What do theistic evolutionists believe the "very good" refers to?

[Silent Enigma]

I'm wondering how theistic evolutionists interpret the "very good" in Genesis. The amount of tooth and nail fighting, scraping, killing, eating, etc. for various species to rise to their finished state, as proposed in the theory of evolution, doesn't sound good at all to me.

What do you think?

 

[Bulldog]

Theistic Evolutionists usually do not take the book of Genesis (or at least the part dealing with creation) literaly.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm wondering how theistic evolutionists interpret the "very good" in Genesis. The amount of tooth and nail fighting, scraping, killing, eating, etc. for various species to rise to their finished state, as proposed in the theory of evolution, doesn't sound good at all to me.

What do you think?

1. Evolution does not say species "rise to their finished state". Evolution has populations changing and new species evolving from old ones. There never is a "finished state".
2. The "tooth and nail fighting" refers to the struggle for existence in natural selection. The Struggle for Existence is metaphorical. It means that there are more individuals than the environment can support. Individuals "compete" for scarce resources. However, a plant in a desert is competing for the scarce water, but not fighting "tooth and nail" with other plants. The individual that can either 1) gather more water, 2) retain the water it has better, and/or 3) make more efficient use of the available water will do better in that environment than the other plants of that species.

Genesis 1 is a refutation of the Babylonian religion and pantheon. If you look at the Enuma Elish and then at Genesis 1, you see that Genesis 1 changes the Enuma Elish and destroys the Babylonian gods in the order of their appearance in the Enuma Elish. In the Enuma Elish, the material world and earth is basically corrupt and "bad". Creation is the battlefield of the gods. Creation is "evil" and humans are to have as little contact with the world as possible. Genesis 1 changes all that. By having God pronounce each act of creation as "good", it is refuting the Babylonian religion. Instead of the physical world being a hostile place for humans, it is good for them. Also, it means that creation is not the battlefield of the gods, but something God created to be a "good" place for humans to be.

Read Genesis 1-3 for theology. They are not primitive science nor should you try to force science on them. The creation stories are theology, not science.

 

[gluadys]

I'm wondering how theistic evolutionists interpret the "very good" in Genesis. The amount of tooth and nail fighting, scraping, killing, eating, etc. for various species to rise to their finished state, as proposed in the theory of evolution, doesn't sound good at all to me.

What do you think?

The teaching of the bible is theological, not scientific. The phrase "very good" is a metaphysical and theological statement that steers us away from concepts of good/bad dualism which makes evil equal with good.

It also refutes the common dualistic equation of physical being with evil. Matter is not opposed to God. It is God's good creation. Our bodies are not traps from which our soul is trying to escape, as the neo-Platonists and Manicheans taught. God has always intended us to have bodies and to enjoy them as gifts, not prisons. God even intends us to have bodies in eternity. That is why Christians affirm the resurrection of the body.

 

[lucaspa]

It also refutes the common dualistic equation of physical being with evil. Matter is not opposed to God. It is God's good creation. Our bodies are not traps from which our soul is trying to escape, as the neo-Platonists and Manicheans taught. God has always intended us to have bodies and to enjoy them as gifts, not prisons. God even intends us to have bodies in eternity. That is why Christians affirm the resurrection of the body.

Neo-Platonic thought and Manicheanism and Gnosticism came long after Genesis was written, of course, so that the authors of Genesis could not have been addressing them. However, your points are well taken and Genesis does affirm the basic goodness of matter and the physical universe. The earth is God's Creation, therefore like God it is "good".

 

[Silent Enigma]

Thanks for your input folks.

 

[Bushido216]

I'm wondering how theistic evolutionists interpret the "very good" in Genesis. The amount of tooth and nail fighting, scraping, killing, eating, etc. for various species to rise to their finished state, as proposed in the theory of evolution, doesn't sound good at all to me.

What do you think?

Silent, this is a good example of the difference between a literalist and a metaphoralist.

A literalist looks at each and every word, and, thusly, must find only a literal meaning.

The metaphoralist looks at the whole passage, not bits and pieces.

 

[Silent Enigma]

Silent, this is a good example of the difference between a literalist and a metaphoralist.

A literalist looks at each and every word, and, thusly, must find only a literal meaning.

The metaphoralist looks at the whole passage, not bits and pieces.

I try to see both when I read the bible, the overall picture plus the individual comments/points. But from the overall context of the bible, I never come away with the impression that genesis was not meant to be understood as a part of history. Whenever a person later in the bible makes reference to the creation account, they never give the impression that they're just reciting poetry, or what not.

But I guess that wasn't really the point of this thread. I just wanted to know how TE's interpret the "very good" part.

Some have said that it was a refutation of the belief that the material world was inherently evil.

What are other people's takes on the "very good" part?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Quote
Whenever a person later in the bible makes reference to the creation account, they never give the impression that they're just reciting poetry, or what not.


Thas it probably because they actually believed it to be literally true. WHy should they question it? In those days, people needed an explanation for the nature of the physical world. Genesis provided that, and they got on with the more pressing matters of survival in an often brutal world.

Today we have the luxury to gather more knowledge and relfect of the nature of the universe from a more scientific point of view. A simple story about the world being created in 6 days was sufficient for a simple people (technologically simple). In today's world, however, people need to know something about science. In today's fast paced, technologically complicated world a knowledge of science is as much necessary for survival as was knowing how to tend to sheep was 2000 years ago in the middle east.

Besides, if you tried to explain about electricity, quarks, evolution or the big bang to somebody living 2000 years ago I think they would have neither comprehended nor cared about any of it.

 

[Bushido216]

I try to see both when I read the bible, the overall picture plus the individual comments/points. But from the overall context of the bible, I never come away with the impression that genesis was not meant to be understood as a part of history. Whenever a person later in the bible makes reference to the creation account, they never give the impression that they're just reciting poetry, or what not.

But I guess that wasn't really the point of this thread. I just wanted to know how TE's interpret the "very good" part.

Some have said that it was a refutation of the belief that the material world was inherently evil.

What are other people's takes on the "very good" part?

SE, that's why you look at God's creation to interpret God's word, i.e., using the data to modify the theory, instead of the other way around.

 

[lucaspa]

But from the overall context of the bible, I never come away with the impression that genesis was not meant to be understood as a part of history. Whenever a person later in the bible makes reference to the creation account, they never give the impression that they're just reciting poetry, or what not.

We also refer to fictional events and people as tho they are not fictional. For instance, a new slang term for a tough, combative women (such as those found in combat roles in the military) is a "Buffy chick". There's nothing in there to indicate that Buffy is a fictional character, but she is. Sometimes we refer to a very good detective as "he's like Sherlock Holmes". Well, Holme's is fictional, too.

What we are doing is making a reference to something everyone knows about in order to make another point. It doesn't matter whether the original reference is fictional or not, as long as people know what it is so that they can figure out the point we are making. In all the examples where NT refers back to Genesis 1-11, this is how it's done. The reference is something the listener knows about and is familiar with, therefore they can understand the point being made. For instance, in one case Jesus compares the coming of the Kingdom to people living just before the Flood. The people were oblivious to the coming of the Flood and weren't behaving any differently. And this is the same situation to the coming of the Kingdom. There will be no advance signs and people will behave as they always have.

But I guess that wasn't really the point of this thread. I just wanted to know how TE's interpret the "very good" part.

 

[billwald]

Seems to me that the biblical uses of "good" followed by "very good" destroy the theory that God always does everything "perfectly." Sometimes he makes things that are "good enough for government work."

Had a shop teacher who liked to ask, "Are you building a dog house or a clock?" Apparently God works the same way.

He could have done a better job on the human knee. Maybe used a teflon lining.

 

[lucaspa]

Seems to me that the biblical uses of "good" followed by "very good" destroy the theory that God always does everything "perfectly." Sometimes he makes things that are "good enough for government work."

I agree that God saying "good" and "very good" does destroy the literalist theory that the earth was perfect before Adam and Eve's disobedience.

Remember, natural selection makes things that are "good enough for government work". So, is this a possible hint that God created by evolution?

He could have done a better job on the human knee. Maybe used a teflon lining.

You have hit upon a theological problem if God manufactured each species directly -- such as humans. The knee is only one example. It seems He did an even worse job on the back -- particularly the intervertebral discs.