Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[shernren]

I do not believe that God would mask His majestic deeds, in the creation of the universe, in allegory.

When did God tell you so? I see the Bible riddled through with allegory and figurative use, and to me it is a good thing: can you imagine trying to live a religion and practice a relationship with God if the only thing He'd ever given you was a history manual?

 

[Melethiel]

I do not believe that God would mask His majestic deeds, in the creation of the universe, in allegory.

Why not? I personally find allegory much more powerful than "history". Jesus seemed to think so too.

 

[RenHoek]

Where else do you feel God has masked His deeds in allegory?

Parables to me do not fit the bill. They were called out as such and later explained to the disciples. I see no precedent for this view anywhere else in scripture.

 

[hsilgne]

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.

You know, I may have to disagree here. This has spurned an interesting thought for me(at least it's interesting to me).

If evolution is a fact, then asking this question becomes valid - IMO.

What happens to the animals and plants when they die?

If you are going to say "nothing" since they have no soul they just cease to exist - I would submit that this cannot be, since an argument could be made that ANY LIFE FORM that does not acknowledge Jesus Christ or even ANY LIFE FORM that is unaware of Jesus Christ could be considered "without a soul" and would therefore just cease to exist after death. And we know, from scripture, that this is not the case.

Then again, maybe I'm whacked, which I'm sure many of you think so after reading the above.

 

[Melethiel]

Where else do you feel God has masked His deeds in allegory?

Parables to me do not fit the bill. They were called out as such and later explained to the disciples. I see no precedent for this view anywhere else in scripture.

If you actually read the text, He didn't tell the people that it was a parable. That distinction was written in by the writers of the Gospels. "Allegory" is probably the wrong word anyway - "figurative" would be a better one.

What is wrong with speaking through stories, and why would you think that is "masking"? People remember and understand things easier when they are told in a story. The modern notion of "history" as a series of dates and facts, which BTW arose relatively recently, is much less memorable.

 

[keltoi]

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.

You did not read the post correctly did you? When did I ever state that was my position. What is ludicrous is that people take a statement meant to show something that some people think and believe and put it on the person that posted it. By no means whatsoever does my post suggest that is what I believe.

 

[keltoi]

You know, I may have to disagree here. This has spurned an interesting thought for me(at least it's interesting to me).

If evolution is a fact, then asking this question becomes valid - IMO.

What happens to the animals and plants when they die?

If you are going to say "nothing" since they have no soul they just cease to exist - I would submit that this cannot be, since an argument could be made that ANY LIFE FORM that does not acknowledge Jesus Christ or even ANY LIFE FORM that is unaware of Jesus Christ could be considered "without a soul" and would therefore just cease to exist after death. And we know, from scripture, that this is not the case.

Then again, maybe I'm whacked, which I'm sure many of you think so after reading the above.

You are absolutely and toatally correct in this post. after many years of dealing with evolutionist of any kind, scientific or theistic, they always try to belittle questions/postions that question the very core of the beliefs.

The way evolution describes human evolution, and the evolution of al llife for that matter, is that everything come from a common ancestor. If theistic evoltionists honestly believed what they say they do then they would believe all life would have the opportunity to get to heaven.

Now to the cognisant being and having a relationship with Christ. What happens to people who died pre-Christ. The Bible clearly states they were under tha law of Moses. Christ come and abolished that law and now all live under his law, which is clearly described in the Gospels. The pre-Christ Hebrews were looking to the time of a saviour but had not yet seen this time, they had no relationship with Christ as such they had a relationship with God but it was through the Law of Moses.

Belittle a valid question all you like but it shows that you are not fully conversant with the debate you are taking part in if you do.

 

[Mallon]

You did not read the post correctly did you? When did I ever state that was my position. What is ludicrous is that people take a statement meant to show something that some people think and believe and put it on the person that posted it. By no means whatsoever does my post suggest that is what I believe.

What you believe is that such a stance (that mold spores are equally worthy of heaven) stems from evolutionary thinking. It does not. It is a misrepresentation of TE theology.
If you think I read your post incorrectly, please feel free to rephrase yourself.

P.S. Evolutionary theory does not deny the existence of a human soul.

 

[shernren]

Telling me what I ought to believe is a cute little trick but I doubt it will work ...

The way evolution describes human evolution, and the evolution of al llife for that matter, is that everything come from a common ancestor. If theistic evoltionists honestly believed what they say they do then they would believe all life would have the opportunity to get to heaven.

Why should I? Any Christian believes that humans are uniquely enabled to have some form of relationship with God. It can be a relationship of obedience and worship, or it can be a relationship of sin and rebellion, but it is still a relationship with God that nothing in the rest of creation can share. This is because God has made us in His image. Being made in His image is not a matter of biology or descent, but a matter of spirit.

In my take on things, God allowed evolution to produce intelligent hominids, and then one day God revealed Himself to them, thus forming a relationship with them - and this act of revelation caused them to become spiritual beings as well, giving them the opportunity to either believe that God really was who He said He was, or to believe what they themselves would want to believe about themselves and about Him. It is the manner in which we conduct this relationship that determines our eternal fate - and so anything which was not given the privilege of that relationship does not face the question of eternal destiny.

Simple orthodox theology.

 

[KerrMetric]

The way evolution describes human evolution, and the evolution of al llife for that matter, is that everything come from a common ancestor. If theistic evoltionists honestly believed what they say they do then they would believe all life would have the opportunity to get to heaven.

False dilemma.

 

[keltoi]

What you believe is that such a stance (that mold spores are equally worthy of heaven) stems from evolutionary thinking.

No what I believe is evolution as a theory must espound that. If it doesn't then the theory is Bipolar and hypocritical, and does not agree with itself.

It does not. It is a misrepresentation of TE theology.

Evolution is evolution, if things evolve from others then they evolve from others it is as simple as that. The misrepresentation is aligning evolution with theology.

If you think I read your post incorrectly, please feel free to rephrase yourself.

I know you read my post incorrectly, but instead of me feeling free to rephrase myself just because you don't understand, you can feel free to lay down the defensive nature and discuss the question after all it is in English, even with the spelling mistakes.

Oh well to please you my OP simply questions TEs ability to justify one part of common evolution a place in heaven while denying another part a place as well.

P.S. Evolutionary theory does not deny the existence of a human soul.

It must assume that though, as it denies the creative act of a devine being , putting absolutely everything down to chance. If no devine being took part in creation, instead it was just a big bang and all life evolved from a primordial mold spore then a soul which comes from a devine being must not and cannot exist.

 

[Mallon]

No what I believe is evolution as a theory must espound that. If it doesn't then the theory is Bipolar and hypocritical, and does not agree with itself.

Is that not what I just said???
Regardless, I fail to see how evolutionary theory is "bipolar and hypocritical" if it does not posit the salvation of germ spores. Perhaps you can elaborate on the (theo)logic that leads to such a conclusion...

Oh well to please you my OP simply questions TEs ability to justify one part of common evolution a place in heaven while denying another part a place as well.

Shernren answered this very question nicely. I stand with him.

It must assume that though, as it denies the creative act of a devine being , putting absolutely everything down to chance.

This sentence alone demonstrates a common misunderstanding of evolution, and I would suppose, inhibits your understanding of theistic evolution.
Evolution is NOT simply chance. Natural selection is the opposite of chance.

If no devine being took part in creation, instead it was just a big bang and all life evolved from a primordial mold spore then a soul which comes from a devine being must not and cannot exist.

What THEISTIC evolutionist denies the existence of a divine being? Science does not deny God's existence.

 

[KerrMetric]

It must assume that though, as it denies the creative act of a devine being , putting absolutely everything down to chance.

Basic misunderstanding.

We have had a false dilemma and now factual error. Where are the poison the well, red herring, ad hominem, non sequitor, begging the question and strawman?

 

[keltoi]

Telling me what I ought to believe is a cute little trick but I doubt it will work ...

I love how evolutionists get defensive.

Why should I? Any Christian believes that humans are uniquely enabled to have some form of relationship with God. It can be a relationship of obedience and worship, or it can be a relationship of sin and rebellion, but it is still a relationship with God that nothing in the rest of creation can share. This is because God has made us in His image. Being made in His image is not a matter of biology or descent, but a matter of spirit.

Because evolution denies the involvment of a devine being, thats what evolution is. If you evolved how could God make you in his own image, inevolution you weren't made you evolved. That's why its called evolution.

In my take on things, God allowed evolution to produce intelligent hominids

So are you saying Cro-mags and Neandertals were not intelligent? Evolutionary palaeoanthropoloigist believe they were!

and then one day God revealed Himself to them, thus forming a relationship with them

Why then why not Cro-mags or Neandertals or Australopithicenes or Ardepithecus'?

and this act of revelation caused them to become spiritual beings as well, giving them the opportunity to either believe that God really was who He said He was, or to believe what they themselves would want to believe about themselves and about Him.

Nope, God created man on the 6th day of creation and communed with him from that day forward. No evolving no sudden revelation.

It is the manner in which we conduct this relationship that determines our eternal fate

Yes I agree, and I hope God doesn't become offended by people denying the truth of his word.

and so anything which was not given the privilege of that relationship does not face the question of eternal destiny.

But why would this be the case? Why would God choose the species Homo Sapien Sapien to commune with, when evolutionary theory includes the species named before as Humanity.

Simple orthodox theology.

No it isn't actually, what it is is a denial of Gods part in the creation of the world and all that is in it. What is simple is seeing the account in Genisis and believing that is how things occured. It is much more difficult to see one species evolving into another.

 

[keltoi]

Basic misunderstanding.

How is it a basic misunderstanding? Evoltion flies in teh face of what is written in Genisis. There is no misnderstanding at all God either created everything or evertything evolved. If it evolved there is no use being here in this forum as there is no God to discuss.

We have had a false dilemma and now factual error.

Where did we have these things?

Where are the poison the well, red herring, ad hominem, non sequitor, begging the question and strawman?

Are you serious with this?

 

[Melethiel]

Because evolution denies the involvment of a devine being, thats what evolution is. If you evolved how could God make you in his own image, inevolution you weren't made you evolved. That's why its called evolution.

No, evolution is the "change in alleles in a population over time." Nothing more, nothing less. It says absolutely nothing about the involvement of a deity.

Why couldn't God use evolution to form man, the same way that a sculptor creates his masterpiece?

No it isn't actually, what it is is a denial of Gods part in the creation of the world and all that is in it. What is simple is seeing the account in Genisis and believing that is how things occured. It is much more difficult to see one species evolving into another.

Talking snakes, huh?
We see species evolving all the time. It has been observed over and over again.

How is it a basic misunderstanding? Evoltion flies in teh face of what is written in Genisis. There is no misnderstanding at all God either created everything or evertything evolved. If it evolved there is no use being here in this forum as there is no God to discuss.

Or God used evolution to form everything. Just a heads up, this forum is in the Christians Only section, so everybody here believes in God.

 

[keltoi]

Is that not what I just said???

Nope not at all.

Regardless, I fail to see how evolutionary theory is "bipolar and hypocritical" if it does not posit the salvation of germ spores. Perhaps you can elaborate on the (theo)logic that leads to such a conclusion...

Genisis!!!

Shernren answered this very question nicely. I stand with him.

He was defensive in his answer as most evolutionist are when there most basic premise is called into question

This sentence alone demonstrates a common misunderstanding of evolution, and I would suppose, inhibits your understanding of theistic evolution.

You would be amazed at what I know about evolution and my understanding of the facts as they stand in evolutionary science. My understanding of it is not inhibited at all, instead it fuels the fire in my soul to question at every opportunity I have TEs and to get them to pronounce in absolute concrete term why they believe what they do when there are so many missing links in Evolutionary theory.

Evolution is NOT simply chance. Natural selection is the opposite of chance.

Evoltion itself started with a Big Bang, That in itself was by chance. The first species coming out of the ocean was by chance. Evolution is all by chance. Natural selction has very little to do with it, and that is a basic problem most evolutionists have in their understanding of the subject.

What THEISTIC evolutionist denies the existence of a divine being?

Misquoting again aren't you!!!
This is how this all come about you said,

P.S. Evolutionary theory does not deny the existence of a human soul.

and then I saidithout mentioning Theistic anything as a theory base.

It must assume that though, as it denies the creative act of a devine being , putting absolutely everything down to chance. If no devine being took part in creation, instead it was just a big bang and all life evolved from a primordial mold spore then a soul which comes from a devine being must not and cannot exist.

Science does not deny God's existence.

Science does not support it so therefor by the processes of scientific reasoning it must deny it. Theisitcs didn't come into it until you got all defensive.

 

[shernren]

Because evolution denies the involvment of a devine being, thats what evolution is. If you evolved how could God make you in his own image, inevolution you weren't made you evolved. That's why its called evolution.

Here's a question for you: do you believe that God knit you together in your mother's womb? I certainly believe that was true for me. And yet, developmental biology says that science had it all down pat! According to developmental biology, it wasn't God who knit me together in my mother's womb, it was a sperm and an egg and DNA that did the trick. So what do I do? Do I abandon developmental biology and declare that pregnant women shouldn't consult those atheistic doctors for diagnoses? No, I take a deep hard breath and think clearly about the relationship between science and God.

Face it, we Christians thank God regularly for many things which have scientific explanations. We thank God for clear weather (but meteorology "denies God"), speedy recovery from sickness (but medicine "denies God"), for a free country (but democracy and political science "deny God"), and for such simple things as electricity (is God in Maxwell's equations?) and sunlight (or in Einstein's?). We attribute many things both to immediate scientific causes and to the ultimate cause of God's will. Why is it inconsistent to say the same of evolution?

So are you saying Cro-mags and Neandertals were not intelligent? Evolutionary palaeoanthropoloigist believe they were!

Too bad for the paleoanthropologists, then. Quite frankly, why God made man in His image is a question more for God than for me.

But why would this be the case? Why would God choose the species Homo Sapien Sapien to commune with, when evolutionary theory includes the species named before as Humanity.

Because God did? Like it or not, God chose to commune with us humans, and the world we have today is a result for that, all too bad for the animal kingdom.

No it isn't actually, what it is is a denial of Gods part in the creation of the world and all that is in it. What is simple is seeing the account in Genisis and believing that is how things occured. It is much more difficult to see one species evolving into another.

That's not really difficult. Speciation happens all the time; an interesting example is ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

 

[keltoi]

Talking snakes, huh?
We see species evolving all the time. It has been observed over and over again.

Tell me at least 1 you personally have seen in your lifetime change from on species into another, and don't go bring moths etc into it as they do not evolve.

 

[Melethiel]

Tell me at least 1 you personally have seen in your lifetime change from on species into another, and don't go bring moths etc into it as they do not evolve.

Umm...Everything evolves. Unless a population is in the ideal state of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which is pretty much impossible, it must evolve.

Evoltion itself started with a Big Bang, That in itself was by chance. The first species coming out of the ocean was by chance. Evolution is all by chance. Natural selction has very little to do with it, and that is a basic problem most evolutionists have in their understanding of the subject.

Evolution and the Big Bang are completely different concepts, from two completely different fields. The two do not touch each other in any way. Chance is the exact opposite of natural selection. Environmental pressure is what drives evolution. While the DNA mutations are by chance, they only persist in the population if selected for.

==================================================
Accusing the opposing side of defensiveness and hypocrisy is not conducive to good debate. Let's address the posts and keep the polemics out of it. This goes for both sides.