Genesis v Evolution

[ragincajunjoe]

I have a few points on this subject.

1. I believe that … no matter if Genesis is interpreted literally or is interpreted to allow for evolution … it cannot be denied by either of the interpreters that God, regardless of His method, DID create the world and everything in it.
2. I believe that my view on (1) is the only thing that is absolutely necessary for a Christian to understand. It doesn’t matter how God did it and how long it took Him. It just matters that He did it.
3. I personally believe in a literal 7-day creation.
4. I think this argument among Christians is not worth the trouble most go through for it. Let us turn our eyes to things that actually should tear us apart and try and resolve those differences.

 

[edwest2]

In point 4, what differences?

God bless,
Ed

 

[SoCalRC]

I wonder how evolution, a process supposedly based on random mutations, can assess what is needed for survival. If we are to accept that idea, why haven’t we evolved immunities to various degenerative diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes? Wouldn’t that contribute to our surviveability?

I just explained this. No “assess” occurs. A mutation (or otherwise unusual genetic combination) happens or it doesn’t. Once a mutation happens it either provides a competitive advantage, or it doesn’t. What is an ‘advantage’ is also often a mixed blessing.

Take sickle cell anemia. It really only occurs in a certain segment of the human population. It is agonizing and generally life shortening. What possible ‘advantage’ could it have? Simple, people with SCA are highly resistant to malaria, which, prior to modern medical treatements, was highly deadly to everyone else. So, in the right place at the right time, what normally would be considered a competitive disadvantage was a huge advantage (ie, living long enough to reproduce).

Again, mutation, chance, and competition generally over very long periods of time. That’s it. The theory does not include any ‘assessments’ or ‘direction’.

Again, this in no way precludes the possibility of God, it just makes God’s plan much bigger. It does not even have to conflict with Genesis.

 

[freesoulhope]

Sure, it has a purpose: produce creatures best suited for survival in their environments. It’s not accidental, though accidents can certainly be involved in natural selection (see also: Darwin Awards)
.

If there is no God, and natural processes are blind, then there is no purpose. The fact that the evolutionary model produces creatures best suited for survival acording to their enviroments, can only be thought of as a long line of improbable Coincidences, made even more improbable, it seems, with “Quantum Physics” ( according to Keith Ward), since nature is nolonger purely Pre-determined by pre-causes at the Quamtum Level.

The Quantum Physics part might be wrong; i am no expert, and there are many. but i like to see your response.

Conclusion: If you percieve purpose in nature, you should be a Theist. Are you a Theistic Mirdath now?

 

[Mirdath]

Conclusion: If you percieve purpose in nature, you should be a Theist. Are you a Theistic Mirdath now?

Not last I checked

Nature isn’t blind, it’s just very narrow-sighted (and by that I do not mean sentient in any way): what’s best for this in this situation? Them what can survive – including by adapting to a new environment, do. Them what can’t, don’t.

 

[freesoulhope]

Not last I checked

Nature isn’t blind, it’s just very narrow-sighted (and by that I do not mean sentient in any way): what’s best for this in this situation? Them what can survive – including by adapting to a new environment, do. Them what can’t, don’t.

You mean that there is a deterministic element to nature, which is in fact blind, but determines the out comes non the less?

Purpose (as an objective element to nature) means one thing. It means there is a plan in motion. I can create purpose, and by using my self as an analogy, you should already see that it would take a sentient being to create it.

Atheistic Evolution is blind, so far as there being any point to the process; there is no purpose, its not happening for a purpose; therefore there is no point, its just something that is happening. If there is no God, biological organism are meaningless coicidences, so far as determining factors are concerned. It just coicidental that the right factors, for life permitence, were in the right place at the right time. Its not a coincidence, however, that when things are in the right place at the right time, life will ocurr and develop; this is already determined by the initial properties and conditions inherent in the Universe; since the Big Bang. It is the process, by which biological organisms arise, that is blind. It does not know that its creating life.

Life either has a purpose, or it is an accident. Its not short sighted; it is simply blind luck.

Me personaly; i think its quite obvious that God did it.

 

[SoCalRC]

If there is no God, and natural processes are blind, then there is no purpose. The fact that the evolutionary model produces creatures best suited for survival acording to their enviroments, can only be thought of as a long line of improbable Coincidences, made even more improbable, it seems, with “Quantum Physics” ( according to Keith Ward), since nature is nolonger purely Pre-determined by pre-causes at the Quamtum Level.

The Quantum Physics part might be wrong; i am no expert, and there are many. but i like to see your response.

Conclusion: If you percieve purpose in nature, you should be a Theist. Are you a Theistic Mirdath now?

The quantum mechanics is essentially correct. There is a demonstrable uncertainty principle. However, there is also faster than light signaling. Both concepts made Einstein livid, but it was actually an experiment that he concocted that established both (we had to wait for lasers and fast computers, but the moment came at CERN amlost two decades ago.

So, on the one hand, ‘free will’ appears to be woven into the fabric of the universe. On the other hand, it appears that distances so vast we cannot even comprehend them are, in a certain way, irrelevant. Why does either of these erase the purpose of life?

Use the following thought experiment. Don’t consider this theology, just a thought experiment. Now, imagine for a moment that ‘in his own image’ means not our physical being, but free will. That is, for some reason God decided that we needed to make some choices, not just follow a deterministic path programmed into us. So, he created an entire universe, woven the way it is, and allowed us to develop. When, after a span of time we can’t really imagine, we finally emerged, he put the ‘breath of life’, an immortal soul into Adam. So much effort mine mean an even higher purpose, not none. But, big or small, isn’t it enough to be some part of God’s plan and thankful for the gifts of life and reason?

 

[Caldera]

SoCalRC:

So, he created an entire universe, woven the way it is, and allowed us to develop. When, after a span of time we can’t really imagine, we finally emerged, he put the ‘breath of life’, an immortal soul into Adam.

We are talking about the foundation of our faith. Creation of the Earth & Humans are a package deal in both stories. IF evolution is true, can we still find other truths worthy of belief in Genesis?

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCalRC:

We are talking about the foundation of our faith. Creation of the Earth & Humans are a package deal in both stories. IF evolution is true, can we still find other truths worthy of belief in Genesis?

Well, first of all, the foundation of my faith is the death and resurrection of my savior, Jesus.

Second, how does evolution really change the moral and theological lessons of Genesis at all? We were created, it was a gradual, progressive process, and it occurred over time. It was so monumental that it apparently taxed even God… Seems to me that if we just give a little lattitude on the concept of time applied, our scientific understanding of the development of the earth and ourselves is a pretty good fit.

Arguments about this seem to fall into one of two catagories, not taking every single word of the Bible as literal truth, or a theological threat to the concept of original sin. The first argument has never made much sense to me. As I mentioned, Jesus’ death and resurrection are incredibly important to my faith, but the Gospels differ, often significantly, on details of both events. Do these inconsistancies and contradictions undermine my faith or invalidate the Gospels? No!

The second argument usually goes along the lines of ‘evolution implies polygenism, if there isn’t one original mating pair there cannot be original sin…’ For me, this falls apart on a couple of levels. First, the science is not yet conclusive. There is actually some pretty good evidence that every human being on earth has a shared common maternal ancestor. Second, polygenism itself actually helps avoid some odd theological questions (like, who did Cain marry?) The only thing it seems to truly exclude is concepts like traducianism (soul, original sin, and biology all one process) - something we Catholics already reject as heretical.

But again, thiat is just my take. Clearly some people feel very strongly about this and I am sorry if it sounds like I am making light of their beliefs.

Best Regards

 

[Koru]

Didn’t God say “And God saw that it was good.” when referring to all that was created during each day? Would somebody please show me where death is something God refers to as “good”?

It’s my understanding that death is brought on by sin, the state of separation from God. If death is the consequence for going against the Will of God (Original Sin), then why would God possibly use death over and over again to fulfill what He desired to create (and could create without the need for it)? The Lord God NEVER refers to death as part of what is good in His creations.

 

[Koru]

I apologize for double-posting, but here is a link to a conference that covers these issues.

Creation Conference

God Bless,
~Cole

 

[abu_kamoon]

“It’s my understanding that death is brought on by sin, the state of separation from God. If death is the consequence for going against the Will of God (Original Sin), then why would God possibly use death over and over again to fulfill what He desired to create (and could create without the need for it)? The Lord God NEVER refers to death as part of what is good in His creations.”

Exactly! And that’s why evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Either one or the other is correct. They both can’t be. Evolution is a complete contradiction of Genesis. There is no lesson in Genesis, if the entire book is a myth.

Either sin brought death into a world that was very good, or death and suffering had been around for millions of years. Either man was created of the dust of the Earth, or he was born into a family of monkeys.

Either the first man spoke to God, or he was some sort of ape-like primitive creature. You can’t have it both ways. We are viewing two diametrically opposed views of creation.

 

[Mirdath]

Exactly! And that’s why evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Either one or the other is correct. They both can’t be. Evolution is a complete contradiction of Genesis. There is no lesson in Genesis, if the entire book is a myth.

‘Myth’ and ‘lie’ are different things. A story may not be factually true, but as the Church teaches, there’s more to Truth than simple facts.

Either sin brought death into a world that was very good, or death and suffering had been around for millions of years

And I suppose every animal in Eden subsisted on nothing more than air, instead of killing and eating plants and each other? How then do you explain the presence of herbivores and carnivores, if they could not have been created to kill other things for furthering their own existence? Did they evolve to be able to eat plant and flesh, losing their capability to extract nutriment from the wind?

Either man was created of the dust of the Earth, or he was born into a family of monkeys.

How might humans have been created of dust? Might it not have involved primates at some point? Would you say that that method of creation is impossible for God?

 

[Caldera]

SoCalRC,

I appreciate your reply, and have no desire to argue it…

The Catholic Church has a rich spirituality, and i used to be apart of it. Back in the mid 90’s i was on fire with faith even though at the time i had minimal theological understanding. It wasn’t until i opened the bible and started studying it that i began to have doubts such as wondering if we may be “role-playing” our beliefs. I gradually fell away questioning a lot of things i was told i had to believe to be Catholic, and reading Genesis was a big contributor to it.

Today, of all things, i find myself trying to defend Genesis because it is part of the whole reason we have our foundation in Christ. If i can’t somehow justify these beliefs, (and others) i don’t know if i’ll ever get back to practicing my family faith…

But hey, in the meantime, at least i’m having fun asking whacky questions.

Take care.

 

[Mirdath]

Today, of all things, i find myself trying to defend Genesis because it is part of the whole reason we have our foundation in Christ. If i can’t somehow justify these beliefs, (and others) i don’t know if i’ll ever get back to practicing my family faith…

But hey, in the meantime, at least i’m having fun asking whacky questions.

Take care.

Something can be True without being historically accurate. From the Catechism:

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

Obviously, the authors of Genesis did not have the benefit of knowing Mendel or Darwin or Gould; they did not have an extensive fossil record showing changes in species; and they surely did not have a microscope. What, then, is the core of their teaching? It has nothing to do with six days, nothing to do with the order in which things happened. The core of the Creation account is this and nothing more: God did it, and lo, it was pretty neat. Religion in general, and scripture in particular, is not about how but about why. How is the question science seeks to answer.

 

[Koru]

Mirdath, the book of Genesis explains that the vegetation shall be as meat for the living before the flood, after the flood… that is when God took away that rule and what is needed for meat for the living was changed.

Genesis 1:29
“And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:”

Genesis 9:2-3
“And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand.”
“And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you:”

Hope this explains things!

God Bless,
~Cole

 

[steveandersen]

Exactly! And that’s why evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Either one or the other is correct. They both can’t be.

sure they can

Evolution is a complete contradiction of Genesis. There is no lesson in Genesis, if the entire book is a myth.

I asked before why you seem to equate the term “myth” with “untrue” the words aren’t the same.

Evolution is not a complete contradiction of Genisis. If anyting it ignores it.
But in essance both say the same things:

• Life had an origin
• The physical portion of man is from the dust
• The process of the emergence of living things took time (whether it was days or 7 epochs really isn’t important to faith)
• Life is Good (Yes, that is a normative statement the science wouldn’t make but… no one would say that life is bad either)

Either sin brought death into a world that was very good, or death and suffering had been around for millions of years. Either man was created of the dust of the Earth, or he was born into a family of monkeys.

You are creating a false dichotomy where one need not exist

Either the first man spoke to God, or he was some sort of ape-like primitive creature.

once he had a soul he was no longer an “ape-like primitive creature”… he was a man

You can’t have it both ways. We are viewing two diametrically opposed views of creation.

Nonsense.

God formed man out of the earth. Who is to say that didn’t take a billion years or so? Who are we to bring God down to a human scale?

 

[edwest2]

Who are we to say God does not cause miracles? Raising the dead, water to wine, commanding the wind. These are things God can do. Earth and man in six days? No problem.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Who are we to say God does not cause miracles? Raising the dead, water to wine, commanding the wind. These are things God can do. Earth and man in six days? No problem.

WE don’t. Earth and man in six days is no problem for God. The problem is that if that is literally true, He didn’t stop there. He then created all the evidence to convince us that the earth is old and man evolved. A deceiver God? Is that what you believe?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

WE don’t. Earth and man in six days is no problem for God. The problem is that if that is literally true, He didn’t stop there. He then created all the evidence to convince us that the earth is old and man evolved. A deceiver God? Is that what you believe?

Peace

Tim

Oregeny,

Don’t go there. I think that deception argument is bogus. We as humans are not capable of complete interpretation. We do not know the parameters early on.