Why does creation/evolution matter?

[stevevw]

I must ask the question... why does it matter how God created things, as long as He is the one who created them? Correct me if I am wrong, but the entire point of the Creation story in Genesis is that God is the responsible party, not us, not anyone but Him. So if He poofed things into existence, or used complex biological processes, should not matter.

Thoughts?

your right it should not matter to the point where people are getting confused and upset. Some people like to investigate things and so long as they keep reminding themselves that salvation is based on faith, then it should not matter. The scientific method is important but it doesnt have all the answers and luckily salvation is not based on science becuase there are many people who cannot for one reason or another understand things scientifcally. It is right to keep things simple in the sense that we may never know scientifically how life began but the important thing is that it needed God one way or another. I like to think that even if life does evolve that this is Gods way of creating life and helping it live on planet earth.

 

[Papias]

Thoughts?

TNF_13, did you see my response, which was post #5? Was it helpful? Thanks - Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

I must ask the question... why does it matter how God created things, as long as He is the one who created them?

Many of the peripheral issues people argue about are pointless. And, evolution should not be a litmus test for gaining admission the way many people try to use it.

However, evolution does impinge on a few theological issues and also can cause people to dismiss the Bible as an irrelevant document written by ignorant people.

 

[Jamsie]

However, evolution does impinge on a few theological issues and also can cause people to dismiss the Bible as an irrelevant document written by ignorant people.

I would agree though it would depend on how one chooses to define "evolution". As a God created process is quite distinct from that of an "all encompassing" explanation of life as some would define the term.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would agree though it would depend on how one chooses to define "evolution".

It does. So, just as atheists always ask me to "define my god", I ask evolutionists to define evolution. My experience is that they are equally arduous tasks.

 

[Speedwell]

Many of the peripheral issues people argue about are pointless. And, evolution should not be a litmus test for gaining admission the way many people try to use it.

However, evolution does impinge on a few theological issues and also can cause people to dismiss the Bible as an irrelevant document written by ignorant people.

I can't agree with that, given the number of Christians who accept evolution and also revere the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. If there is such dismissal, it is more likely to stem from the hard-line "all literally true or all trash" line taken by creationists.

 

[Resha Caner]

I can't agree with that, given the number of Christians who accept evolution and also revere the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. If there is such dismissal, it is more likely to stem from the hard-line "all literally true or all trash" line taken by creationists.

Sure, there are many theistic evolutionists. There are also many non-believers who state evolution was their reason for dismissing the Bible. I wasn't making an all or nothing statement.

Regardless, I've not yet found a theistic evolutionist wherein evolution is not the source of at least one theological difference between us.

 

[Jamsie]

I can't agree with that, given the number of Christians who accept evolution and also revere the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. If there is such dismissal, it is more likely to stem from the hard-line "all literally true or all trash" line taken by creationists.

...or another option is a reading of Genesis with "sufficient delicacy" - GK if one chooses a literal and historical narrative. One can take a somewhat agnostic view with regard to any certainty yet hold to a particular interpretation.

 

[Dirk1540]

Regardless, I've not yet found a theistic evolutionist wherein evolution is not the source of at least one theological difference between us.

Hi, can you elaborate on this? I am still finding myself on the fence with common descent, but I believe it comes down to hermeneutic interpretation differences of early Genesis. Are there other differences that you are referring to?

 

[Resha Caner]

Hi, can you elaborate on this? I am still finding myself on the fence with common descent, but I believe it comes down to hermeneutic interpretation differences of early Genesis. Are there other differences that you are referring to?

I'm not sure what type of interpretation differences you refer to. There is always a first time, but I've not yet met a theistic evolutionist that doesn't, in some way, reduce Genesis to allegory. There is, additionally, a whole host of issues regarding sin, death, and the emergence of the soul.

 

[Jamsie]

I'm not sure what type of interpretation differences you refer to. There is always a first time, but I've not yet met a theistic evolutionist that doesn't, in some way, reduce Genesis to allegory. There is, additionally, a whole host of issues regarding sin, death, and the emergence of the soul.

Just to note, though I don't refer to my interpretation as theistic evolution, I do not consider Genesis creation account as allegory. As I stated in a previous post I do believe one should approach creation with a humble agnosticism. However, I believe Genesis when taken as a historical narrative offers a defensible position for evolutionary processes with the literal interpretation of the text. I would just add that I fully agree with you that YEC/evolution creates a very real barrier to belief in the Bible.

 

[Resha Caner]

However, I believe Genesis when taken as a historical narrative offers a defensible position for evolutionary processes with the literal interpretation of the text.

Again, that depends on what one means by the term "evolution". I am neither YEC nor evolutionist, but my opinions lie somewhere in the middle.

 

[Jamsie]

Again, that depends on what one means by the term "evolution". I am neither YEC nor evolutionist, but my opinions lie somewhere in the middle.

My point was simply that one need not consider Genesis to be "allegory" in order to hold to some form of theistic evolution. From my perspective "evolution" would be defined as a God ordained process, and again that based on a clear reading of Genesis.

 

[Resha Caner]

My point was simply that one need not consider Genesis to be "allegory" in order to hold to some form of theistic evolution. From my perspective "evolution" would be defined as a God ordained process, and again that based on a clear reading of Genesis.

I guess you're the first I've met to express that view. I'm glad you are open to accepting Genesis as history, but I don't see how an idea of descent w/ modification can be reconciled with the text. I guess you can define evolution as you please, but it opens the door to conflation to define it as a "God ordained process" and then claim you're talking about the same thing as a biologist.

 

[Speedwell]

. I guess you can define evolution as you please, but it opens the door to conflation to define it as a "God ordained process" and then claim you're talking about the same thing as a biologist.

Why not? There is nothing about the biological theory of evolution which prevents it from being a God ordained process.

 

[Jamsie]

I guess you're the first I've met to express that view. I'm glad you are open to accepting Genesis as history, but I don't see how an idea of descent w/ modification can be reconciled with the text. I guess you can define evolution as you please, but it opens the door to conflation to define it as a "God ordained process" and then claim you're talking about the same thing as a biologist.

I agree with Speedwell's "Why not? There is nothing about the biological theory of evolution which prevents it from being a God ordained process." One can't help but notice in a clear reading of the Genesis text that God commands mediate agency. Perhaps this is not the thread for this but it has been discussed elsewhere...though the YEC person with whom I was discussing chose to call me a liar. I believe any serious reading of Genesis demonstrates not immediacy but processes.


i

 

[Resha Caner]

Why not? There is nothing about the biological theory of evolution which prevents it from being a God ordained process.

I agree there is nothing that would prevent a god from employing an evolutionary process. Further, some of the mechanisms that fall under the evolutionary umbrella are well-evidenced. I simply don't see how certain aspects of God's Word can be reconciled with certain aspects of evolution.

So, when traveling from Seattle to Tacoma it is possible to take either I-5 or Hwy 509. But if someone says they took I-5, it's wrong to say it makes sense to talk about them traveling on Hwy 509.

I agree with Speedwell's "Why not?

Then you can read my answer above.

 

[Speedwell]

I simply don't see how certain aspects of God's Word can be reconciled with certain aspects of evolution.

For instance?

 

[Resha Caner]

For instance?

I would interpret Genesis 2:7 as not only the gift of life, but Adam's reception of the Holy Spirit (per Genesis 1:27 & John 20:22). From your evolutionary view, what was the first creation to receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[Jamsie]

I simply don't see how certain aspects of God's Word can be reconciled with certain aspects of evolution.

I will try and explain this as briefly as I am able.

Genesis 1

“And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that God’s command was the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient, certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.

Gen. 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.”
It would be difficult not to notice that plainly the command is immediately fulfilled.

The creation begins with the very same structure “And God said, ...” however, the command is not directed to immediate completion but through agency – mediate creation. God commands separation, God commands the land and the water to bring forth/produce living vegetation, fish, whales, birds, livestock, etc. No where does it say “And God said, Let there be vegetation, seed bearing trees, etc. ...” nowhere does it say “And God said, Let there be living creatures...” obviously this is avoided but rather the command/fiat is fully sufficient and to an intermediary source. This in no way negates His creative power but rather suggests how he choose to create.

It should also be clear that in fact mediate agency for creation in it’s most basic form involves, for example, man as well as animals. Both are made from “dust” thus much of creation was made from pre-existing material...not ex nihilo, and that is mediate creation. If God's command is all sufficient and the sole operative agent then what follows the command would be by necessity explanatory.

It should be noted that this command days (or whatever one chooses to call the interpretation) holds to six days of creative commands. It is also not necessary, though possible, to hold to the days being consecutive but rather as Day 1, Day 2, etc. as fiat days of indeterminate duration.