Theistic Evolution?

[ltrey]

I can respect that even thoughi disagree with your logic. My concern is more about whether there is a compelling biblical reason to reject evolution.

My reasons for the rejection of evolution, especially traditional Darwinian evolution, are based upon both theological and Biblical grounds, with the former being built upon the latter.

Darwinian evolution argues for random, unguided mutation. That means that new species are created through random mutations, absent of any guidance or formal plan. If God were to use that method for bringing about His creation, what would that say about God? Genesis (and the rest of the Biblical narrative) paint a picture of a God that is intimately involved in His creation. He does not step back and allow another creative process to do His work for Him. He is involved in every step as a loving, meticulous craftsman.

Also, if you look at Genesis, God creates plants and plant-life before the sun. Evolution (Darwinian, theistic or otherwise) says this is impossible because all life derives its food or energy from the sun, either directly or via the food chain. In evolution then, the sun must exist before prokaryotes can survive. That is a direct contradiction with Genesis' account of the creation of life.

I would say that we don't "know" with certainty how God brought life to the planet or even how long it took. But what we do know from a the Biblical account is that God was directly active in every step of His creation, and that God does not allow any other power in the universe to take away from His glory or take credit for His creation (i.e. life is created by and dependent upon the sun, as opposed to God), both of which are incompatible with the accepted tenants of evolutionary biology.

That is why I am now a former-theistic evolutionist and current Creationist.

 

[FrequencyDX]

Personally intelligent design isn't for me. The origin's of life is something way too complex for any mind to fully understand, it is beyond us, and albeit through science we can increase our awareness of the age of the universe, the way certain aspects of it functions, etc, there is always going to be this mystical side to it - the 'why' rather than the 'how'. Did the universe emanate from God as all things do? - Yes. Did he actively have a role in scultping and designing every piece of organic matter on this planet, and the universe, as intelligent design postulates? - I don't know. I kind of like the ideas put forward in an interview with Father George Coyne of the vatican observatory - God created a universe that could create itself, and that we as Human beings are his greatest endevour from that. If God created the world exactly as it is, in six days, and sculpted it all - this is a very human notion of God, putting God into human terms, as a maker, a sculptor. Life is perfect as it is, at it is a gift from God, not because of the imperfect nature of reality, but because of the relationship and gifts that we recieve from him. In my personal opinion, I see the Bible as the inspired word of God, and the genesis stories as being creation myths for a pre-scientific peoples, all pointing to the same points - that God loves us, and that all creation emanates from him. Science - application of current scientific methods to understanding the universe, religion - the continued human endevours to understand and explain why we exist, rather than not.

I always imagining other Christians like myself would cling onto science and scientific theories such as evolution, the big-bang, etc. As to me they seem to postulate more proof for a God than any other Bible-based theory I've heard. The fact of the matter is that for life to exist on this planet, the conditions in the universe had to be just right, for life to come forth, and it did, in abundance. I think God emanated this universe from himself with our existence in minds, but I see no reason why this cannot be through processes such as natural selection, these are not reductionist approaches to creation, nor do they lessen our place in it. Surely an all-powerful, all-knowing force such as God, existing over and through all of time, could understand that our species would come to be through the natural processes that he set in place.

Anyway, most of this is just me rambling on with my thoughts. No matter what you believe, just remember God loves you, Jesus died for you as a symbol of his love, and that you should love one another, you may not agree on such issues as this (which divide us, rather than unite us), but tolerate each others opinions as Jesus would do. Remember this universe is like a tapestry, we view it from the messy methodoligcal scientific side of things, the other side of the tapestry, it may hint at the picture weaved on the other side of it, and we may be able to guess what the full pciture may be, but always on the other side is the fullness, perfectness of this universe, this existence, all of which emanates from and to the greater glory of God. Amen.

 

[Gozreht]

You said that evolution is "fish turn into reptiles and reptiles turn into mammals". This is a common misconception from people who don't understand evolution. Evolutionary theory does not say that at all. A fish will always be a fish, but according to evolutionary theory, its offspring may have slightly different traits and that with each generation these new traits lead to offspring that are less and less similar to the fish ancestor that we statrted with. This much is usually accepted even by creationists. However, evolutionists believe that eventually the descendants may differ so much from the ancestor as to no longer have the traits that make define the ancestor's species. And over time this leads to greater and greater diversity. This is much different than what you said evolution proposes.

This was not a misconception. If you read all of the other postings I have put here, you would have seen I was using layman's terms on this idea. Ultimately, certain fish (with mutatiions) would soon enough be classified as a new species, given enough of mutations, such as fish with legs. Amphibians and reptiles were next on the "evolutionary chart". I am not going to use all kind of Latin words and phrases just to talk here. And as you have stated a fish will always be a fish. Same as the ape will always be an ape. Man will always and always have been a man. No intraspecies transformations have ever taken place between them. Now man has changed within itself but has never been anything but man. I have already stated the problems with these transformations/mutations on page 5, (which I am assuming you did not read) however I repost a link here so you can read the whole thing. ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/2011/02/lix-antitheory-of-evolution.html

You will see that I can grasp the concept, but even more importantly I grasp the problem with the concept.

 

[Gozreht]

Many spelling errors here on this post so I redid it and hit the wrong button. This is not a reply. How do you delete a reply?

 

[Gozreht]

Dies-l - I THINK that you and I agree.
The "Artist" painted the picture. It has taken many millions, or possibly billions, of years (which would be each successive "Day" in God's eye) - and continues to this day.

I also believe that the FIRST Biblical prophecy has yet to occur.
...and on the 7th Day, God rested.

John, the second comment as a whole is a different topic so I will not debate that. However, you do raise a great point though in it. The full concept of the 7th day is not that God rested but that God rested from the work that He was doing, which means creating. On the 7th day He was done with creating; no more "new" animals. Variations of the animals, sure, but no more creating.

 

[Gozreht]

I am not questioning whether God can or can not have used evolutionary methods to create the universe as we know it. God can do of course anything He wants. He created the laws of nature and could have used them. But on an opinionated note, I feel the glory of God would have been diminished by just sitting back and allowing nature to run creation. Natural selection, planets heating and cooling on their own, etc. Although these would be neat to see and witness and is a cool thing to think about, they do not compare to having God place things already in motion and showing even nature who is boss.

I also am not saying evolution is an evil thing, if God created it and used it for His purpose. The question it comes down to is did He do it or not. The best Biblical explanation is no.

Hopefully we all agree that God created everything. One way or another. But evolutionary methods leave bigger gaps than the Bible does that do not allow them to correlate with each other. I wish they did, it would be easier to understand our existence.

But here is something that I can not see how the two can co-exist. The Bible clearly states that on certain days God created certain types of life. And the types of life are clearly different from the previous day. And as stated by every evolution site/book/teacher/what have you, all animals came from other animals. Fish species did develop into eventually amphibians and reptiles, then eventually mammals and man. But again the Bible clearly states that on day five for example fish and birds were created and day six mammals. Well when does a new species become a new kingdom of animal? If God says on day 6 mammals were created, then what mutation officially stops a species from being a reptile into a mammal? Answer...none. They are separate. Just like man. When God said let us make man in our image. I do not think He borrowed a primate, waited 300,000 years and then man sprung forth.

Was Adam the first man or not? Was he an australopithecus, homo-erectus, homo-sapien, neanderthal, sahelanthropus tchadensis, an orangutan? Answer...he was what we know man as today, homo-sapien. All of the skulls found are either apes or man, period. We all look different on the outside and inside (not to be confused with racist stupidity). My skull has bumps in it my own father doesn't have. So even though there have been many skulls found throughout excavations, they do not prove anything.

 

[thesunisout]

Sorry, but Genesis is not a myth. Jesus repeatedly confirmed to us the literal truth of the Old Testament. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of scripture you want to believe. Either you're calling Jesus a liar or God the Father a liar, or both.

Death entered the world through the sin of one man. Just as righteousness entered the world through our Lord, Jesus Christ. It was the entire point of His coming, to redeem man from that sin that plunged the world into darkness. Before that, there was no death. If you want to say evolution happened, then you destroy the creation week and redemptive history along with it. You make Christs death on the cross ridiculous.

I would suggest to you that you become intimately familar with the reasons why Christ gave His life before you just so casually call God a liar. Your grave error is reinterperting the bible to suit worldly understanding, when you know for a fact God is real and His word is truth. ANYTHING which says God is a liar comes from Satan. Evolution isn't science, it isn't factual, there is not in fact one shred of evidence supporting it, and if you didn't have your blinders on and did some investigating, you would see that. Just because some book told you it was true, and everyone agrees that it's true, doesn't mean it is. Many books and many people say Jesus isn't real either, are they right?

Personally intelligent design isn't for me. The origin's of life is something way too complex for any mind to fully understand, it is beyond us, and albeit through science we can increase our awareness of the age of the universe, the way certain aspects of it functions, etc, there is always going to be this mystical side to it - the 'why' rather than the 'how'. Did the universe emanate from God as all things do? - Yes. Did he actively have a role in scultping and designing every piece of organic matter on this planet, and the universe, as intelligent design postulates? - I don't know. I kind of like the ideas put forward in an interview with Father George Coyne of the vatican observatory - God created a universe that could create itself, and that we as Human beings are his greatest endevour from that. If God created the world exactly as it is, in six days, and sculpted it all - this is a very human notion of God, putting God into human terms, as a maker, a sculptor. Life is perfect as it is, at it is a gift from God, not because of the imperfect nature of reality, but because of the relationship and gifts that we recieve from him. In my personal opinion, I see the Bible as the inspired word of God, and the genesis stories as being creation myths for a pre-scientific peoples, all pointing to the same points - that God loves us, and that all creation emanates from him. Science - application of current scientific methods to understanding the universe, religion - the continued human endevours to understand and explain why we exist, rather than not.

I always imagining other Christians like myself would cling onto science and scientific theories such as evolution, the big-bang, etc. As to me they seem to postulate more proof for a God than any other Bible-based theory I've heard. The fact of the matter is that for life to exist on this planet, the conditions in the universe had to be just right, for life to come forth, and it did, in abundance. I think God emanated this universe from himself with our existence in minds, but I see no reason why this cannot be through processes such as natural selection, these are not reductionist approaches to creation, nor do they lessen our place in it. Surely an all-powerful, all-knowing force such as God, existing over and through all of time, could understand that our species would come to be through the natural processes that he set in place.

Anyway, most of this is just me rambling on with my thoughts. No matter what you believe, just remember God loves you, Jesus died for you as a symbol of his love, and that you should love one another, you may not agree on such issues as this (which divide us, rather than unite us), but tolerate each others opinions as Jesus would do. Remember this universe is like a tapestry, we view it from the messy methodoligcal scientific side of things, the other side of the tapestry, it may hint at the picture weaved on the other side of it, and we may be able to guess what the full pciture may be, but always on the other side is the fullness, perfectness of this universe, this existence, all of which emanates from and to the greater glory of God. Amen.

 

[Assyrian]

John, the second comment as a whole is a different topic so I will not debate that. However, you do raise a great point though in it. The full concept of the 7th day is not that God rested but that God rested from the work that He was doing, which means creating. On the 7th day He was done with creating; no more "new" animals. Variations of the animals, sure, but no more creating.

Isaiah 54:16 NET ​​​​​​​Look, I create the craftsman, ​​​​​​who fans the coals into a fire ​​​​​​and forges a weapon. ​​​​​​I create the destroyer so he might devastate.

 

[John S]

Gozreht - In my opinion, this is still the 6th day. The 7th day begins after the Tribulation period ends and there is 1000 years of worldwide peace. THEN God rests.

How many people agree with me? - probably not too many.

 

[Gozreht]

Isaiah 54:16 NET ​​​​​​​Look, I create the craftsman, ​​​​​​who fans the coals into a fire ​​​​​​and forges a weapon. ​​​​​​I create the destroyer so he might devastate.

I am taking it as though you are telling us He still creates because of this verse. But, the word create here is actually past tense. The version you chose is the only one (besides the Message) that looks like it is present tense, but in context it is still past. God is telling us He is the one who does these things. Besides, create here does not mean "out of nothing" like it does in Genesis, it means was He who allowed this being. As in the universe gets its laws from Him, the craftsman get his skill from God as well.





Here are some other translations:

• NET 54:16 Look, I create the craftsman,who fans the coals into a fireand forges a weapon. I create the destroyer so he might devastate.
• NIV 54:16 "See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc
• NASB 54:16 "Behold, I Myself have created the smith who blows the fire of coals And brings out a weapon for its work; And I have created the destroyer to ruin.
• ESV 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy
• NLT 54:16 “I have created the blacksmith who fans the coals beneath the forge and makes the weapons of destruction. And I have created the armies that destroy.
• MSG 54:16 I create the blacksmith who fires up his forge and makes a weapon designed to kill. I also create the destroyer
• BBE 54:16 See, I have made the iron-worker, blowing on the burning coals, and making the instrument of war by his work; and I have made the waster for destruction.
• NKJV 54:16 "Behold, I have created the blacksmith Who blows the coals in the fire, Who brings forth an instrument for his work; And I have created the spoiler to destroy.
• NRSV 54:16 See it is I who have created the smith who blows the fire of coals, and produces a weapon fit for its purpose; I have also created the ravager to destroy.
• KJV 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
• CJB 54:16 It is I who created the craftsman who blows on the coals and forges weapons suited to their purpose

 

[Gozreht]

Gozreht - In my opinion, this is still the 6th day. The 7th day begins after the Tribulation period ends and there is 1000 years of worldwide peace. THEN God rests.

How many people agree with me? - probably not too many.

Probably not too many but that is okay. No one really knows the end anyway, so it's cool with me.

But please answer this, what did He rest from?

 

[John S]

He will have completed "painting the picture".

 

[dies-l]

This was not a misconception.

It was either a misconception or a misstatement of fact. Either way, it is still incorrect.

If you read all of the other postings I have put here, you would have seen I was using layman's terms on this idea.

In layman's terms that statement "fish become reptiles" is simply an inaccurate portrayal of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not state that a fish will ever become a reptile.

Ultimately, certain fish (with mutatiions) would soon enough be classified as a new species, given enough of mutations, such as fish with legs.

No animal will ever become a different species than what it is. No contemporary evolutionist would claim such a thing.

Amphibians and reptiles were next on the "evolutionary chart". I am not going to use all kind of Latin words and phrases just to talk here. And as you have stated a fish will always be a fish. Same as the ape will always be an ape. Man will always and always have been a man.

Yep. All of this is consistent with evolutionary theory.

No intraspecies transformations have ever taken place between them. Now man has changed within itself but has never been anything but man. I have already stated the problems with these transformations/mutations on page 5, (which I am assuming you did not read) however I repost a link here so you can read the whole thing. ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/2011/02/lix-antitheory-of-evolution.html

Yep. No animal has ever become anything other than what it is. But, it's offspring may be different than the parents.

You will see that I can grasp the concept, but even more importantly I grasp the problem with the concept.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are generally honest, your statements still show me that you don't understand evolutionary theory nearly as much as you think you, as your objections to it are based on weak strawman arguments. Whether this is because you don't understand or because you are deliberately misstating evolutionary theory, I don't know. But, your objections are based on incorrect assumptions. But, I suspect that if you really want to learn about the scientific arguments (which is not what I am interested in arguing here, as it is not no topic to this thread and I am not the most qualified person to do so), you might find better discussion in the Origins Theology Section of CF.

 

[Gozreht]

It was either a misconception or a misstatement of fact. Either way, it is still incorrect. In layman's terms that statement "fish become reptiles" is simply an inaccurate portrayal of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not state that a fish will ever become a reptile.

No, I told you. I was simplifying the long story. Evolution states that a species has "buds". Eventually there are so many new buds that a new species has developed. THAT IS EVOLUTION.

talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


I highlighted the points I have made that this site (along with many others that are widely accepted by evolutionists) use as a guideline. At what point did I stray from this, aside from the layman's terms?

Here is a website from a Jewish/Evolutionist and Creationist viewpoint: aish.com/ci/sam/ and it still says the same thing I do about evolution.

No animal will ever become a different species than what it is. No contemporary evolutionist would claim such a thing.

See above.

Yep. No animal has ever become anything other than what it is. But, it's offspring may be different than the parents.

I said that on page 4.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are generally honest, your statements still show me that you don't understand evolutionary theory nearly as much as you think you, as your objections to it are based on weak strawman arguments. Whether this is because you don't understand or because you are deliberately misstating evolutionary theory, I don't know. But, your objections are based on incorrect assumptions. But, I suspect that if you really want to learn about the scientific arguments (which is not what I am interested in arguing here, as it is not no topic to this thread and I am not the most qualified person to do so), you might find better discussion in the Origins Theology Section of CF.

I think I have stated my case. I think I have given enough evidence. Some will not aqccept. I am not here to "win" any arguments. But I have not strayed from any scientific method, nor misstated anything. I have used in simplest of terms to get to the heart of the matter.

I will end it here with a repeat of one of my posts.

I am not questioning whether God can or can not have used evolutionary methods to create the universe as we know it. God can do of course anything He wants. He created the laws of nature and could have used them. But on an opinionated note, I feel the glory of God would have been diminished by just sitting back and allowing nature to run creation. Natural selection, planets heating and cooling on their own, etc. Although these would be neat to see and witness and is a cool thing to think about, they do not compare to having God place things already in motion and showing even nature who is boss.

I also am not saying evolution is an evil thing, if God created it and used it for His purpose. The question it comes down to is did He do it or not. The best Biblical explanation is no.

Hopefully we all agree that God created everything. One way or another. But evolutionary methods leave bigger gaps than the Bible does that do not allow them to correlate with each other. I wish they did, it would be easier to understand our existence.

But here is something that I can not see how the two can co-exist. The Bible clearly states that on certain days God created certain types of life. And the types of life are clearly different from the previous day. And as stated by every evolution site/book/teacher/what have you, all animals came from other animals. Fish species did develop into eventually amphibians and reptiles, then eventually mammals and man. But again the Bible clearly states that on day five for example fish and birds were created and day six mammals. Well when does a new species become a new kingdom of animal? If God says on day 6 mammals were created, then what mutation officially stops a species from being a reptile into a mammal? Answer...none. They are separate. Just like man. When God said let us make man in our image. I do not think He borrowed a primate, waited 300,000 years and then man sprung forth.

Was Adam the first man or not? Was he an australopithecus, homo-erectus, homo-sapien, neanderthal, sahelanthropus tchadensis, an orangutan? Answer...he was what we know man as today, homo-sapien. All of the skulls found are either apes or man, period. We all look different on the outside and inside (not to be confused with racist stupidity). My skull has bumps in it my own father doesn't have. So even though there have been many skulls found throughout excavations, they do not prove anything.

All take care. I will leave this topic until/unless asked specifically to return by questioning or directness.

 

[Gozreht]

He will have completed "painting the picture".

True. But vague. Does that mean He is done interacting with His painting or just from painting?

 

[NOTurTypical]

I can't fathom a scenario where they would be death before the fall.

 

[Assyrian]

Where does the bible say animal death was the result of the fall?

 

[NOTurTypical]

Where does the bible say animal death was the result of the fall?

Not sure where you went to school but Evolution teaches that man also evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Assyrian]

So?

 

[John S]

Gozreht - When there are 1000 years of peace, He will be able to take a "Day" off.