Theistic Evolutionist...

-57 said:

Please remove Calvinist from your faith. You give them a bad name.

Click to expand...

Nope, Calvinist is not a synonym foe creationist - thank heaven.

-57 said:

I would expect to see a genetic difference because they were created as separate "species". Since the fall there has been mutations incurred.

Click to expand...

Then the evidence I would expect to see would be a lack of a nested hierarchy.

Based upon what would expect to see a much lower amount of genetic variation

Click to expand...

6,000 years isn't a lot of time for mutations to create genetic diversity.

pat34lee said:

You can choose wrong or evil. Unlike what
liberals believe, you cannot legislate goodness.

Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? Liberals don't think that. It's the conservative contingent that enacts blue laws and anti-sodomy laws and resists their repeal.

Loudmouth said:

Then the evidence I would expect to see would be a lack of a nested hierarchy.



6,000 years isn't a lot of time for mutations to create genetic diversity.

Click to expand...

...Your points are neutral.

-57 said:

...Your points are neutral.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

lesliedellow said:

Nope, Calvinist is not a synonym foe creationist - thank heaven.

Click to expand...

With Theo-Evo Calvinism...the "T" goes away. Then again you already knew that.

Loudmouth said:

What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

It doesn't add to or detract from any argument.

AV1611VET said:

Like Thalidomide?

Click to expand...

Exactly. The claim that Thalidomide was safe for pregnant women was contradicted by the facts.

-57 said:

It doesn't add to or detract from any argument.

Click to expand...

It adds to my argument that separate creation is refuted by the facts, since life does fall into a nested hierarchy. Separately created species should not fall into a nested hierarchy. Only evolution produces that pattern of similarity.

-57 said:

With Theo-Evo Calvinism...the "T" goes away. Then again you already knew that.

Click to expand...

Insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis is the best way to prove the Bible false. Good job.

Neogaia777 said:

Two very similar races were allowed to exist on the earth around the same time period, one that had evolved and existed in little pockets around the world, and another one, very similar but not exactly the same as the others, and God "created" this one from the dust of the ground and gave him his own little pocket of the world isolated from the others, only Adam's line survived, so today we are all descendants of Adam and are thus "created" beings...

And Adam's line was considered different and separate from animal, and like God and the others were not...

God Bless!

Click to expand...

Neogaia,
As you should know, scripture gives us guidelines on the subject of creation, and scripture comes from the Church who is the authentic interpreter of scripture. There are 4 senses of scripture:
1) literal
2-4) spiritual (broken down into):
*allegorical
*moral
*anagogical

Traditionally all four senses are present in scripture and allow us to pull (exegete) the full meaning from what God intended by inspiring the apostles (and old testament sages like Moses) to write down what they experienced and knew. So genesis has both literal and allegory meaning as opposed to either/or.

Therefore the Church while denying strict material evolution has put forth guidelines concerning theistic or God-directed evolution. Keep in mind here that the term "evolution" comes from the Latin evolvere which means "to unfold." It therefore carries with it the sense that all material being has within it that which it can become. The difference being something either internal or external must trigger these potencies in order for being to unfold (consider a caterpillar/butterfly or an acorn/oak tree unfolding, or a flower budding).

There is a three-fold criteria for speculating evolution of mankind:
1) The essential superiority of man in relation to other animals buy reason of his soul.
2) The derivation in some way of the first woman from the first man.
3) The first man, father of the human race (progenitor) must have been human, not the son of an animal.

This criteria leaves three questions open for development if evolution did occur:
1) The degree the lower species may have cooperated in the formulation of the first man.
2) The way which Eve was formed from Adam.
3) The age of the human race.

Thus the theory of human evolution can concern the human body only. How did it come from pre-existent and living matter? Also human souls are immediately created by God (as occurs even today when a man and woman come together to conceive a new and unique person.)

As a Christian I am bound by these points when doing scientific research on evolutionary theory.

Shemjaza said:

Adam and Eve disobeying God was sin and all the nastiness of the world is our punishment... but that isn't actually an explanation as to how 100% of created humans and 33% of created angels were able to sin, unless it was always a part of the plan.

As literalists like to say "No original sin, no need for Jesus's sacrifice". If sin can be a part of God's plan then a TE could say that it was planned into our evolved nature.

(This is just conjecture from an interested atheist, if I'm way off a TE can correct me. I just think the TE position can be as logically consistent as the literalist one).

Click to expand...

Shemjaza,
I am a Christian who sees both an instantaneous creation (genesis interpreted literally) of the first man, and the first woman's derivation from him by God, as well as the progressive movement from the animal kingdom of man, again directed by God, as viable within certain limits. I listed this criteria in a recent post to

Neogaia so I will not do so again here. Suffice to say the idea of sin is compatible with both views if one understands it properly. In either scenerio sin is a result of the will being misused. In other words it is the human will going against God's will, which by definition, is always perfect. So sin is the person's movement away from what is in their best interest. Sin as protestants repeatedly say is missing the mark or falling short of God's glory.

Now contrary to what some of my protestant brothers and sisters say sin is not a necessity. They might point to scripture that seems to say so but they overlook other scripture that indicates the balance. Scripture clearly indicates Christ was true man and yet not a sinner. So here is one instance of a sinless human being... albeit Christ is one with God... a divine person that is... Christ either had a full human nature or he could not be human at all. So when one takes St. Paul's admonition that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" they must do so in light of this context.

Next Christ's mother Mary is also taught to have been sinless by the Church. This was not as in Christ's case (Mary is not divine) but simply because she held deep faith in God and refused to sin. In both cases of Christ and Mary, they could have chosen to set their will against God yet they did not. All of us have this same capacity yet most if not all of us sin because of an inherent weakness that the stain of Original Sin brings. This is that it darkens our intellect and weakens our will. Protestant theology unfortunately does not distinguish Original Sin from actual sin and therefore makes the mistake of reading into scripture what is not there.

In addition to this and due to the fall of Adam and Eve, we are all conceived not just with this concupisence of Original Sin but we lack sanctifying grace that should have been ours. It should have been passed on to us through our parents all the way back to Adam and Eve. Unfortunately they had lost grace at the Fall and therefore could not give what they did not possess. It is baptism the gives us back grace which then enlightens our mind and strengthens our will. So sanctifying grace is very important from the Christian standpoint in that it enables our nature to be what God intended.

So even if we evolved from some animal (after all we do share their bodily material) we are uniquely endowed with a soul, unlike any animal, with a free will, and so there is always the possibility of us choosing the wrong thing, thus commiting sin. Human freedom allows for this while at the same time does not demand that we do sin. In other words human freedom is for the good. Adam and Eve were sinless until they first sinned, just as the second Adam (Christ) and Eve (Mary) remained sinless by an act of their will. You could say analogically that while we have an animal body, we possess an angelic soul that effectively separates us from the animal kingdom (by way of intellectual reason).

-57 said:

You forget...the creation fell. Hello mutations.
Lok at the blind cave fish.
would you ask why would God create a blind cave fish? He didn't. That happened after creation and the fall..like your examples.

Click to expand...

I didn't forget anything.

These structures and the hierarchical nature of genomes of species cannot be explained away with such a nonsense one-liner like "the fall".

In fact, it doesn't even address it. It's just spouting fundamentalist religious claims.

Hoghead1 said:

Some of the comments here is all gbout the so-called theo-evo show an appealing lack of knowledge about the theo-evo approach. Yes, I would hold that Genesis is not an accurate account of creation, because it is a contradictory account to begin with. We can't explain sin? Oh, c'mon. A common view is that we sin in our freedom. We simply made bad choices. I do not hold with original sin, because I do not believe it is at all biblical, to start with, and presents too many other major problems. If we are all born with a nature corrupted through and through (original sin), then why should we bother at all with God? It is bad to go against your nature, and if ours is fixed to be a rebellion against God, so be it! I am inclined to argue we are born either neutral or basically good, capable of making good choices.

Click to expand...

Hoghead,
I agree with you... as the Church teaches we are all created good by God, who does not lie or deceive, and is therefore incapable of sin. Our nature is good but fallen, that is wounded. The doctrine of Original sin is a shorthand way of saying this. Adam and Eve (as well as each of us) were fit for heaven not by what they could do but by possession of sanctifying grace. At the Fall they lost this grace as well as became wounded in their nature. As I said in another post their intellect was darkened and will weakened by their personal (actual) sin. In theology we call this deprivation concupisence. Our first parents should have passed on their grace to us but could not since they no longer possessed it. Martin Luther wrongly claimed we are depraved (our nature) but instead we have all been deprived of our original integrity and sanctifying grace.

Each of us gains back the grace at baptism that corrects our wounded nature; it enlightens our intellect and strengthens our will. It also infuses the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity into our souls. Now just as Adam and Eve lost these gifts of God we too can lose them by a serious act of sin. The Church has always termed this as Actual Sin (personal sin) in contrast to Original Sin, the latter of which is more properly a stain or deprivement of something necessary for our nature to be whole. Without this original integrity we are said to be wounded in our nature and since we lack grace at our conception we are not fit for heaven. Thus the Church baptizes a person as early as possible in their life (assuming a responsible adult to care for and direct this child in a way to maintain their possession of grace), and would baptize while one is still in the womb if possible.

So I agree with you that we are not conceived with a corrupt nature in the sense that we are all bad or incapable of doing God's will. On the contrary we all have a choice to do what is right. We don't because we are without proper knowledge, or have been deceived, or are just plain obstinent against God's will for some selfish reason.

As for the Genesis account of creation I agree with those who say it is not a concordance with science. As St. Augustine once said "Genesis does not tell us how the heavens go but how to go to heaven." I don't necessarily agree with John Walton or Tremper Longman (brought up by Lesliedellow) but I see Genesis as instructing us that God is the creator of all and He requires us to keep the Sabbath holy.

Loudmouth said:

It adds to my argument that separate creation is refuted by the facts, since life does fall into a nested hierarchy. Separately created species should not fall into a nested hierarchy. Only evolution produces that pattern of similarity.

Click to expand...

Why should separately created species not fall into a nested hierarchy?
I often heard this claim but have never heard a reason.

Loudmouth said:

Insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis is the best way to prove the Bible false. Good job.

Click to expand...

More simple claims. You're amazing.

DogmaHunter said:

I didn't forget anything.

These structures and the hierarchical nature of genomes of species cannot be explained away with such a nonsense one-liner like "the fall".

In fact, it doesn't even address it. It's just spouting fundamentalist religious claims.

Click to expand...

You forget DogmaHunter,...this is a christian forum. If you don't like the concept of "the fall" ...who cares?

In fact your concept of ...no God...is pretty much nonsense.

-57 said:

More simple claims. You're amazing.

Click to expand...

If a book claims that the Moon is made of green cheese, and when we go to the Moon we find that it is made out of rock, which is wrong? The book or the Moon?

If a map says that there is a 5 mile high mountain in the middle of Kansas, and a survey team finds that there is no mountain in the middle of Kansas, which is wrong? The map or Kansas?

-57 said:

You forget DogmaHunter,...this is a christian forum. If you don't like the concept of "the fall" ...who cares?

In fact your concept of ...no God...is pretty much nonsense.

Click to expand...

Why would the fall produce a nested hierarchy?

-57 said:

Why should separately created species not fall into a nested hierarchy?

Click to expand...

Because a creator would be free to mix and match genes from different species. One gene could be identical to a species of fish, another gene identical to a species of bird, and yet another gene identical to a gene from jellyfish. You can also mix and match features, such as creating a species with feathers and three middle ear bones, a clear violation of the nested hierarchy.