Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[DailyBlessings]

I think that this is the basics of it. If Adam really didn't exist that we don't know that man actually sinned.

We.. don't? Even if it weren't obvious to see (do you know any sinless people, save the Lord? Me neither) than we still have scripture to inform us of the fact. This is in fact the point of the Genesis narrative. Why is the state of humanity dependent on the existence or non-existence of a single human life?

 

[shernren]

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

That's a strange thing to say. When I know that I have sinned, it is because I know that I have done something which harms my relationship with God. I don't see why I need a story of a naked couple swallowing contraband carbohydrate to know what sin is and that I do it.

 

[hsilgne]

No, it doesn't.

Out of all these responses, this is the one that sticks in my mind the most at this point.

Could you elaborate on this please.

Thank you.

 

[Mallon]

Out of all these responses, this is the one that sticks in my mind the most at this point.

Could you elaborate on this please.

Thank you.

Sure.
Evolution does not teach that there could not have been a first man. Knowing humans are monophyletic, there had to be.

 

[jcj3803]

There have been two instances recently where geneticists have apparently found a "prime mother" and a "prime father" that all humans appear to be descended from. I don't have the references handy and frankly, I haven't followed it much. I heard about it in a hallway conversation among a group of genetics counselors.

I think the first ten chapters of Genesis is allegorical, but this might just be "Adam" and "Eve".

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There have been two instances recently where geneticists have apparently found a "prime mother" and a "prime father" that all humans appear to be descended from. I don't have the references handy and frankly, I haven't followed it much. I heard about it in a hallway conversation among a group of genetics counselors.

I think the first ten chapters of Genesis is allegorical, but this might just be "Adam" and "Eve".

google:
mitochrondrial eve

to get into the literature online.
the problem?
these adam(s) and eve(s) lived tens of thousands of years apart.
they represent family lines that survived to the present day, mostly by genetic drift. they are not genetic bottlenecks like Noah or Adam are proposed to be. There are genetic bottlenecks and serious founders effects in human genomes, there are none proposed in the time frame YECists customarily operate in.
google:
toba volcano human beings
or look into the Iceland genetic studies.

 

[gluadys]

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?

Shows that being an atheist doesn't mean you understand evolution or Christian theology.

 

[keltoi]

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?

Your paraphrased quoteis correct.

The thing with evolution is ALL life started fro a single mold spore in the primordial soup we ow call the ocean.

This aforsaid mold spore eveolved into bigger spores and then into single celled oranism that eventually become fish who after a period of a few million years gre legs and walked onto dry land. After they gotr onto dry land they evolved into a variety of other creatures and plant forms.

Many years after this a common ancestor evloved that joins Humans and Bats into a common lineage read below.

Before Homo

The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back for some 60 million years, as one of the oldest of all surviving placental mammal groups. Most paleontologists consider that primates share a common ancestor with the bats, another extremely ancient lineage, and that this ancestor probably lived during the late Cretaceous together with the last dinosaurs. The oldest known primates come from North America, but they were widespread in Eurasia and Africa as well, during the tropical conditions of the Paleocene and Eocene. With the beginning of modern climates, marked by the formation of the first Antarctic ice in the early Oligocene around 40 million years ago, primates went extinct everywhere but Africa and southern Asia. Fossil evidence found in Germany 20 years ago (Begun, Journal of Human Evolution, 2001) was determined to be about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa. It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa. The discoveries suggest that the early ancestors of the hominids (the family of great apes and humans) migrated to Eurasia from Africa about 17 million years ago, just before these two continents were cut off from each other by an expansion of the Mediterranean Sea. Begun says that the great apes flourished in Eurasia and that their lineage leading to the African apes and humans - Dryopithecus - migrated south from Europe or Western Asia into Africa. The surviving tropical population, which is seen most completely in the upper Eocene and lowermost Oligocene fossil beds of the Fayum depression southwest of Cairo, gave rise to all living primates - lemurs of Madagascar, lorises of Southeast Asia, galagos or "bush babies" of Africa, and the anthropoids; platyrrhines or New World monkeys, and catarrhines or Old World monkeys and the great apes and humans.



This is from the Wiki and pretty much fits well with modern evolutionary theory. well one branch of it anyway. The list below indicatesevoltionary theories list of our ancestors in the Homonim line.

• Ardipithecus (5.5-4.4 MYA), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus;
• Australopithecus (4-2 MYA), with species Au. anamensis, Au. afarensis, Au. africanus, Au. bahrelghazali, and Au. garhi;
• Paranthropus (3-1.2 MYA), with species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei, and P. robustus;
• Homo (2 MYA-present).

The list below shows all known evoltionary stages and indicates to me at least abit or racial classification.

Comparative table of Homo species

Bolded species names indicate the existence of numerous fossil records. species lived when (MYA) lived where adult length (m) adult weight (kg) brain volume (cm³) fossil record discovery / publication of name H. habilis 2.5–1.5 Africa 1.0–1.5 30–55 600 many 1960/1964 H. rudolfensis 1.9 Kenya 1 skull 1972/1986 H. georgicus 1.8–1.6 Georgia 600 few 1999/2002 H. ergaster 1.9–1.25 E. and S. Africa 1.9 700–850 many 1975 H. erectus 2(1.25)–0.3 Africa, Eurasia (Java, China, Caucasus) 1.8 60 900–1100 many 1891/1892 H. cepranensis 0.8? Italy 1 skull cap 1994/2003 H. antecessor 0.8–0.35 Spain, England 1.75 90 1000 3 sites 1997 H. heidelbergensis 0.6–0.25 Europe, Africa, China 1.8 60 1100–1400 many 1908 H. neanderthalensis 0.23–0.03 Europe, W. Asia 1.6 55–70 (heavily built) 1200-1700 many (1829)/1864 H. rhodesiensis 0.3–0.12 Zambia 1300 very few 1921 H. sapiens sapiens 0.25–present worldwide 1.4–1.9 55–80 1000–1850 still living —/1758 H. sapiens idaltu 0.16 Ethiopia 1450 3 craniums 1997/2003 H. floresiensis 0.10–0.012 Indonesia 1.0 25 400 7 individuals 2003/2004

Now to ask you all a question. If weare from a mold spore that eventualy developed into mankind, is the old spores going to go to heaven or wll it be left out?

 

[shernren]

Now to ask you all a question. If weare from a mold spore that eventualy developed into mankind, is the old spores going to go to heaven or wll it be left out?

Did the old spore have a relationship with God, and did God make it a bearer of His image, and give it the opportunity to either voluntarily love and serve Him or to reject Him and sin?

If yes, for all theological intents and purposes it is a man made in the image of God, and if it accepted Jesus Christ it would go to heaven. But I doubt that anyone's answer to the question will be yes.

If no, then you might as well ask whether your pet dog or hamster will go to heaven.

There are far better theological objections to evolution than this, and far better ways to try to put it across.

 

[keltoi]

She is a dog!

There are far better theological objections to evolution than this,

I humbly disagree simply because evoltionary theory rests on the idea that everything come from 1 common ancestor. It just happens that that common ancestor was apparently a mold spore. If you as a Christian can show how ludicrous that idea is then you have made your point.

 

[Mallon]

She is a dog!
I humbly disagree simply because evoltionary theory rests on the idea that everything come from 1 common ancestor. It just happens that that common ancestor was apparently a mold spore. If you as a Christian can show how ludicrous that idea is then you have made your point.

But shernren's just did show how ludicrous your position is. You can humbly disagree all you want, but the fact remains that only cogniscent people accepting of Christ are saved. If you wish to believe that mold spores are capable of the same, then I would question who's position is more ludicrous.

 

[RenHoek]

My biggest issue with an allegorical Genesis is that it corrupts NT theology and Christ’s bloodline.

Lu 3:38 -
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
How can Luke write this falsehood in the proof of who Christ is?

Ro 5:14 -
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
How is a pattern allegorical? Can you make clothing from an allegorical pattern? No. A template is physical and real.
1Co 15:22 -
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
1Co 15:45 -
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
This is a one to one relationship to show salvation is brought by one man/God as sin proliferated from one man. How is this a parallel if Adam did not exist?

1Ti 2:13 -
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
How could this be true if they both evolved gradually? Is scripture riddled with misinformation?

1Ti 2:14 -
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
How is this possible if they never existed? Theology corrupted by falsehood again.

Jude 1:14 -
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
Did Enoch exist?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the son of Adam, the son of God
is the same relationship of son, the same between Seth and Adam as it is to Adam and God?
not in the same way.
Adam's sonship to God is allegorical, is it a structured metaphor? looks like like it.
adam is to God as seth is to Adam.

death reigned from the time of Adam
this is a metaphor likewise. It is an allegory as well. Death is being compared to a king reigning over a kingdom, the point is domination, but it is expressed as a metaphor.
death is often allegoricalized, death as a reaper, death as a dark, faceless, now if you see a skeleton inside a cloak, that is all metaphor and allegory. It is a complex story full of symbolism and images.
death as the ceasing of breath is a metaphor based on observation. ceasing to breath is not death but an effect that is observable, we mentally flip death=no breath around to be no breath = death.

How is a pattern allegorical?
how is federal headship allegorical? almost by definition which you observe next:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
this is an allegory. all men are to Adam as the elect are to Christ. it is substituting one idea for another, drawning parallels from the one and applying they to the other.

i could go on, but you see the point, almost everything we read here is a literary structure, often a metaphor, often an allegorical where one thing more obvious than another is being used to illustrate the more difficult one.
The interesting thing is that Adam as federal head is best looked at as allegorical, not physical since we are not physically related to Christ, but metaphorically as adopted children. adoption itself is a metaphor and an anthromorphic accommodation to our culture.

see the point?
the Bible is best looked at first as literature and then as literal scientific history (often a distant second)

 

[RenHoek]

the Bible is best looked at first as literature and then as literal scientific history (often a distant second)

First as the Word of God in my book and everything else pales after that. I have to compare His tendencies throughout scripture regardless of literary style. Poetry can be history and prophecy and so on. Literary style is a means to communicate, not a means of interpretation as far as I am concerned. Either way…
1Co 14:33
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
I believe He means what He says the way He says it regardless of style. Is God style over substance?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Is God style over substance?


sometimes, for instance, in Gen 1, the style of the presentation as a Sabbath week overrides all the content and completely structures it.

First as the Word of God in my book and everything else pales after that

Look at just how complex this "simple sentence" of yours is.
The Word of God is a very complex metaphor, it is one of the dominant images in Scripture. The term book, look at what it evokes- a mental picture of a modern book. but what if you lived in a pre-literate and oral society, would you imagine your grandfather, like in the movie/book Farenheit 451, where people "became" books and then destroyed the books, because the material was safe in their memory.

and then there is the word "pales", look at exactly how complex and culturally significant it is.
First it refers to a color, or lack of it, what happens when a human being is afraid or ashamed (for instance). it indicates the kicking in of a particular set of physical reactions set in motion by hormones and signalling molecules. But it doesn't stop with this physical metaphor (you pale when you are afraid, you see people with the color drained from their face, and you interpret what they are experiencing). What about "the pale of settlement" which leads to beyond the pale. Look at exactly how much human physiology and history you have embedded in a single word-pale.
the word pale is it's a very complex metaphor and allegory, you are substituting one system-fight/flight response and blood flow in the face, for another "everything else is just without color". You could write an entire essay on just the societal uses of this single word.

Do you see why you have to read things, anything carefully and with great attention to all the ideas that those words are stimulating in your mind? can you even imagine how complex and amazing Gods' Own Interpretation is? or how really different from ours it will turn out to be?

 

[artybloke]

Is God style over substance?

Why are "facts" more substantial then metaphors?

Answer: because your presumptions of truth = fact is materialist/modernist rather than Biblical.

 

[Assyrian]

I believe He means what He says the way He says it regardless of style. Is God style over substance?

This is an odd thing to say. Did Jesus mean what he said the way he said it, when he said he was a door? Was it style over substance if he was using a metaphor?

 

[RenHoek]

I knew all these responses were coming. Actually rmwilliamsll did not feel as recycled (this, had I not added the parenthetical, would get the recycled comment thrown back at me).

I do not believe that God would mask His majestic deeds, in the creation of the universe, in allegory. I do not believe He would invite such confusion to those who earnestly seek Him.

Given the choice between God’s eternal word of truth and man’s best temporal guess, I will trust what God states plainly in His word. Not only states it, but builds NT theology off of it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I do not believe that God would mask His majestic deeds, in the creation of the universe, in allegory. I do not believe He would invite such confusion to those who earnestly seek Him.


the problem is that it really doesn't matter what we believe, what is important is the text and the meaning that God wants for us to derive from it.

as far as confusion is concerned.
i have never even begun to solve the issues of denominationalism in the church.

but the point is, if Gen 1 is literary framework, then to insist the i can not see how this does justice to God, then it is my conceptions that need to change, not the interpretation of the text.

a big problem here is the extraordinary modern prejudice against anything that is not scientific and historical. it shapes our movies (have you noticed that even stupid movies have to have miracles explained by people in white smocks?) our literature (the novel Hawaii is historical fiction, Dune is scifi, and lord of the rings is fantasy, why is historical fiction more believable then fantasy? ).

allegorical gets a bad rap since Luther.
mythological is a very loaded negative term.
yet much useful thinking can be done using K.Armstrong's logos vs mythos distinction.

the problem is that these things reflect our greater society, not things we have necessarily learned from Scripture. The Bible is full of parables, stories, myths, deep literary elements etc. it is a masterful literary work. there is no reason to push it into our little 19thC science and history saturated box. this procrustean bed does not do justice either to the Scriptures or to history which shows lots of Christians understanding the Bible in a very different way than we do, yet their faith is our faith, and we would not have it in hand, if they had not been faithful.

i don't think that it can be put too strongly that science and history so shape the very foundation of our modern thinking that we are almost incapable of seeing any other world, or sympathizing with the ancients and even medieval world which was composed of a very different set of dominant ideas. But our ideas about history and science are not taken (necessarily) from Scripture, but we are reading them back into Scripture because of how important they are to us.

I have only to remember how surprised my church life group was when i pointed out that Matthew had shaped the geneologies to make them into 3 sets of 14. ie Jesus is the Sabbath of Sabbaths, the 7 of 7's. our modern notions of geneology doesn't see things that way, but rather interested in the facts and nothing but the facts, thank you madam.

but this reflects our cultural prejudices, not Scriptures.

 

[RenHoek]

the problem is that it really doesn't matter what we believe, what is important is the text and the meaning that God wants for us to derive from it.

My beliefs have Biblical president and it is not a whim or a feeling where I would be inclined to agree with the above. Beliefs are quite important in the Bible. I am not arrogant enough to claim I am infallible, but I am quite secure in who God is based on His actions and communication to us via His Word.

as far as confusion is concerned.
i have never even begun to solve the issues of denominationalism in the church.

Simple. God is not the author of denominations/confusion. We are to be a united body and bear with one another. Man is the culprit here.

but the point is, if Gen 1 is literary framework, then to insist the i can not see how this does justice to God, then it is my conceptions that need to change, not the interpretation of the text.

Again, not based on a whim here. God, throughout scripture is quite keen on receiving credit, worship, love, acknowledgement for His great works. I am open to scripture where God passes credit to others for His majesty or downplays it in any way.

This is not to say the Gen passage is not rich with meaning beyond the basic story. I am fine with much of what I have heard you all read into the ramifications of the things that took place and do not feel that you are totally misguided (I know you are all relieved and will sleep better now).

Did Jesus mean what he said the way he said it, when he said he was a door?

To me there is no reason to believe that there is not a spiritual door that is Christ. Can you tell me for sure that He is not a literal door?