understanding of Good and Evil. As JC quotes the Psalmist: "we are all gods" in some sense. But we are not THE God, and to say it is not possible He should use Billions of years of macroevolution to achieve His ends is to subtly sit in judgement of Him.
I do not believe in Billions of years of macroevolution because of the science.That conclusion I came to as an agnostic I have no problem with macroevolution philosophically or theologically as a Christian.

Now a word about debate. So long as one attacks an IDEA and not the person who holds it, this is healthy. As a creationist I find the typical philosophical objections to theistic evolution stupid. That does NOT translate into finding those who hold such ideas stupid. God makes me aware quite often how many stupid ideas are in my head, yet Loves me, shall I then hate my brother because of the stupid ideas in his head? There is a line there, and I have at times crossed it, but that negates not the line.

Oh yeah, and about the introduction of evil, Gen 2 describes the created earth as "void and chaotic." So where else do you find God creating a semi-formed mess? Nowhere, which is why I believe something might have happened to the earth between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. It seems to me that there was already evil somewhere before the fall of Adam, else where the serpent? Satan clearly fell BEFORE Adam, so whatever is meant by "evil entering the world because of Adam" it could not mean there was no evil in the universe, or even upon the face of the Earth, or even in the Garden of Eden. CLEARLY there was evil in the midst of the Garden, as the serpent was there! So if the serpent was there before the fall, therefore evil was there as well in some sense.

It is likely that phrase meant that evil had not entered the world of man.

Personally I hold to the "restitution theory", that is, Gen 1:1 is the original creation, and from Gen 1:2 on we see a re-creation. This idea has it's problems too, and in fact I hold it lightly.

JR

 

[EasyYoke]

cubanito,

After God made perfectly in Gen. 1:1, then He had to make it desolate and waste in verse 2 because of Lucifer's fall corrupting the creatures on Earth at that time, but restored creation through the six days which summarizes the period since verse 2.

 

[Lyle]

I'm going to go ahead and stick one foot forward as far as the difference in days. nobody has directly brought this up so I'm just going to bring out some ideas from both Theistic Evolution's closest and the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 doesn't give us a clear picture of the time period that is being observed. it's just, God hoovering after creation, that is the only action that is stated in the text. But the thought doesn't end with verse one, from verse one to verse five it seems to be one thought.

Notice the progressive tense of the verbs in verse one. The Lord was moving over the face of the waters. Now, if you take away the verse breaks it makes some more sense. God was hooveirng and then said... "Let there be light." This is logical since God is light and in Him there is no darkness. How do we know something is light? Because a contrast with the darkness.

God seperated light from darkness and called it the first day from morning to evening. Ok, here is where things get interesting..

Point: One point states that when the bible says day it just means time period, such as the day of the Lord, or the day that the Lord made the earth (Genesis 2:4). But this has restrictions. basic rule, when something is definitaly restricted then that means it has a defined beginning and end.. Look..

There was evening and there was morning, and this was the first day"

Evening and Morning is a defined amount of time. The earth has been rotating basically the same speed for the past thousands of years so it is safe to assume that we are shooting in the 24 hour ball park period here.
These days have to be listed at or near with literal days, which really puts a damper on Evolution of any sort. The sixth day, in Genesis 1, God creates man, male and female.

There is another Creation account with a different point. it doesn't contradict on any level. There are also two Exodus accounts, and two accounts of the law. it's very much part of hebrew tradition to restate things.

Ok, back to Gesesis 1:1 before i quit making any sense. Blocks of verses and chapters were not in the original texts. They were added in sometime in 300 AD/CE. if you take these and the notions of them away, from genesis 1:1-1:5 is one continual thought, no breaks are given or implied.

hope that answers anymore questions...

 

[EasyYoke]

The key to reading this is to realize the verb used in Gen. 1:2 is the same as in 2:7 and 19:26 which is "became"

The second thing to notice is that God does not create desolate and waste in Gen. 1:1. He creates perfectly. But if there is sin, He makes it desolate and waste by Gen. 1:2. Then the 6 days summarize the who period since then that God restored what was already there.

Every other discussion come subsequent to this proof.

All other discussion is vain past these facts.

Then you discover why day 2 was not called a good day like the other days. It is because when God began to restore after Gen. 1:2, He split the waters above and below. Naturally up came some of those demons he cast into the deep back at Gen. 1:2. One of those demons entered the serpent which tempted man.

Only the Gap view explains this accordingly, the great mystery why Day 2 was not called a good day.

Only Gap goes to the depth of the Word.

If you can't find a better explanation, then accept what is before you plainly said.

 

[JacobHall86]

The Gap theory questions God's omniscience.

 

[Lyle]

How?

 

[KillerV]

these arguments make me sad I made the mistake of wandering into the origins theology board here on CF a few days ago. I do not like to see the way brothers and sisters in Christ will attack each others beleifs.

Btw, I believe in evolution, and I am a Christian, which I guess puts me in the theistic evolution category. According to this thread that means I am treading in dangerous water, don’t believe that God is omnipotent, don’t believe God is perfect, have indirectly declared the New Testament null and void, am too lazy to pick a side, and have a belief that is apparently impossible. (quoting others on this thread- obviously I don't think these things true of myself. Those doesn’t even go into all the unkind things I have seen thrown around in the Origins theology board…

sorry about that sis. I kinda jumped the gun here. I didn't read the whole thing and just assumed it was a debate type thread. I don't mean to offend anyone I just don't agree with thiestic evolution.

 

[Pats]

sorry about that sis. I kinda jumped the gun here. I didn't read the whole thing and just assumed it was a debate type thread. I don't mean to offend anyone I just don't agree with thiestic evolution.

Reps to you for coming back with a good attitude.

This is why people need to be careful in the judgements they are making of belief systems other than their own.

To say that, for Theistic Evolutionists, "God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word should be taken seriously by all men," is a far cry from saying, "I don't agree with theistic evolution because....."

I mean, Theistic Evolution doesn't say that God is not omnipotent or that His Word is not to be taken seriously. I know many Theistic Evolutionists who take interprating the Scriptures very seriously!

I mean, simply because some one does not think Genesis is an historical/scientific account, does not mean that person does not respect it very highly as Scriptural truth.

 

[cubanito]

The Gap theory questions God's omniscience.

No more than the fall of man.

JR

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

Please stay on Topic

Theistic Evolution


Ok, I feel kinda dumb for asking this, but I have heard a lot about Theistic Evolution, and I am not quite sure what it is, and what the beliefs are. Would someone please explain it to me?

 

[Jedi]

I really don't see how Theistic Evolution somehow limits God's power. In fact, one of the strongest points of Deism (the idea that God started the world and just let it run its course without further interferance) is that God is big enough and wise enough to create a world that can self-sustain itself. It would seem like only a lesser God would create a world He would constantly have to fix and that a greater God would create a world that would fix itself.

Personally, I'm more convinced of micro-evolution than macro-evolution, but who am I to say that God could not have worked through evolutionary processes? As soon as we admit that micro-evolution occurs - and it's very easy to see this - we open the door to macro-evolution. Why contain God in saying He only works on the micro level?

Just some food for thought.

 

[Balugon]

ive heard that theistic evolution is yea, God started everything, but then he either set up evolution, or he purposely made each evolution at is happened, as in caused the genes to change or w/e. there are probably many different looks at it. I guess one of the main things is that they say we did evolve from apes, and at some random point God put souls in the apes and they became man. Dont ask. I dont know why that would make sense.

And it certainly doesnt seem to flow with the cambrian explosion.

Ive also heard that "neaderthals" and such all could very well had the same brain capacity as we do, and even the ones with smaller skulls, that they still could be in normal range. I think in that article or w/e they were trying to get at that the neaderthals werent really a diff species or something. So, i guess thats interesting.

And the funny thing is, if evo did happen, they still havent found the massive amounts of bones of all the middle-line critters that should be there. i believe even Darwin admitted that there should be masses amounts of bones left over from the middle-stage critters, but they still havent found them, sooo...

 

[JacobHall86]

Deism is not Christianity.

 

[Jedi]

Deism is not Christianity.

I never said it was, but it doesn't have to be in order to make a good point or provoke some thought. Just because something isn't Christian doesn't mean it can't make good points or speak the truth on certain matters. If you have a problem with the point made, why not discuss the actual point instead of focusing on the fact that it suggests a more deistic approach to God?

I guess one of the main things is that they say we did evolve from apes, and at some random point God put souls in the apes and they became man. Dont ask. I dont know why that would make sense.

This is also a terrible representation of theistic evolution. Not even atheistic evolution promotes the idea that we "evolved from apes," only that humans and apes share a common biological ancestor. It's interesting how so many people would rather believe they've come directly from literal dirt than believe God made them from something living, writing human history through the pen of evolutionary biology.

And the funny thing is, if evo did happen, they still havent found the massive amounts of bones of all the middle-line critters that should be there. i believe even Darwin admitted that there should be masses amounts of bones left over from the middle-stage critters, but they still havent found them, sooo...

Oh, quite right. From what I understand of fossilization, though, is that there have to be precise conditions met in order for remains to be fossilized and preserved. Odds are if you died in a field and were left there, your bones wouldn't be preserved for millions of years. It's an interesting problem to deal with but there are, at least to some degree, answers to the absense of abundant evidence. I'm not saying such massive macro-evolution occoured but it does seem like the door isn't quite so shut as some people would like to think.

 

[Pats]

ive heard that theistic evolution is yea, God started everything, but then he either set up evolution, or he purposely made each evolution at is happened, as in caused the genes to change or w/e. there are probably many different looks at it.

Actually, in keeping the discussion on the OP, I'd just like to offer some information here. Theistic Evolutionists do not all subscribe to one train of thought, that is true. However, most TEs simply believe that Genesis is myth/allegory. It is a story to tell us that God is the Creator, not the scientific/historical story of "how" He did it. TEs tend to hold the view that there is no reason biological/evolutionary science and scriptures should conflict.

I guess one of the main things is that they say we did evolve from apes, and at some random point God put souls in the apes and they became man. Dont ask. I dont know why that would make sense.

As Jedi pointed out, this is not what any evolutionists think. Also, most TEs (Theistic Evolutionists) do not agree that animals do not possess souls. In fact, there is scriptural support for the theological standpoint that animals do have souls. Therefore, there was no random point God "put souls" in us as you are suggesting in the TE view.

And it certainly doesnt seem to flow with the cambrian explosion.

Ive also heard that "neaderthals" and such all could very well had the same brain capacity as we do, and even the ones with smaller skulls, that they still could be in normal range. I think in that article or w/e they were trying to get at that the neaderthals werent really a diff species or something. So, i guess thats interesting.

And the funny thing is, if evo did happen, they still havent found the massive amounts of bones of all the middle-line critters that should be there. i believe even Darwin admitted that there should be masses amounts of bones left over from the middle-stage critters, but they still havent found them, sooo...

You are certainly under some misunderstandings to come up with these statments, however, we are also going waaaaay off the OP if I follow this line of discussion. If you feel so certain along these lines, I'd love to discuss it with you in the Creation vs. Evolution forum.

 

[KarateCowboy]

The problem with theistic evolution is that natural selection requires death. If death did not exist until the Fall, then we could not have macroevolved from lesser primates.

 

[God Child]

there are over 5 million species on this earth. I wonder how they all fit on noahs ark or perhaps speciation is a plausible theory and only the "original animals" went on the ark to later evolve into the 5 million+ we have today. Call me a heretic or whatever, but i think speciation is rather plausible

 

[KillerV]

there are over 5 million species on this earth. I wonder how they all fit on noahs ark or perhaps speciation is a plausible theory and only the "original animals" went on the ark to later evolve into the 5 million+ we have today. Call me a heretic or whatever, but i think speciation is rather plausible

well scripture says that insects and reptiles didn't come allong in the boat,only animals that couldn't survive a year long flood came on the boat. Every type of species were not present. Think about it. Wolves ,foxes,coyotes etc... couldn't have came from an original dog type? or would evolving be easier to believe? and look at scripture Noah's boat was not a small boat.