-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is Theistic Evolution? - An explanation
- Thread starter Alchemist
- Start date
- Status
A question for TEs
I've been trying to settle my position on this whole creation thing. Do TEs, on the whole believe in a literal Garden of Eden, but take chapter 1 as meterphoric for evolution? If this is the case, please explain the seventh day rest in context of your reading? One last thing, do you agree with the following: Evolution is the God directed tool of biological creation. Man having been evolued up to a point, then recived a soul/spirit form God in order to take his place in creation, the first man being Adam?
PS: BUMP
I've been trying to settle my position on this whole creation thing. Do TEs, on the whole believe in a literal Garden of Eden, but take chapter 1 as meterphoric for evolution? If this is the case, please explain the seventh day rest in context of your reading? One last thing, do you agree with the following: Evolution is the God directed tool of biological creation. Man having been evolued up to a point, then recived a soul/spirit form God in order to take his place in creation, the first man being Adam?
PS: BUMP
Upvote
0
You will find TE's hold differing opinions about a literal Adam and Eve and an literal Garden, but most concluding that it does not matter. Adam could be typological for Mankind (one of the definitions of "Adam"), or he could be a literal person chosen as a representative at the time God "breathed" life into Mankind as a whole, or he could be the sole person God chose to breathe into and all descended from him, etc. Lots of possibilities, none of them required by either text or theology, IMO. I tend toward a typological Adam, and the second Creation account being a story about literal events regarding Mankind as a whole, but told in figurative, symbolic and poetic terms. But I am not dogmatic about this and if I found out there was a literal Adam, I would not be surprised and it would not change my theology at all. Almost a non-issue, really.
But yes, I think that most TE's would agree that Mankind evolved up to a point at which time something happened which is figuratively described as God "breathing" into them at that point. Some will say it was a specific supernatural event. Some (Karl and Gluadys, possibly) that it was something God built right into to the process, knowing that it would just naturally happen at a "critical mass" point. I tend toward the supernatural event.
As for Genesis 1, I don't think any TE here (other than maybe Glenn) think that the first Creation account is attempting to provide a strict literal/historical presentation of the process, much less of evolution in particular. Again, I see it is as a figurative literary presentation of actual, very REAL events, and most of the TE's here seem to accept something like this. The seventh day of rest is part of the literary framework God used to describe the process, since He could then mandate a day of rest for His creation, and a year of rest for crops (God used the "six/one" ratio for both days and for years in different commandments, indicating that the ratio was a motif, a teaching tool, and not strictly literal).
I think Gluadys described the Framework literary analysis very well:
Basically it relies on the parallelism of the creative days. As Lamoureux explains it, it begins with the reference to "tohu" (formless) and "bohu" (empty) in v. 2
Then the six days are set in parallel tables so:
Days of formation (end of "tohu")
1. Light/Dark (aka Day/Night) (some would call this the structure of time)
2. Heaven/Earth
3. Sea/Land (with vegetation)
Days of filling/populating (end of "bohu")
4 (corresponding to 1) Day/Night filled with sun, moon and stars
5 (corresponding to 2) Heaven and (water-covered) Earth filled with air and sea creatures
6 (corresponding to 3) Land filled with terrestrial creatures
Finally the account concludes with the seventh day of rest.
The parallelism suggests that the days are not intended to be understood as sequential as on a calendar, but as thematic. It is just a way of grouping things. So neither the length of day nor the order of the days has any bearing on later scientific discoveries about the time period or order in which different species appeared on earth.
But yes, I think that most TE's would agree that Mankind evolved up to a point at which time something happened which is figuratively described as God "breathing" into them at that point. Some will say it was a specific supernatural event. Some (Karl and Gluadys, possibly) that it was something God built right into to the process, knowing that it would just naturally happen at a "critical mass" point. I tend toward the supernatural event.
As for Genesis 1, I don't think any TE here (other than maybe Glenn) think that the first Creation account is attempting to provide a strict literal/historical presentation of the process, much less of evolution in particular. Again, I see it is as a figurative literary presentation of actual, very REAL events, and most of the TE's here seem to accept something like this. The seventh day of rest is part of the literary framework God used to describe the process, since He could then mandate a day of rest for His creation, and a year of rest for crops (God used the "six/one" ratio for both days and for years in different commandments, indicating that the ratio was a motif, a teaching tool, and not strictly literal).
I think Gluadys described the Framework literary analysis very well:
Basically it relies on the parallelism of the creative days. As Lamoureux explains it, it begins with the reference to "tohu" (formless) and "bohu" (empty) in v. 2
Then the six days are set in parallel tables so:
Days of formation (end of "tohu")
1. Light/Dark (aka Day/Night) (some would call this the structure of time)
2. Heaven/Earth
3. Sea/Land (with vegetation)
Days of filling/populating (end of "bohu")
4 (corresponding to 1) Day/Night filled with sun, moon and stars
5 (corresponding to 2) Heaven and (water-covered) Earth filled with air and sea creatures
6 (corresponding to 3) Land filled with terrestrial creatures
Finally the account concludes with the seventh day of rest.
The parallelism suggests that the days are not intended to be understood as sequential as on a calendar, but as thematic. It is just a way of grouping things. So neither the length of day nor the order of the days has any bearing on later scientific discoveries about the time period or order in which different species appeared on earth.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the info Vance!! I think its about time I hung up my antaganistic veiws on this, and brought some shiny new ones called TE. I could tell you why I've just done that, if you think it helps. Actually call me Eddy (not my real name) if you think it helps.
-Stops digging-
-Stops digging-
Upvote
0
Reminds me of the song "you can call me Al"
Yes, I think it would be very interesting to hear how you came to your current position, whether held with deep conviction or still tentatively. Maybe a new thread?
Yes, I think it would be very interesting to hear how you came to your current position, whether held with deep conviction or still tentatively. Maybe a new thread?
Upvote
0
Matthew777
Faith is the evidence of things unseen
- Feb 8, 2005
- 5,839
- 107
- 39
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Theistic evolution perhaps is the mother of all errors within contemporary religious thought. First of all, one should critically examine the purported evidence for evolution. Notice that each animal appears in the fossil record fully formed according to its kind with no intermediates.
Given that evolution cannot be proved, one should believe the account of origins which is most befitting of an omniscient, omnipotent God.
The text of Genesis is written as a historical account and is treated as such by Jesus Christ, St. Paul, the fathers of the Church, and God Himself (Exodus 20).
If it weren't for the secular "knowledge" of Darwinism, no Christian would be reduced to believing in such a system as theistic evolution.
Given that evolution cannot be proved, one should believe the account of origins which is most befitting of an omniscient, omnipotent God.
The text of Genesis is written as a historical account and is treated as such by Jesus Christ, St. Paul, the fathers of the Church, and God Himself (Exodus 20).
If it weren't for the secular "knowledge" of Darwinism, no Christian would be reduced to believing in such a system as theistic evolution.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Matthew777 said:
This is simply not true.
Another untruth, followed by what I can only describe as an appeal to God's ego.
From God's ego to your own; how proud you must feel to not be "reduced" to such an inferior belief.
Upvote
0
Matthew777 said:
The theory of evolution requires that all species be "fully formed". A species which is only partially formed in some way could not survive and pass its genes to its descendant species.
That you would cite this as evidence against evolution indicates that you have very little understanding of evolution.
The study of evolution has shown that all species belong to groups descended from a common ancestor species. The common ancestor, together with all the species descended from it, is called a "clade". "Clade" is the nearest scientific word to "kind".
What is most essential to understand is that clades can be large or small and that smaller clades fit inside of larger ones. For example: take the clade of domestic dogs. Both creationists and evolutionists agree that they all have one wild ancestor which was a type of wolf. That ancestral wolf, together with all domestic dogs is a clade.
But the wolf ancestor of domestic dogs is/was not the only type of wolf. There is a larger group of wolves which presumably also had a common ancestor---the first wolf species. So wolves as a whole are also a clade, and the clade of domestic dogs fits inside the wolf clade.
Genetic evidence indicates that wolves are closely related to a number of similar carnivores such as coyotes, dingos and hyenas. Most creationists would agree that these are part of the dog "kind". So we have a still larger clade (called Canis) that includes all these types of canines as smaller clades within the larger clade.
The fox clade can be grouped with all the above to make a super-clade that includes dogs, wolves, their near kin and all the variety of foxes. The scientific term for this clade is Canidae--the canid or dog family.
Another clade are the ursids (bears) and there is both genetic and fossil evidence that ursids and canids have a common bear-dog ancestor.
The important thing to note about these clades within clades within clades is that every species in a small clade belongs to all the larger clades that the small clade is part of. Furthermore, even as species change and give rise to new species they never change which clade they are part of.
All descendants of the common ursid-canid ancestor are either some kind of bear or some kind of canid. All descendants of the common ancestor of the super-canine clade are some kind of fox or some kind of canine. All descendants of the original canine belong to one of the smaller canine clades: hyena, jackal, wolf, etc. All descendants of the original wolf species are either some type of wolf or some type of domestic dog.
IOW, in each clade, large or small, species reproduce after their clade-kind. This is what evolution expects to happen. This is why evolution expects that when fruit-flies speciate, the new species will be new species of fruit-flies, not species of butterflies. Evolution just as stringently expects species to reproduce after their kind as Genesis does.
This statement shows ignorance of scientific method. No theory that depends on evidence (and that applies to all scientific theories) can be proved. It can only be accepted provisionally as the best theory that accounts for all current evidence. Future evidence may provide observations the theory does not account for.
Given that proviso, however, we can say that evolution does fully account for all current evidence regarding the relationships of species to each other. No other theory comes even close. Creationism, in particular, is contradicted by the evidence.
The account of origins which most befits God is the one that is true----whatever it is.
That is a matter of opinion, a thesis which is unresolved in the court of human opinion and for which we have no idea of God's opinion, so it is rather arrogant of you to assume God agrees with you.
From where I stand, it is creationism which reduces God and his creation.
Upvote
0
True, Gluadys, I am actually more in awe over the idea of God creating over billions of years via evolution than I would be over an immediate special creation. But I think your point is that TE's are not reducing God because we don't limit how God could have done it.
Upvote
0
Vance said:
That is how I felt the very day I first read a proper scientific description of evolution. There is a grand sweep of dynamic energy and order in the patterns of evolution that I just don't see in special creation.
I have to agree with Darwin's conclusion to Origin of Species:
"There is a grandeur in this view of life...."
and I think it is most befitting of God.
Upvote
0
It is not the TE's that put God in a box of human concepts, since we are open to HOWEVER God did it. It is, instead, many YEC's who are dogmatically insisting that there is only ONE way He could have done it, based on their human (and thus fallible) reading of Scripture. If we discovered more information tomorrow about how God created. and it conflicted with the current understanding of evolutionary development, I would rejoice since it would simply mean we know more about the details. I am not married to the theory of evolution in and of itself, but only to the extent that it is the best explanation of the HOW. And, since I don't believe that the Creation accounts are attempting to telling us those details, my understanding of Genesis STAYS EXACTLY THE SAME! It would change no more than if we discovered a better theory of gravity or any other natural process.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
