How does an evolutionist deal with the theological issues with evolution?

[jemfinch]

I brought this up in the other evolution thread, but received no real replies. So I figured I’d start a new thread on it.

I’m not concerned about six days of creation or anything of the sort; I think it’s reasonable enough under any circumstances to view the days of creation as a literary account and not a literal account. (Jimmy Akin’s article pointing out the significance of the fact that the day and night were created three days before the sun, moon, and stars was instrumental in my understanding on this point.)

Even with that stated, there seem to be fundamental theological issues with evolution that I think ought to be discussed without all the “science versus faith” and “six days” bickering.

Please note that when I refer to “evolution,” I’m referring to the use of the scientific knowledge we have of how biological things work today (speciation, mutation, population change, etc.) to explain the origin of the biological diversity that exists on the planet. This isn’t a place to argue about the science behind evolution or creationism.

1. Genesis indicates that everything God created, he called “good.” Evolution tells us of a world in which progress is made by means of death, pain, and suffering. Is can these views be reconciled?
2. Romans says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin.” Evolution says that prior to Adam’s sin, death was already in the world. How are those views reconciled?
3. Romans says, “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” It seems to indicate that the present state of the world is a direct result of Adam’s fall. Evolution says that the death, pain, and suffering in the world pre-existed Adam’s sin. How are these claims reconciled?

In short, I’m curious how evolutionist reconcile the apparent biblical idea of a perfect Eden with the evolutionary idea that death and pain and suffering pre-existed the Fall.

Jeremy

 

[Orogeny]

Your supposition that death and suffering did not exist before the fall of man seems to me to miss the point of the story of Adam and Eve. Whether or not plants and non-human animals died or suffered before the fall is not even part of the story. Death and suffering came into the world when Adam sinned. Prior to that point, he and Eve were in perfect communion with God and were assured everlasting life. Once they sinned, they broke that communion and set up the possibility of spiritual death (hell). If Adam had not sinned, there would be no threat that our souls would go to hell.

Since plants and non-human animals don’t have eternal souls, there is no threat of hell or the promise of everlasting life. Man’s sinning does not affect them at all.

Peace

Tim

 

[Verbum]

Hi jemfinch,

Romans 5, 12, from which you quote is followed by Romans 12, 15 :

If, through the fault of one only, the many died, how much more… etc

Obviously, St. Paul is speaking of humans : the one … the many.

At the same time, creation in general is not absent from this equation. In chapter 8, verses 19 and following, St. Paul speaks of creation “groaning” for its salvation. (This theme comes up in several other places, including Revelation). While we know that there was death and corruption in nature before man’s trial, what would have happened had man not sinned? Perhaps, we would have had what in Revelation is called “a new heaven and a new earth” promised to us after the Last Judgment, when all things will be brought “under one Head, Christ”. (Eph. 1,10).

Verbum

 

[Ahimsa]

1. Genesis indicates that everything God created, he called “good.” Evolution tells us of a world in which progress is made by means of death, pain, and suffering. Is can these views be reconciled?

Isn’t progress “good”?

1. Romans says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin.” Evolution says that prior to Adam’s sin, death was already in the world. How are those views reconciled?

The write of Romans was addressing how spiritual death became a reality for humans. Physical death in the natural world wasn’t his concern.

1. Romans says, “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” It seems to indicate that the present state of the world is a direct result of Adam’s fall. Evolution says that the death, pain, and suffering in the world pre-existed Adam’s sin. How are these claims reconciled?

Again, the writer of Romans is concerned with the spiritual life of humanity, and is not trying to give a scientific description of non-human life and death. The “bondage to corruption” of which the writer of Roman speaks, refers to the human bondage to corruption, which in turn places creation in bondage and corruption as well.

In short, I’m curious how evolutionist reconcile the apparent biblical idea of a perfect Eden with the evolutionary idea that death and pain and suffering pre-existed the Fall.

A “perfect” Eden in man’s eyes, is quite different from a perfect Eden in God’s eyes.

 

[jemfinch]

Your supposition that death and suffering did not exist before the fall of man seems to me to miss the point of the story of Adam and Eve.

But is it wrong? If so, on what grounds?

Whether or not plants and non-human animals died or suffered before the fall is not even part of the story. Death and suffering came into the world when Adam sinned.

I’m not really quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that plants and animals did die and suffer prior to the fall, or that they didn’t?

Since plants and non-human animals don’t have eternal souls, there is no threat of hell or the promise of everlasting life. Man’s sinning does not affect them at all.

Romans 8 very clearly says that creation was subjected to futility. Romans 5 clearly says that “sin entered the world” through Adam. The world before the fall was different in some way than the world after the fall. It seems to me that if death entered the world through Adam’s sin, then evolution could not be the case, since evolution depends on death.

Verbum:

At the same time, creation in general is not absent from this equation. In chapter 8, verses 19 and following, St. Paul speaks of creation “groaning” for its salvation.

I know, I quoted that passage

While we know that there was death and corruption in nature before man’s trial,

How do we know that?

Ahimsa:

Isn’t progress “good”?

Depends on the type of progress If progress comes via evil or bad means, is it good?

The “bondage to corruption” of which the writer of Roman speaks, refers to the human bondage to corruption, which in turn places creation in bondage and corruption as well.

He says, “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” The passage is clearly talking directly about the creation’s bondage to corruption, not about human bondage to corruption: human bondage is an afterthought, almost, added at the end. What’s very clear, at least to me, is that the corruption we see in nature is a result of man’s sin, and not something that pre-existed it. And I don’t know how to reconcile that idea with the idea that pain and suffering and death occurred for millions of years before Adam existed.

A “perfect” Eden in man’s eyes, is quite different from a perfect Eden in God’s eyes.

So you think that an Eden that resulted through millions of years of death, pain, and suffering was perfect in God’s eyes? How?

Jeremy

 

[abu_kamoon]

Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible. Anyone who has a foot in both camps is just kidding themselves.

The entire reason for Evolutionism is to give a naturalistic explanation for creation without a Creator. Either all that we see was brought into existence by a Creator, or it is the result of natural forces. If you believe that natural forces could have brought about the universe, and all that is in it, why would you believe in the existence of God? For sentimental reasons?

No, there is NO mechanism to explain the origin of the universe. There is no mechanism for the origin of life. Nobody has ever seen it. It can’t be done in a laboratory. You can believe it if you want. You can even call it science, but it is NOT science. It is religion.

Evolutionism is religion. It is based on faith, not scientific observation. Evolutionism requires no God. Evolutionism claims that the universe was self made, and that life came about by natural forces. Why anyone whould accept this belief, and simultaneously claim to believe in the God of the Bible is a mystery to me.

If Evolutionism were true, then either the Bible is fiction, or God lied to us. Either death came after sin, or death had occured for millions of years before the first ape-man came on the scene. Which was it? You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Orogeny]

But is it wrong? If so, on what grounds?

Yes, it’s wrong. Salvation is for humans, not plants or non-human animals. Sin is irrelevant to non-humans. The death that entered the world is clearly spiritual death - separation of one from God. No plant or non-human animal has the opportunity for eternal life or eternal damnation.

I’m not really quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that plants and animals did die and suffer prior to the fall, or that they didn’t?

Of course there was death of plants and non-human animals (including hominids) prior to the fall.

Romans 8 very clearly says that creation was subjected to futility. Romans 5 clearly says that “sin entered the world” through Adam. The world before the fall was different in some way than the world after the fall. It seems to me that if death entered the world through Adam’s sin, then evolution could not be the case, since evolution depends on death.

Let me ask you something. Does Romans 8 mean that all creation is condemned to hell? Can it be saved? If so, what exactly is condemned or saved since plants, non-human animals, rocks, water, air, etc. don’t have immortal souls? Will photons be confined to hell because Adam sinned?

Yes, that may sound a bit ridiculous, but those things are all part of creation. If you take a literal reading of that scripture, your answer must be yes, all those things are condemned to hell because of Adam’s sin. For some reason, I don’t think that is the point of that passage, do you?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

If Evolutionism were true, then either the Bible is fiction, or God lied to us.

Only according to your personal theology. The Church does not teach that.

Either death came after sin, or death had occured for millions of years before the first ape-man came on the scene. Which was it? You can’t have it both ways.

Death occurred for (at least) millions of years before original sin. Not a single human, however, died prior to that event.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

It seems to me that if death entered the world through Adam’s sin, then evolution could not be the case, since evolution depends on death.

What do you count as “death”? Does the death of a single cell count? Our immune systems kill many cells every day, most of which are bacteria. Our stomach acids kill many more bacteria as we eat them. Eating plants causes death of plant cells, and sometimes of the whole plant. Eating seeds kills the embryo plant in the seed.

Even in our own development in the womb, cells need to die. If they didn’t then we would all have webbed hands.

Life depends on death, not just evolution. Without death we would be knee deep in rabbits, neck deep in flies and ten feet under the level of bacteria. Without death the whole ecosystem could not function. Without death there could be no birth, as the living would occupy all the space in the world, with no room for new arrivals.

rossum

 

[Donald45]

Romans says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin.” Evolution says that prior to Adam’s sin, death was already in the world. How are those views reconciled?

asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Phillips.pdf

Don
+T+

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible. Anyone who has a foot in both camps is just kidding themselves.

The entire reason for Evolutionism is to give a naturalistic explanation for creation without a Creator. Either all that we see was brought into existence by a Creator, or it is the result of natural forces. If you believe that natural forces could have brought about the universe, and all that is in it, why would you believe in the existence of God? For sentimental reasons?

How does the one rule out the other ?​

God is not a God of the gaps (for the billionth time ) - even if everything in all creation could be comprehensively accounted for without mentioning God (which is very far indeed from being the case),that would not in the slightest squeeze God out of what is His own creation: because God is not an explanation for what is unaccountable. ID makes exactly this blunder of assuming that God is an explanatory device to account for things. ##

No, there is NO mechanism to explain the origin of the universe. There is no mechanism for the origin of life. Nobody has ever seen it. It can’t be done in a laboratory. You can believe it if you want. You can even call it science, but it is NOT science. It is religion.

Evolutionism is religion. It is based on faith, not scientific observation. Evolutionism requires no God.

God does not need to be needed - He does not have to justify His existence. ​

Evolutionism claims that the universe was self made, and that life came about by natural forces. Why anyone whould accept this belief, and simultaneously claim to believe in the God of the Bible is a mystery to me.

I don’t believe in a God Who is limited to the Bible, but in God Who is revealed through it, without being limited to it. The full Revelation of God is in Jesus Christ - the Bible is secondary to this, though of very great importance. Does evolution centre on Christ ? Yes. Anything that exists, does so by definition.​

I’m not quite sure whether your target is evolutionism, or evolution, or both.

If Evolutionism were true, then either the Bible is fiction, or God lied to us. Either death came after sin, or death had occured for millions of years before the first ape-man came on the scene. Which was it? You can’t have it both ways.

As I see it, evolution is dealing with things under a different aspect from the Bible. So there is no contradiction, because the two aspects are different. Human bodies can be studied by forensic pathologists, & by artists - there is no contradiction, because art & forensic medicine are united only in what is is being studied; not in the POVs from which it is being studied. Art is not a branch of medicine.​

So with evolution & God’s creative activity - there is no contradiction between the randomness of evolution in the world, & the confession of God as Creator, because the two accounts of why & how things are completely different in kind. God is not an entity within the universe, but transcends it - unlike evolution. It is because there is a transcendent God that there is conceptual & actual room for evolution. I believe both are actualities

 

[steveandersen]

….1. Genesis indicates that everything God created, he called “good.” Evolution tells us of a world in which progress is made by means of death, pain, and suffering. Is can these views be reconciled?

You are assuming that death, pain, and suffering are not part of the “good”

Don’t confuse misfortune with evil

An antelope might consider running into a lion a “bad thing” but it is a very good thing for a lion with hungry cubs.

1. Romans says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin.” Evolution says that prior to Adam’s sin, death was already in the world. How are those views reconciled?

It is possible to reconcile if Romans is referring to spiritual death and not physical death.

1. Romans says, “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” It seems to indicate that the present state of the world is a direct result of Adam’s fall. Evolution says that the death, pain, and suffering in the world pre-existed Adam’s sin. How are these claims reconciled?

See item one

There are plenty of things in the world that sin causes. The regular old struggles of life are not part of that.

In short, I’m curious how evolutionist reconcile the apparent biblical idea of a perfect Eden with the evolutionary idea that death and pain and suffering pre-existed the Fall.

Jeremy

Evolution cannot speak to the issue

But are you saying that before the Fall Adam could stub his toe but feel no pain?
Are you saying that he could eat of the fruits of the garden but the plant didn’t die in the process? How do you reconcile that?

Clearly death and contact with the world (painful or pleasurable) are an integral part of life.

 

[Riley259]

asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Phillips.pdf

Don
+T+

Thanks for that link addressing Genesis and evolution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. Genesis indicates that everything God created, he called “good.” Evolution tells us of a world in which progress is made by means of death, pain, and suffering. Is can these views be reconciled?

If the world that God created cannot have death, pain and suffering, then clearly this isn’t the world He created – because we have death, pain and suffering aplenty!

1. Romans says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin.” Evolution says that prior to Adam’s sin, death was already in the world. How are those views reconciled?

The death in question is the loss of salvation, not the loss of mortal life.

1. Romans says, “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” It seems to indicate that the present state of the world is a direct result of Adam’s fall. Evolution says that the death, pain, and suffering in the world pre-existed Adam’s sin. How are these claims reconciled?

Prior to Adam, there were no beings with immortal souls – and it is the immortal soul and it’s loss of salvation to which Paul refers as death.

Remember the Apostle’s Creed?

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

(My emphasis)

Clearly the life everlasting is the life of the soul (and ultimately the resurrected body) – I don’t know of anyone who recites the Apostle’s Creed who literally believes he will never die on this earth.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Art is not a branch of medicine.

This is very true. And evolution is not science. And the Creation and origin of life is not a subject that can be studied by science. This seems to be a stumbling block for a lot of people.

Perhaps some of the people who think that Evolution is compatible with the Bible can explain the Resurrection scientifically. Or any other supernatural Biblical events.

Why believe in the Resurrection unless you can explain how it was done?

The real argument is not that God could chose to use a mechanism like Evolution to bring about the human race. Certainly He could have, had He chosen to do so. The problem is that the Bible is quite specific that He did not use Evolution, or anything like it. Why would the Bible clearly state that each kind reproduced its own kind? Wouldn’t that be obvious? It’s only in the last hundred and fifty years that some people believe one animal could produce another! Is this not a direct rejection of the Evolutionary theory?

The Bible says that death came after sin. This must be an error in the Bible, since we know now that creatures were dying for millions of years.

The Bible says that the first man named all of the animals. How could he have named the dinoaurs if they died out 65 million years ago? I guess the writers who were inspired by God got confused on that one too.

I think that you either have to reject the Bible, or you have to reject Evolutionism. They are not compatible.

 

[steveandersen]

….And evolution is not science.

of course it is!

And the Creation and origin of life is not a subject that can be studied by science. This seems to be a stumbling block for a lot of people.

why can’t they be studied?

Perhaps some of the people who think that Evolution is compatible with the Bible can explain the Resurrection scientifically. Or any other supernatural Biblical events.

Miraculous events are… miraculous
By definition they cannot be explained scientifically

However science is perfectly at home explaining existing natural observations and data

that is what it does

Why believe in the Resurrection unless you can explain how it was done?

if you could explain how it was done then it wouldn’t be a matter of belief then now would it?

The real argument is not that God could chose to use a mechanism like Evolution to bring about the human race. Certainly He could have, had He chosen to do so.

Concession accepted

The problem is that the Bible is quite specific that He did not use Evolution, or anything like it.

it says we were formed form the earth which is just what evolution says

Why would the Bible clearly state that each kind reproduced its own kind? Wouldn’t that be obvious? It’s only in the last hundred and fifty years that some people believe one animal could produce another! Is this not a direct rejection of the Evolutionary theory?

You obviously don’t know a lot about evolution
Of course each kind can only reproduce with the same kind
Evolution isn’t some weird cross breeding experiment

The Bible says that death came after sin. This must be an error in the Bible, since we know now that creatures were dying for millions of years.

Or the Bible wasn’t talking of physical death

Clearly things have been dying for a long time
The coal seams and oil wells, and coral reefs are made of their dead bodies
As is the very top soil of the earth

The Bible says that the first man named all of the animals. How could he have named the dinoaurs if they died out 65 million years ago? I guess the writers who were inspired by God got confused on that one too.

What about the animals that have only recently been discovered?
What about new species?

I think that you either have to reject the Bible, or you have to reject Evolutionism. They are not compatible.

Fortunately I’m a Catholic and don’t have to suffer form such a circumscribed worldview.

The Pope Himself clearly disagrees with you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fortunately I’m a Catholic and don’t have to suffer form such a circumscribed worldview.

And our faith is not so weak that we have to hide under the bed from science, lest our whole belief system be destroyed.

The Pope Himself clearly disagrees with you.

His faith is pretty strong, too.

 

[hecd2]

Evolutionism is religion. It is based on faith, not scientific observation.

More than 99% of working scientists, each one of whom has a much stronger claim than you do to determine what is genuine science and what is not, disagree with you. Evolutionary biology is about as mainstream as science gets. It is based on vast quantities of observational evidence - to claim otherwise is to inadvertently or deliberately promote a falsehood

Those who have committed themselves to the God of the Gaps argument and the ridiculous false dichotomy of science versus religion have painted themselves into a corner where, in order to maintain some semblance of credibility, they are led to more and more foolish and desperate arguments such as the utterly silly claim that evolutionary biology is not science. The fact is that their position is patently absurd. Evolutionary biology is a core science according to any sensible definition. In order to try to maintain their untenable position, creationists have to deny not only biology, but also palaeontology, archaeology, geology, biogeography, developmental biology, physics, astro-physics, cosmology and so on - and usually they do this while not understanding the first thing about any of these subjects.

The YEC argument was irretrievably lost more than 150 years ago - those with any sense have moved on.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[freesoulhope]

Since plants and non-human animals don’t have eternal souls, there is no threat of hell or the promise of everlasting life. Man’s sinning does not affect them at all.

Peace

Tim

Thanks; God bless. Your Last bit helped.

 

[Ahimsa]

The problem is that the Bible is quite specific that He did not use Evolution, or anything like it.

The writer(s) of Genesis had no idea of any theory of evolution as known by modern science. Therefore, they/he/she could not specifically reject evolutionary theory.