SBG said:
So is there now two forms of evolution and abiogenesis, one without and one with God?
No, there is one theory of biological evolution. But there are two philosophies of science which lead to two ways of looking, not just at evolution, but at all of science.
One philosophy is naturalism=the belief that only what can be supported by scientific means really exists. That philosophy obviously excludes God, since the existence of God cannot be supported by scientific means. And that is as it should be. I consider it sacreligious to even think that the Creator of the Universe could be put to a test that would force him to reveal his existence. It would be like saying that science can somehow control God.
The opposite philosophy, of course, considers that science only examines a part of reality, that part which can be studied using our senses of sight, hearing, taste, etc. which can be weighed, measured, described mathematically. But there is also a metaphysical realm of reality which is not susceptible to such scientific probing. In theistic terms, the metaphysical is everything spiritural including God, the angels, the moral law, the spiritual nature of humanity, etc.
Neither philosophy is part of the theory of evolution. Neither philosophy is given a preferential nod by evolution or by any other scientific theory.
Anyone, anytime, can decide to believe that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality or that the physical world is only part of a larger reality. And view any form of knowledge or claimed knowledge within that world-view.
Obviously, those of us who post in this forum, are committed to the second point of view.
The main problem with evolution is the philosophy that stands behind it.
Either of the above philosophies can stand behind evolution. As I said, a scientific theory does not play favorites among philosophies.
Granted, theistic evolutionists have done well to insert God into this theory that does not mention Him at all.
It is not a matter of inserting God into this theory or into any theory. In fact, as I said above, that would be sacreligious. Put God into a scientific theory and you are asking that humanity be able to control God.
It is rather a matter of observing all of physical reality from the perspective that it is only a part of reality and not the whole of reality.
The problem still remains that now, we are given the statement that the Bible now must be reinterpreted..
From where I stand that is solid Reformed theology. The Church "reformed and always being reformed" is called always to restate the gospel in terms that the present generation can relate to. But notice "restate" does not mean "change". The gospel is the same yesterday, today and always. But the words, the concepts, the images used to convey the gospel must change as culture changes. We take this for granted when taking the gospel to a Brazilian tribe which has, for example, never seen a sheep or a shepherd. But it applies to our own culture through time as well.
to say something that the Apostles, Church Fathers and ultimately Jesus Christ didn't teach and falls into contradiction to what they taught.
Well, of course, they didn't teach evolution. And for that matter, I don't think the church should teach either evolution or creationism. The church should preach the gospel to the unsaved and teach the saved how to live as Christians, not what to believe or not to believe about scientific knowledge.
But in any case, I don't see evolution as being in contradiction to scripture at all.
And shall we keep in mind that God's word never changes and these men and God who are of God and God sent to teach about Himself and what He has done, understood these writings to speak of a literal, historical account?
God's Word never changes. Our understanding of God's Word does and should change. So the fact that many Christian teachers have understood these writings to speak of a literal, historical account is irrelevant once it is understood that it
cannot be a literal, historical account.
I know you don't like the comparison, but this is exactly the same issue as the Ptolemy vs. Copernicus view of the cosmos raised. Up till the 17th century, God's Word was understood as speaking of an earth that literally did not move. It was the heavens which were thought to literally move around the earth. Now you have no trouble today agreeing that all the apostles and church fathers and great teachers of the church were simply wrong about that. You have no problem reading the same scriptures which the ecclesiastical authorities used to prove the earth does not move, while knowing that the earth in fact does move. You read those passages knowing they
cannot be literal, and you do so even though it puts you in disagreement with every Christian theologian who lived and taught before Copernicus.
What I see with theistic evolutionists is this new teaching that God's word must keep up with the times. The interpretation of His word needs to change accordingly with the predominant theory of science at the time. That is if there is a conflict. And if in 20 years evolution is thrown out and a different verison is in place, we must change the meaning of God's word again.
It is a bit more nuanced than that. It is not God's Word that changes, but our understanding and interpretation of it. And yes, when we come to a more complete scientific understanding of the physical world, we do need to take that into account as we intepret scripture.
But it is not just a matter of kowtowing to the predominant theory of science. One must also be convinced that the science is right, not just popular. Or rather that the alternate theories have been falsified, and the remaining theory is the best we currently have.
And if that theory is replaced down the line, we do not and
must not change the meaning of God's Word. God's Word means what it means, always. But we do indeed change our understanding of God's Word.
I have see it said here, by you Vance, that if science does change - concerning origins - then interpretation of the Bible needs to change as well. Yet this is not in agreeance with Paul's teaching against going back and forth in doctrine.
But TEs are
not changing any doctrine. TEs believe as you do in God, in Creation, in the Incarnation, the Atonement, in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the Forgiveness of sins, in the Resurrection, in the Trinity, the Holy Scriptures, in the Life everlasting, etc.
Evolution does not impinge on doctrine at all.
We know of God in three persons called the Trinity. We also know God in three distinct roles, Creator, Redeemer, and Righteous Judge. Each of these, in the Bible, tell us why He is and how He is these.
Just as an aside, where did you get that particular series of roles from? We were taught that the primary roles of God were Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. We were also taught not to link these with specific persons of the trinity since all three persons were active in all three roles, even though one might take "centre stage" as it were.
When I said either or, I was saying that theistic evolutionists seem bent on the fact that Genesis 1-3 or even 1-11 for that matter have to be either historically and literally true or only giving the ultimate (allegorical) message. Yec's take both into account, while it seems many theistic evolutionists claim it can only be either or so it must be allegorical.
It is not quite like that. In the first place, some TEs do agree that some aspects of Chapters 1-11 are, or at least, may be historical. Also it would not be a belief of TEs that in general a passage cannot have both a literal and a figurative meaning.
So when a literal meaning is rejected, it must be for specific reasons. One, which we have discussed a lot, is the literary nature of the passage. If the style of writing indicates it is not to be read literally, then it is an error to read it literally. We all agree with this in the case of obvious figures of speech such as those used in the Song of Solomon to describe the beloved or in Christ comparing himself to a vine. In other cases, we may be in disagreement about how a passage reads. For example, I can't even remember ever supposing that Gen. 2 or Gen. 11 were literal, not even when I was 10 years old. And that was long before I ever heard of evolution.
Another reason for rejecting a literal interpretation is that it
cannot be true. Not if everything else we know to be true is true. That is the case for the flood story. It simply cannot be literally true given what we know about physics and geology that is indisputably true.
There may be others, but that is enough for now.
