Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[hsilgne]

I recently read this quote from an athiest and it made allot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the quote in front of me so I will paraphrase...

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam, therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Your thoughts?

 

[Markus6]

Your thoughts?

Atheists aren't the best source of Christian theology?

 

[KerrMetric]

I recently read this quote from an athiest and it made allot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the quote in front of me so I will paraphrase...

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam, therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Your thoughts?

Gosh darn, these pesky atheist theology experts are correct. I hereby renounce all belief based upon this one thread.

Isn't atheist theology like military intelligence or compassionate Conservatism or jumbo shrimp?

 

[Parmenio]

The atheist is not really looking at it in the right context I don't believe. That parable about the first man and woman is just a parable about how mankind as a whole fell from grace. It doesn't need to have been a specific woman taking from a tree, it need only be mankind disobeying God. So assuming evolution, when mankind was finally evolved they were imperfect and fell short of God's grace.

 

[busterdog]

I recently read this quote from an athiest and it made allot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the quote in front of me so I will paraphrase...

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam, therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Your thoughts?

This observation is right on.

We have also discussed here whether "death entered" with the fall, or whether death was really the mother of humanity in that we were created out of an evolutionary process that required death.

Also of note is the distinction between the paradise that preceded the fall and the evolutionist view of the law of the jungle out of which we were created.

And of course, what is the end of things to look like if the fall was really just some relatively metephorical fall? What would restoration for man be? Could there really be a glorified body? What would paradise then be in the end? Are we just going to evolve out of our present misery or is Jesus really going to come? Quite frankly, I would be very proufoundly disappointed if all I have to look forward to is a parable of paradise that is the equivalent of a mere parable of the fall.

Yes, it is absolutely all related.

Obviously there is a huge division with Christians on both sides of this issue.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man

No, it doesn't.

therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

I don't need to read Genesis to know that I am sinful. I don't need to look beyond myself to know that I am in need of a personal saviour.

Addendum: I've seen many fundamentalists get upset with TEs for siding with atheists on issues of science. What I find even more upsetting is fundamentalists siding with atheists on issues of theology.

 

[Smidlee]

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam, therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Your thoughts?

In other words , If the first Adam is a myth then it's possible the Second Adam was a myth also. There are some TE here who believes the First Adam was a myth so an atheist goes one step farther and see the Second a myth as well.
As far as scripture I can find no hint that Adam wasn't a real person no more or less than Jesus.

Added: Yet atheist themselves got their own problem; They have no choice but still believe in the supernatural; raw nature even with unlimit amount of time that eventually produce man (intelligence) is still a very supernatural act which requires great faith to believe. Still begs the question how can you get intelligence from non-intelligent unguided nature?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I recently read this quote from an athiest and it made allot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the quote in front of me so I will paraphrase...

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam, therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Your thoughts?

i'll repeat my current mantra.

i think that evolutionary theory is the best scientific theory as to how life got to where i can see it today.

i don't think that science or atheists have a lot to say about my theology, they have little to no effect on my theological system.

I believe that Adam was a real historical human being that lived about 10K years ago in what is now called Iraq. That he is the federal head of all of humanity. and that through him human sin and disobedience to God's will entered into humanity.

i don't believe that the death of anything but human beings has a moral or ethical quality to it. That only human beings have an immortal soul that communicates with God and is made in the image of God although badly cracked and distorted by the fall and personal and corporate sin is still imaging God.

I challenge you to find anything i've written in 5K postings here (except that single point the Adam is the progenitor of Semitic peoples not the physical progenitor of all humanity) that differs in any way from any other conservative reformed Christian. My theology is indistinguishable from anyone else's that subscribes to the WCF. the scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with my theology.

the problem with YECists is that they so badly conflate religion with science that they believe everyone must do it as well and that if you don't you can not have a Christian theology. nonsense.

 

[busterdog]

i'll repeat my current mantra.

i think that evolutionary theory is the best scientific theory as to how life got to where i can see it today.

i don't think that science or atheists have a lot to say about my theology, they have little to no effect on my theological system.

I believe that Adam was a real historical human being that lived about 10K years ago in what is now called Iraq. That he is the federal head of all of humanity. and that through him human sin and disobedience to God's will entered into humanity.

i don't believe that the death of anything but human beings has a moral or ethical quality to it. That only human beings have an immortal soul that communicates with God and is made in the image of God although badly cracked and distorted by the fall and personal and corporate sin is still imaging God.

I challenge you to find anything i've written in 5K postings here (except that single point the Adam is the progenitor of Semitic peoples not the physical progenitor of all humanity) that differs in any way from any other conservative reformed Christian. My theology is indistinguishable from anyone else's that subscribes to the WCF. the scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with my theology.

the problem with YECists is that they so badly conflate religion with science that they believe everyone must do it as well and that if you don't you can not have a Christian theology. nonsense.

OK. Much appreciated.

But, to be clear, the OP was about a secular view of evolution.

I am a glad that the TE folks here are not pure Darwinists (I guess).

I still think the OP should challenge macro-evolution of all stripes.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But, to be clear, the OP was about a secular view of evolution.

but this forum is restricted to Christians. therefore the responses the OP ought to expect are those from Christians, if he wants atheists to respond the appropriate forum exists for their input.

the problem with YECists is that they so badly conflate religion with science that they believe everyone must do it as well and that if you don't you can not have a Christian theology. nonsense.

this is a big deal. i never tire of this quote:

Scientific findings...ought to be judged on their own merits, regardless of the ethical connotations some people might see in them. Ethical choices, OTOH-while they should certainly be informed by the best science available-are too important to be left only in the hands of scientists. ... This confusion between the purposes of science and religion is of course based on the fundamentalists' misunderstanding of their sacred scriptures as not only books on how to live, but also descriptions of how the universe works. By the same token, the, scientific discoveries must describe not only how the world is, but how it should be. This is perhaps the single most tragic mistake repeatedly made by both sides of the debate, though much more often by the religious side than the scientific side. pg 25

from:
Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
by Massimo Pigliucci

 

[DailyBlessings]

Addendum: I've seen many fundamentalists get upset with TEs for siding with atheists on issues of science. What I find even more upsetting is fundamentalists siding with atheists on issues of theology.

But you would actually kind of expect fundamentalists and atheists to agree on certain theological premises, since the two movements are opposite responses to the same phenomenon- the advent of science and general rejection of spiritual explanations.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But you would actually kind of expect fundamentalists and atheists to agree on certain theological premises, since the two movements are opposite responses to the same phenomenon- the advent of science and general rejection of spiritual explanations.

There is a significant truth to this.

see how parallel the Fundamentalist or YECist type of Scripture-science interface is to the same Science-scripture interface for some atheists.

YEC:the Bible must be scientifically and historically true for it to be an accurate revelation from a truthful God. Science supports the Bible therefore it is from God.

Atheist:For the Bible to be believable it must conform to modern science and history, it does not. Therefore it is not a revelation from God. In fact, it's error show that such a God can not exist as proposed by the book.

they both share the same 19thC scottish common sense hermeneutic that the Bible must present itself to them in a logical, scientific, historical manner without the context or culture of those it was written to being considered or intervening. The YECist exclaims "see science proves the Bible right" and the atheist says "see science proves the Bible wrong". Yet both use the same basic technique for reading it. curious and i think you are right, it stems from the clashes of science and theology from the time of the discovery of deep geology time to the general cultural acceptance of evolution, roughly the 19thC.

I think that Bacon's metaphor of the two Books of God is a useful way to summary these things.

God wrote the Book of Works-the Creation of the universe and He wrote the Book of Words-Scripture. YECist believe that you must read the universe through the Scriptures, that Scripture trumps creation. Some atheists believe your must read the universe and then read the scriptures, thus reality trumps scripture... I'd rather believe that we must read the two books together, using one to correct our interpretation of the other when problems arise in either. We have faulty hermeneutical principles(Scripture) and we have erronous epistemological(Creation) ones as well, it is in the interaction of the two books that we will be able to get a truer picture than with either one alone.

 

[busterdog]

But you would actually kind of expect fundamentalists and atheists to agree on certain theological premises, since the two movements are opposite responses to the same phenomenon- the advent of science and general rejection of spiritual explanations.

Right. Obviously we are not agreeing "on a theology." The point is spurious. That we have a common logic means nothing.

 

[Mallon]

Right. Obviously we are not agreeing "on a theology." The point is spurious. That we have a common logic means nothing.

Why is the common logic re: evolution shared between TEs and secular evolutionists a problem, then?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But you would actually kind of expect fundamentalists and atheists to agree on certain theological premises, since the two movements are opposite responses to the same phenomenon- the advent of science and general rejection of spiritual explanations.

Has anyone else looked carefully at this issue of 19thC hermeneutics?

i started with Mark Noll's book America's God especially chapters 18 and 19.
chapter 18 "The 'Bible Alone' and a Reformed, Literal Hermeneutic"
see: http://rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com/84610.html

i spent a considerable amount of time on the slavery tangent and wouldn't mind continuing to study on the relationship of modern YECist hermeneutics to the clash of science and religion in the 19thC.

so does anyone have a few favorite references on the topic?
even good website essays would be appreciated.
tia.


to save some time i've read:

Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
by George M. Marsden


Protestants in an Age of Science: The Baconian Ideal and Ante-Bellum American Religious Thought
by Theodore Dwight Bozeman
which is right on the topic i'd like to get back into.

 

[Assyrian]

I recently read this quote from an athiest and it made allot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the quote in front of me so I will paraphrase...

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam,

I think there are two problems with this. Evolution simply deals with biological development, but the bible describes man as spiritual as well as physical. Evolution tells us nothing of when, or how, or in how many people God first 'breathed' a spirit into man.

The other issue is that Genesis describes Adam as plural Gen 1:27 & 5:2. While Paul talks of Adam as the 'first man', he also treats Adam as something more than a single individual, it is a title that includes the whole human race. Adam is Hebrew for 'Man', it could be an individual man, or the whole human race.

therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Original Sin is a fifth century theological term rather than a biblical phrase. The bible tells us all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that is why we need a Saviour to reconcile us to God.

Right. Obviously we are not agreeing "on a theology." The point is spurious. That we have a common logic means nothing.

Actually Atheists and YECs can agree very closely on their theology in this issue, as well as in their literalist interpretation of Genesis, the difference between them is that one group believes it is true while the other doesn't. But both would claim this is what the bible actually teaches.

Yet while it makes sense for Christians and Atheists to have the same understanding of science, it is stranger that non believers and those who are filled with the Spirit of God should have the same understanding and interpretation of the Word of God and his Salvation.

 

[stumpjumper]

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam, therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Your thoughts?

Couple of issues...

First, it assumes western theology and an Augustinian view of original sin which is not shared by Orthodox Christians at all and by many non-Augustinian Catholics and Protestants...

What is original sin, anyway? It is different from actual sin and something that affects our whole person and existence. It is our estrangement from God and our blindness to the spirtual reality that confronts us... We are free subjective creatures and original sin is our propensity to commit actual sin because of our perceived estrangement from God...

That propensity to sin is extent simply because of our free nature and is consonant with a naturalistic explanation of our origins...

 

[shernren]

OK. Much appreciated.

But, to be clear, the OP was about a secular view of evolution.

I am a glad that the TE folks here are not pure Darwinists (I guess).

I still think the OP should challenge macro-evolution of all stripes.

So if the OP challenges a secular view of evolution, which should we drop - evolution? or the secular view of it?

Clearly a view of evolution in which humans still sin and still need a Savior would altogether sidestep the objection raised in the OP. So I don't see why it challenges anything I hold important.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I recently read this quote from an athiest and it made allot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the quote in front of me so I will paraphrase...

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam, therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Your thoughts?

I think that this is the basics of it. If Adam really didn't exist that we don't know that man actually sinned. Then there is no need for grace and no need for God.

We forget that Genesis records that man was formed from the dust, not evolved from some other species.

 

[Mallon]

If Adam really didn't exist that [sic] we don't know that man actually sinned.

Why not?