YECs: What is the problem with Evolution?

[Bonhoffer]

I will admit that it is just about possible to reconcile evolution and the Bible. However to do so you will have to do a lot of stretching and read the Bible in a way I doubt it was ever intended to be read. Reading the Bible through evolutionary lenses seems to lead to messy and unclear theology. This is my issue with TE.

For example Moses said "For in 6 days the Lord made the heavens and the earth". Not only did he write this but he told it to the Israelites as a word from God. However if Moses told them this and the world wasnt made in six days he was telling them a lie. TE's will say he was meaning "You know the story of the creation. Well I am empathising that myth as I speak to you today".
But he wasnt saying that, otherwise he would have said so. He was speaking of the six days as a historical fact. No one hearing him would take the six days as a story. He should have said "God made the heavens and the earth" if TE was true and not add the six days bit.
If I stood up at church and say I was a student for three years or I was saved over the process of a week, three years ago. No one will think I have been a student for ten years or became Christian 8 years ago.

For me TE desorts theology and the reading of the rest of the Bible. I have heard some say that it adds theology, but I cant see how.

Even if evolution did happen I still think it is best to read Genesis literally and develop theology from a literal interpretation. This is because those writing the scriptures wrote them to be interpreted literally with the intention of creating a theology based on literalism.
These Biblie writers knew what they were writing about. The only ones who were writing about something they didnt understand were the prophets.

 

[herev]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I'll try again.

Man is not an animal, he is a created being, not an evolved being.

biologically, humans are animals, there aren't but a few choices--you know like animal, vegetable, mineral, etc.

Had we evolved, we would be nothing more than an animal and there would be no problem with acting like one.

But that leaves God out of the equation. Evolution is not concerned with religion, morals, or God. Theistic evoluion is acknowledging what we plainly see in the world around us while also holding fast to our assurance (through faith) that God IS. Since God IS and because we believe He IS the creator, we believe we were created to be different from the other creations, hence there IS a problem with us acting as the rest of creation. We are to act differently because of the creator--God, not because of how we were created--even if we were created without evolution--God is the reason we are different.

I think that your answers, for the most part, fail to actually answer the question.

And yet, if you take away the insulting notion that we do not believe we were created without God, I think they do.

He's a research scientist not connected with any creationist group and is not a creationist and he recognizes the nature of the problem.

I'll have to take your word for it, since I do not know of him.

The same question could be turned back on you. Why do you take some of the "established" theories and not others, such as the YEC model? Probably because you feel they lack support, yes?

But you misunderstand--I do not reject the creationism model--at least not at this point--I simply believe TE has makes more sense when looking at God's word as found in the Scriptures and as found in Creation. I am open to being shown I'm wrong, but not by those who condemn me for my beliefs that have nothing to do with my salvation--I do not feel their words have credibility since it is unscriptural. Romans 8:1
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
I do not recognize the condemnation from those who are creationists (or any other Christian). I know I am in Christ Jesus and so it makes the whole argument lose credibility.

Correct, but in context, he was responding to a question of "what's wrong with evolution." He was not targeting TEers when he wrote that. Naturally TEers follow the same moral commandments of any other christian and thus find it insulting, but I think he was addressing naturalistic evolution.

And yet, this is a Christian only area of the forum, so you would understand why I would think he's responding to TE, but I'll let that one go for now. As long as creationists can at least begin to see why thier incesant comments about our lack of faith as TE's is insulting--and begin to post that way, then I think things would be much more civil around here (barring a few extremeists on both sides)

But if this is not the proper interpretation of these passages (and they are not) then some severe Scripture-twisting was going on, because the Bible does not support such things.

agreed once again! I think I said that a couple of times.

And if there is Scripture-twisting, they are clearly not taking the literal meaning of the passages. This was my point.

And yet again, I still agree with this.

My point was that evolutionary thinking had already influenced the church long before Darwin and that it was because of this thinking that they twisted these passages.

(underline mine)
I think that would be a stretch and difficult to prove, but it changes nothing. The issue is that it is not evolutionary theory that did this--it is the misuse of it

So, no, I can't agree. I could agree if you said "they did these things by quoting Biblical passages and twisting them to support their support of slavery and that they did so long before Darwin lived."

And yet, if you read further in my post--which I know you did--or you read my response to you--which I know you did--then you know this IS what I said--I just didn't use the word "twisting." I said they misused. Why would you want to take my words out of context?

Be careful when accusing someone of being a literalist, because most of them are actually "Plainists"--that is, they take a given book or passage as the author intended it, whether that be history, prophesy, metaphor, or whatever.

Interesting point. I think the word "plainist" is clumsy to use, and as to the definition, I think it fails Why? Because that is the issue we TE's stand by, also. We, too, look at a given book or passage as WE BELIEVE the author intended it, whether it be history, prophesy, metaphor, or whatever. So if this is the definition of a literalist, then we have much more in common that I thought!

Also, most (or at least many) christians no longer support such thinking, so be careful when making blanket statements.

You are correct, it was a mis-statement on my part--I should have said "there are literalist who..."

Not at all. If you consider all of the casualities of both WWI and WWII, including the 6 million Jews, the slaughter of the communists, and include the <6,000,000,000 dead unborn evolution has far, far more blood on its hands.

Ok, another major flaw in the argument, since you are an intelligent person, I can't help but wonder why you don't hear this as it has been said:
Let's take Hitler for an example
It has been said that Hitler was influenced by Evolution--I don't know this to be true, but for this discussion, I will say it is.
He also was known to use the scriptures as evidence that his actions were correct.
Now according to your statement, evolution is at fault, but by the same logic, it could just as easily be said that scripture was at fault
Now you and I both agree that scripture is not at fault, rather it is the misues of it
So, my point is that the theory of evolution is not at fault, it is the misuse of it. Why can you not see it is the same argument?

 

[adam149]

I'll try again.

biologically, humans are animals, there aren't but a few choices--you know like animal, vegetable, mineral, etc.

I think it likely that YECs would posit adding another category th the list: Man (difference being made in the Image of God, having a soul, etc), animal, vegetable, mineral, etc

But that leaves God out of the equation. Evolution is not concerned with religion, morals, or God. Theistic evoluion is acknowledging what we plainly see in the world around us while also holding fast to our assurance (through faith) that God IS. Since God IS and because we believe He IS the creator, we believe we were created to be different from the other creations, hence there IS a problem with us acting as the rest of creation. We are to act differently because of the creator--God, not because of how we were created--even if we were created without evolution--God is the reason we are different.

And naturally, I would agree, all except TE acknowledging what we plainly see, since no person has ever seen, plainly or otherwise, evolution in action.

Evolution, by it's nature is a scientific explanation "hell-bent" on explaining everything through natural explanations only, aka excluding God. Thus, you can see my problem in simply saying, "well, God used it," because according to evolutionists, everything has been explained without God and could have just as easily happened on its own, thus God becomes this irrelevent idea in the back of my mind that is pushed farther and farther away as more things are "explained" naturally and independently from Him. Thus, a God that used evolution is little better than there being no God at all.

And yet, if you take away the insulting notion that we do not believe we were created without God, I think they do.

If God used evolution, then death and suffering are a natural part of life and God becomes this sadistic, childish, mean-spirited, and evil person in the sky that loves using misfits and death and bloodshed. Thus, being evil, selfish, sadistic, and mean-spirited is actually becoming more Christ-like and God-like. Might makes right, and survival of the fittest, thus eugenics and social darwinism and abortion and all the rest become good things to do, because they are part of God's nature. This, despite the fact that the God of the Bible is not like this. So even there you have the "plain" way God created the world and humans, and what God says we should do, which is the opposite of what He Himself did, and God becomes contradictory and fickle.

But you misunderstand--I do not reject the creationism model--at least not at this point--I simply believe TE has makes more sense when looking at God's word as found in the Scriptures and as found in Creation. I am open to being shown I'm wrong, but not by those who condemn me for my beliefs that have nothing to do with my salvation--I do not feel their words have credibility since it is unscriptural. Romans 8:1
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
I do not recognize the condemnation from those who are creationists (or any other Christian). I know I am in Christ Jesus and so it makes the whole argument lose credibility.

Yet the Bible is not merely about salvation, but about every aspect of human life, including mans origins and destiny, the model for biblical government and politics, even gives guidelines for electing governing officials. It is about developing a comprehensive Christian worldview, or paradigm, if you will.

And yet, this is a Christian only area of the forum, so you would understand why I would think he's responding to TE, but I'll let that one go for now. As long as creationists can at least begin to see why thier incesant comments about our lack of faith as TE's is insulting--and begin to post that way, then I think things would be much more civil around here (barring a few extremeists on both sides)

I would never condemn a fellow sybling in the spirit, or accuse them of lacking faith or not being a christian. The point is not to destroy people, but to point out possible problems in their thinking so as to help them grow and continue on their walk as a Christian. That goes for everyone, including myself. We should be trying to help each other, not tear the other down, and I am supremely sorry if fellow YECs have done this.

agreed once again! I think I said that a couple of times.


And yet again, I still agree with this.

My apologies if I didn't follow your comments. I was very tired when I wrote that.

(underline mine)
I think that would be a stretch and difficult to prove, but it changes nothing. The issue is that it is not evolutionary theory that did this--it is the misuse of it

We should always be careful to distinguish between misusing something and taking something to its supreme logical conclusion. Using the Bible to support slavery or racism is a misuse because it states that "all men [or all nations] are of one blood" in Acts and other various verses.

Saying that because evolution is the survival of the fittest therefore we should all strive for being the fittest at any cost is a logical conclusion derived from the theory of evolution, not a misuse.

And yet, if you read further in my post--which I know you did--or you read my response to you--which I know you did--then you know this IS what I said--I just didn't use the word "twisting." I said they misused. Why would you want to take my words out of context?

My apologies; as I say, I was tired that night. Errors were destined to creep in.

Interesting point. I think the word "plainist" is clumsy to use, and as to the definition, I think it fails Why? Because that is the issue we TE's stand by, also. We, too, look at a given book or passage as WE BELIEVE the author intended it, whether it be history, prophesy, metaphor, or whatever. So if this is the definition of a literalist, then we have much more in common that I thought!

If you "look at a given book or passage as you believe the author intended," then we have differences again. I am not interested in reading what I believe into a text. That process is eisegesis, and reads a bias (as we all have) into a text to make it say what we want it to. Then there is exegesis, which is more familiar to most people, which is reading out of the text based upon context, word-usage, etc. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/eisegesis.asp

There are simple ways of determining an author's intent, and that is the study of biblical hermeneutics (see http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/) We all find people's context all the time. For example, I did not need your clarification to determine the meaning of your above statement. It has to do with biblical interpretation and having a commonality between YECs and TEs. It does not have anything to do with watermellons, weather, or gerbils (although we can see from our exchange that misunderstandings can arrise). Since we all interprete things, it is best to find the interpretation which matches the intent of the divinely inspired author.

Ok, another major flaw in the argument, since you are an intelligent person, I can't help but wonder why you don't hear this as it has been said:
Let's take Hitler for an example
It has been said that Hitler was influenced by Evolution--I don't know this to be true, but for this discussion, I will say it is.
He also was known to use the scriptures as evidence that his actions were correct.
Now according to your statement, evolution is at fault, but by the same logic, it could just as easily be said that scripture was at fault
Now you and I both agree that scripture is not at fault, rather it is the misues of it
So, my point is that the theory of evolution is not at fault, it is the misuse of it. Why can you not see it is the same argument?

Because, as I said above, there is a difference between logical conclusion and misuse. Hitler took evolution to it's natural conclusion: Hitler proclaimed

higher race subjects to itself a lower race …a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,’

because it was founded on science (see Tenenbaum, J., Race and Reich,Twayne Pub., New York, p. 211, 1956)

One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”. (Wilder-Smith, B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982)

[Hitler] consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution . . .If war be the progeny of evolution — and I am convinced that it is — then evolution has “gone mad”, reaching such a height of ferocity as must frustrate its proper role in the world of life — which is the advancement of her competing “units”, these being tribes, nations, or races of mankind. There is no way of getting rid of war save one, and that is to rid human nature of the sanctions imposed on it by the law of evolution. Can man … render the law of evolution null and void? … I have discovered no way that is at once possible and practicable. “There is no escape from human nature.” Because Germany has drunk the vat of evolution to its last dregs, and in her evolutionary debauch has plunged Europe into a bath of blood, that is no proof that the law of evolution is evil. A law which brought man out of the jungle and made him king of beasts cannot be altogether bad. (Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1946, pg. 230, 105)

Furthermore, Hitler hated Christianity as much as the Jews and Blacks and everybody else. He used christian and biblical references in public to lure the public into his trust. A lot of research has been done on what Hitler actually believed. A good resource is Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1929631065/qid=1094605843/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2786779-5872703?v=glance&s=books). Some of the things Hitler said, as quoted in this book are:

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (underline mine) (pg. 6, 7)

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (pg. 49-52)

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (pg. 118, 119)

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (pg. 278)

 

[adam149]

1) the big bang theory and cosmology in general are completly unrelated to evolutionary theory.

Let's pause right here, for a moment, and look at things logically.

1) Do astronomers commonly describe the universe has having evolved?

2) Do astronomers commonly describe galaxies as having evolved?

3) Do astronomers commonly describe the solar system as having evolved?

4) Do astronomers commonly describe the earth as having evolved?

The answers to these questions are all "yes" and I have the college-level astronomy textbooks to back it up.

5) Is evolution a gradual accumulation of elements that eventually form a new product that did not exist before? Yes.

Therefore, since stars and planets and galaxies evolve in a gradual mannor, astronomy and cosmology are part of evolution, if we really wanted to be logical about it.

2) It's a strawman, because just about everybody who can be considered an expert in the area holds big bang theory to be true.

Nice argument from authority there. Everyone who disagrees with the Big Bang is automatically not a) an expert and b) unscientific.

The list you have their comprises of only a couple of scientists and even those are considered to be crackpots by many in the scientiifc community.

Emperical support, please. Which scientists on the list are considered "crackpots" and by whom in the scientific community? Btw, the list includes over 160 secular scientists and was published in a well-respected journal. That hardly constitutes a "couple."

The problem is that people who don't know about these things think that there is little difference between and astronomer and a cosmologist when infact the diffference is huge, many astrononmers simply do no not have the necessary skills to give expert opinions on cosmology as their work does not in general require a good knowledge of general relativty or cosmological models.

Perhaps and perhaps not, but there are cosmologists on the list as well.

3) the big bang has plenty of evidnece to suport it, can you came up with an alternative scientifc explantion to:

a) the isotropy and homogenity of the the CMBR?

Perhaps I shall simple use the secularists to take this one down. Fellas?

Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed

That was on www.cosmologystatement.org. Had you read it, you wouldn't have asked that question.

b) the red shifting of the spectra of distant objects?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#66
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/doppler.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/487.asp

4) this has absolutely nothing to do with any religion, no-one is advocating pantheism

The Big Bang was originally an attempt to explain the origin of the universe without God. So yes, the battle is religious.

That is ture, but the point is this goes against your assertion that evoltuion is somehow connected with pantheism, atheism, etc.

I fail to see how, since the majority of people fail to see how they are connected. Btw, you interestingly seemed to have equivocated evolution with cosmology/astronomy, something which you apparently believe are separate.

That is true in the US (indeed I'm led to believe that creationists actually form the majority of Christians in the US), but as you can see from my flag I do not reside in the US (actually tthe flag itself is slightly out of date as I am not in Northern Cyprus at the moment), so I'm actually talking on a global scale.

An interesting point. Creation is certainly larger in the US (but the fact that the US is the dominant world-power at the current time is significant), but creation is spreading in other countries too, particularly europe.

An group that says evolution contardicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be regarded as scientific.

You would have to emperically demonstrate their errors. I have read extensively on the topic, both from AiG and Talk.Origins, as well as in many books and scientific publications. So far as I can tell (I'm no expert, though I have studied it) the creationists have the superior argumentations in this case.

Any peer-reviewed journal on those subject would clearly have many papers that contradict the asseryions of AiG.

1) This is not so, since there are at least three peer-reviewed journals that do; Technical Journal, Creation Research Society Quarterly, and Origins.

2) There is a large difference between ad hoc assertions, assumptions, and evolutionary bias and emperical demonstration.

No I am referring to an article on AiG's website (I didn't actually read the article on your site): http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/183.asp

Interesting. I was not aware that AiG had caught that blooper as well.

From what I've seen of Plimer I can't say I particualrly like him, but you cannot seriously think that he is claiming the English alphabet has 26 letters.

The English alphabet does have 26 letters. And, no, I don't really think he's claiming that, I think that he made a typo and was careless enough to miss it again and again until it actually made it's way into publication, which certainly doesn't say much for his attention to detail.

No (I have read them before tho'), but I do not need AiG to tell me what to think.

Nor I, and I disagree with AiG on some fairly significant things, such as Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, and the Pre-Flood/FLood/Post-Flood sedimentary boundaries. Most of their work is superb, however (not that I expect you to agree).

 

[herev]

I think it likely that YECs would posit adding another category th the list: Man (difference being made in the Image of God, having a soul, etc), animal, vegetable, mineral, etc

YOu may posit that, but it doesn't change biology, humans are animals. We can't change science simply because we don't like it.

And naturally, I would agree, all except TE acknowledging what we plainly see, since no person has ever seen, plainly or otherwise, evolution in action.

This is your opinion--or your interpretation , but it is not evolution in action that is at issue, it is the record of evolution as it demonstrates past action. But it doesn't change the point I was making, which is that your conclusions about evolution leave God out of it. Evolution neither brings God in, nor dismisses Him, it is about method or development, not about religion.

Evolution, by it's nature is a scientific explanation "hell-bent" on explaining everything through natural explanations only, aka excluding God.

But this is a major error. Evolution, as has been said repeatedly, is not about religion, God, the Bible, or anything else to do with faith. It is a theory of the development of life, not the presence or lack of an intelligent being behind it. It is you that adds the aka, not evolution. The natural explanations do not deal with who causes the observable parts of nature, only the sequence and method.

Thus, you can see my problem in simply saying, "well, God used it,"

not really, no.

because according to evolutionists, everything has been explained without God and could have just as easily happened on its own, thus God becomes this irrelevent idea in the back of my mind that is pushed farther and farther away as more things are "explained" naturally and independently from Him.

no, according to some evolutionists, this may be true, but not according to evolution. Evolution doesn't address this. And you continue to dismiss those of us who are TE's. We do not continue, nor have we ever, pushed God farther and farther away. Why do you discount us--your Christian brothers and sisters so completely?

Thus, a God that used evolution is little better than there being no God at all.

My goodness, that's a dangerous statement.

Let me ask a serious question. If God himself revealed to you in such a way that you were certain--absolutely certain, that he used some form of evolution in creation, would you reject Him and spend the rest of eternity in Hell? Since I make no claim to KNOW how He created, I certainly would not think less of Him no matter what His method was--I would think we would all be open to learning, but maybe that's just me.

If God used evolution, then death and suffering are a natural part of life and God becomes this sadistic, childish, mean-spirited, and evil person in the sky that loves using misfits and death and bloodshed.

And I would say that I believe just as you do, that humanity was not meant for such a life, but it is a result of the fall of man. However, I would quickly add that if God, being that He IS God, intended for death and suffering to be a natural part of life, then God is still God and God is still Good. He doesn't change just because I don't like something.

Thus, being evil, selfish, sadistic, and mean-spirited is actually becoming more Christ-like and God-like. Might makes right, and survival of the fittest, thus eugenics and social darwinism and abortion and all the rest become good things to do, because they are part of God's nature.

This is perhaps the first thing you've said that makes absolutely no logical sense at all--NONE. We (the world) have seen Christ, Christ has told us if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father--this is beleived or rejected independently of your theology of origin. So, you and I both agree that God is not those things, nor is Jesus, nor is any of it anywhere similar to God's nature--and theistic evolution, if true, could not change God--My God is bigger than that!

This, despite the fact that the God of the Bible is not like this. So even there you have the "plain" way God created the world and humans, and what God says we should do, which is the opposite of what He Himself did, and God becomes contradictory and fickle.

as I said above, I agree that God is not like this. God never becomes contradictory or fickle. Despite your insistance, we TE's do not have a conflict between evolution and the Bible. It is all in the interpretation.

Yet the Bible is not merely about salvation, but about every aspect of human life, including mans origins and destiny, the model for biblical government and politics, even gives guidelines for electing governing officials. It is about developing a comprehensive Christian worldview, or paradigm, if you will.

This much, I agree with 1000%, what I am trying to get across is that TE's DO have a Christian worldview, or paradigm, but you simply do not accept us as fully Christian brothers or sisters, or you wouldn't think there was a distinction to be made here.

I would never condemn a fellow sybling in the spirit, or accuse them of lacking faith or not being a christian. The point is not to destroy people, but to point out possible problems in their thinking so as to help them grow and continue on their walk as a Christian.

Agreed, might I say that I appreciate your use of the word possible as I underlined above. That may be the first concession that what we believe is at least possilbe. Thanks

That goes for everyone, including myself. We should be trying to help each other, not tear the other down, and I am supremely sorry if fellow YECs have done this.

Again, we agree here 1000% YOu have no need to apologize for other's comments, nor do I, but I appreciate the sentiment.

My apologies if I didn't follow your comments. I was very tired when I wrote that.

No problem at all. As a full time pastor, full time student, full time husband, full time father, I understand tired!

We should always be careful to distinguish between misusing something and taking something to its supreme logical conclusion. Using the Bible to support slavery or racism is a misuse because it states that "all men [or all nations] are of one blood" in Acts and other various verses.

This is another major flaw in reasoning. For example, the KKK uses the scripture and follows it throug to what THEY believe is its logical conclusion to support racism. That does not make it so. It may be YOUR logical conclusion that leads you to believe they are wrong, hence it is interpretation of what is logical that comes into play here, not the scriptures.

Saying that because evolution is the survival of the fittest therefore we should all strive for being the fittest at any cost is a logical conclusion derived from the theory of evolution, not a misuse.

But it is at the very least a conclusion someone makes from it, not the theory itself--and since it is about the species as a whole, and not individuals (in terms of survival of the fittest), this is again, not a logical conclusion, but a misinterpretation, hence a misuse. The theory of evolution makes no such judgement between individual men. It merely reports observable historical records and proposes what that means, not what it means socially--so again, it is a misuse of the theory.

My apologies; as I say, I was tired that night. Errors were destined to creep in.

Agreed!! and again, no problem. By the way: Sure hope Moses never got tired when he was writing for so many long hours given all he had to do

If you "look at a given book or passage as you believe the author intended," then we have differences again. I am not interested in reading what I believe into a text.

Again, this is not a fair statement. You said:that is, they take a given book or passage as the author intended it, whether that be history, prophesy, metaphor, or whatever
I said: We, too, look at a given book or passage as WE BELIEVE the author intended it, whether it be history, prophesy, metaphor, or whatever.

You didn't use the word "believe," but certainly you are not claiming that you KNOW the intent of the authors any more than TE's do, are you?

You read the creation accounts in Genesis as literal because you believe they are literal. I read them as non-literal because I believe they are non-literal. Please don't try to make the differences betwen us so grand that there is no possibility of communication. We are really, really, really, really not so different from you.

That process is eisegesis, and reads a bias (as we all have) into a text to make it say what we want it to. Then there is exegesis, which is more familiar to most people, which is reading out of the text based upon context, word-usage, etc. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/eisegesis.asp

I have to say this, so forgive any vanity that might come across--it is not intended. But, as a fully licensed preacher (in a major denomination) that is trained at a fully accredited seminary in homiletics, surely will take my word for it if I tell you that I do understand the difference between eisegesis and exegesis--but thanks for trying to keep me informed.

There are simple ways of determining an author's intent, and that is the study of biblical hermeneutics (see http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/) We all find people's context all the time. For example, I did not need your clarification to determine the meaning of your above statement. It has to do with biblical interpretation and having a commonality between YECs and TEs. It does not have anything to do with watermellons, weather, or gerbils (although we can see from our exchange that misunderstandings can arrise).

and I am somewhat familiar with hermeneutics as well, but thanks again. Even in good Biblical hermeneutics, it is possible, even likely for you and I to study all available resources (as if there were actually time) and come to radically different interpretations. It is not as simple as the web-site you presented suggests.

Since we all interprete things, it is best to find the interpretation which matches the intent of the divinely inspired author.

Here, we certainly agree, but you must take my word for it, that it is not an easy task when trying to exegete anything in Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters. In fact, most scholarly homoleticians would hermeneutically place the final writing of the creation accounts as being from the exile or post-exilic Judea, so the context would take on entirely new meaning when viewed as a 6th century BC or later text. I assume that this particular hermeneutic view of Genesis 1 and 2 would not be in keeping with yours?

Because, as I said above, there is a difference between logical conclusion and misuse. Hitler took evolution to it's natural conclusion: Hitler proclaimed...



...because it was founded on science (see Tenenbaum, J., Race and Reich,Twayne Pub., New York, p. 211, 1956)

and as I replied, this is still a misuse, since the theory of evolution makes no such claims--only the interpetation which leads to this conclusion is faulty and should be blamed, not the theory of evolution. Any more than the Bible should be blamed for the oppression of women, but it has been misused to do so.

Furthermore, Hitler hated Christianity as much as the Jews and Blacks and everybody else. He used christian and biblical references in public to lure the public into his trust.

Which you and I both agree is a misuse.

A lot of research has been done on what Hitler actually believed. A good resource is Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1929631065/qid=1094605843/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2786779-5872703?v=glance&s=books). Some of the things Hitler said, as quoted in this book are:

But what he believed has no bearing on the theory of evolution OR the scriptures , nor does it testify against either. His beliefs were misinterpretations and misuse of both.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Vance]

BTW, Adam, you are mistakenly equating the layman's term "evolution" meaning "change over time" with the actual scientific definition of biological evolution, which is very limited in scope and addresses just the changes in the gene pool within a population.

Evolution is NOT survival of the fittest
it is NOT social Darwinism
it is NOT atheism
it is NOT a statement about the beginnings of life
it is NOT the Big Bang

Evolution is nothing more or less than a statement about how natural selection, genetic drift and mutation can combine to create changes in a gene pool over time to better adapt to a give set of environmental pressures and how these changes can combine over time to cause speciation.

All the rest of it is purely and entirely straw men used by those opposed to evolution so that they can more easily knock it down. Equate evolution with all these admitted evils and you can then argue evolution is a Bad Thing, and therefore must not be correct (since God would not use a Bad Thing as part of His creation process).

Equating all of these evils just by "association" is no different than associating the evils perpetrated by the Church with Christiantiy. The analogy is exactly the same.

Someone uses evolution to justify bad act X.
Someone uses Christianity to justify bad act Y.

I can guarantee you that more bad acts have been justified by Christianity than by evolution by a wide margin. Does this invalidate Christianity? Of course not.

Odd how so many, many Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christians are completely at peace in their spirit over the compatibility between evolution and Christianity.

 

[Alchemist]

Evolution, by it's nature is a scientific explanation "hell-bent" on explaining everything through natural explanations only, aka excluding God..

Hi adam149,

Although many atheistic evolutionists would argue that science can explain everything through naturalist processes (and use this to try and disprove God), I do not think this is the case. I don't think you would find many scientists who could tell you that evolution can explain the world, because at present there is so much evolution does not explain. That is what science is about... trying to understand the laws of our the Earth works, acts, changes, was formed, etc. This is not an atheistic attitude, it is a secular one, and we must be sure to distinguish the difference;

atheistic(adj.) rejecting any belief in gods
secular (adj.) not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body
​

The objective of science is not to disprove or reject God, it is to explain the world without introducing theological arguments. All science does this, whether it be chemistry, biology, physics, anthropology, or cosmology; evolution is definitely not an exception.

Thus, you can see my problem in simply saying, "well, God used it," because according to evolutionists, everything has been explained without God and could have just as easily happened on its own, thus God becomes this irrelevent idea in the back of my mind that is pushed farther and farther away as more things are "explained" naturally and independently from Him.

Not really . Evolution has not, and, I believe, cannot possibly explain everything about the world and how it was created. It is true, not all scientists believe in God, but just because one seeks to explain the world in 'earthly' terms, does that mean they by association not want (or need) to seek God? Most TE's would not argue that evolution (or any science for that matter) pushes us away from God... in fact, they would argue the opposite! Science for the TE (or any theistic scientist for that matter) is a way in which we can start to realise the wonderful and incomprehendably complicated system of equilibria that define this Earth, and this realisation gives us great awe at God's amazing power. Darwin (arguably the founding father of evolution, though this is arguable) himself was a theist, and remarked in his works on natural selection about God using natural selection as the way He created life on the earth. This was one man who definitely had God on his mind.

Thus, a God that used evolution is little better than there being no God at all.

Really? As I remark above, I think that understanding science (and the complicated process of DNA replication and inheritance, which one of the fundamental foundations of evolution, is no exception) not only teaches us a lot about the workings of our world, but also strengthens our relationship with God. Many creationists will be quick to point out flaws in evolutionary theory... the unlikeliness it could occur, even given great amounts of time; how life itself came into being; reliance on a incomplete fossil record. But these are all things far from the theological issues at hand. All science, whether it be dominated by atheists, or by Christians (in the case of Creation Science, which I do not wish to comment on), is fallible. It is human. There is no escaping this. TE's and Creationists alike realise this.

But just because TE's accept evolution, does not belittle God in any way. We still accept the Bible as Scriptual Truth, because this is what we base our faith upon. We do not base our faith on science, as we do not think that science can EVER prove God; so we do not use science to validate Scripture. Yes, we do take things from the Bible metaphorically. But does this make us anti-Christian? Many Christians (and Jews), in the past and today, have treated parts of Genesis as metaphorical. We do not believe it affects our salvation, and neither should it... after all, not matter what our interpretation of the Bible is (whether metaphorical, or in the strictest sense literal) the undeniable fact remains that is still only an interpretation, and as such, will also be fallible. What I believe is far more important than how the world came into existance is a) that God created the earth; b) God gave us the gift of spiritual life, through a personal relationship with Adam (whether he be a real man or an analogy for mankind); and c) God sent his Son Jesus, the Messiah, into this world, so that we may have eternal life with Him in heaven!

When these three things are taken into consideration, does it really matter that one does not take a word-for-word literal meaning from the first three chapters of our Holy Book - especially considering none of us do not take at least part of the Bible metaphorically? My answer would be no .

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[herev]

bump since many questions left unanswered