Theistic evolution

[pedja]

Pedja, the opening chapters of the book of Genesis are metaphor. It’s a myth, like the creation myths of countless other cultures (please note I’m not using the term in a pejorative sense here; I am simply describing what it is as a story). It is not an authoritative scientific text, nor was it ever intended to be. The purpose of Genesis is nothing more or less than to give people a satisfying answer to the question ‘how did we get here?’.

‘And God said, Let there be nuclear fusion’ just isn’t the sort of thing an ancient Semitic tribesman would have been able to understand, you know? Nor would an early Israelite get much at all out of a long list of begats from a single-celled organism through a lizard through a dinosaur through Archaeopteryx to an ostrich – and it’d make for ferociously dull reading at that. The text is meant to show the glory of the creator through the creation, not to substitute for a PhD in paleontology.

Mirdath, you are wrong. The opening chapters of Genesis are not a metaphor but an historical account.

I never claimed it is a scientific text. It is as scientific as the big bang and the string-theory.

You are making the typical mistake of being arrogant and assuming ancient Semitic tribesman would not understand evolution. Not only is that statement arrogant but racist and discriminating at the same time. Who gives you the right to determine who would understand how much? Take a look around in the Western civilised country where you live and tell me how many if THEM would understand what Darwinism is about? I seriously cant believe you just said that!

 

[pedja]

I don’t know why miracles are being dragged in, as they are completely irrelevant to to the present subject.​

As to the question: no, it is not historical - the creation is a reality, but it did not occur within history, which is a human reality; because history is an element of human experience, as human beings are conscious of the passage of time, & of their relation to it, & to each other. It is this relation to time & to its “contents” that makes history. And the creation came “before” there were any human beings, & therefore, before there was anyone to be conscious of the passing of time. So stones have no experience of history, nor do angels - they do not experence time, or its content or its passing, as we do; which is simply to say they are not human beings.

Which is a reason why Genesis 1 is included in the body of text called the “primeval history”, which takes in the first 11 chapters of Genesis; these are not in any proper sense historical, the creation narratives least of all. That does not at all mean they are not worth reading - on the contrary, they are among the most important parts of the entire Bible. But that does not, & need not, make them history.

So then, the first 11 chapters are just a myth. According to this logic Terah (10:26) was not Abrams father, is that correct?

 

[Montalban]

Consider this question: why would God allow evil and suffering in the world, if evil and suffering would “cause” people to become atheists?

Free will?

The theory of evolution doesn’t “cause” anyone to become atheists (and neither does evil and suffering). People become atheists because they choose to do so.

Certainly evolution (as it is properly understood) deals away God. Talkorigins is a site that tries to convince people that evolution is not against God. In one sense it isn’t because as far as materialistic evolutionists are concerened there’s no way to prove or disprove God (scientifically). However, the whole process of evolution is described in materialistic terms - that nature alone is sufficient to explain the whole process - leaving no room for God.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
(Christ is risen)

 

[Montalban]

The motivation was to explain observations. Just like all other scientific theories.

Peace

Tim

There’s a problem here though with what is a kind of demarkation dispute. The Bible, for instance, deals nothing with the concept of electro-magetism. If science has an explanation, then it’s not in conflict with a Biblical account, on accound that the Bible says nothing on this matter. However, the Bible does say how the universe came about. Science therefore offers a rival theory.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

 

[Montalban]

Yes they have. Unfortunately for them, their explanations are not consistent with the observations, only with their literal reading of Genesis.

Peace

Tim

No. That’s circular reasoning. You’re saying that the Bible account’s not consistant with the observations - those observations that observe evolution are taken to be valid. Where people observe other forces at work, or for point of fact find logical holes in the ‘evidence’ that points to evolution, people like you just discount it.

You therefore only accept as valid the observations that agree with the finding of evolution by observation. Which is circular reasoning.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

 

[Montalban]

Hah! You must know a different creationism than that put forth by every single creationist I have had the pleasure to converse with.

I know variations of evolutionary theory. For instance when I studied evolution at university (it seems like I’ve had this conversation before) there were several sub-theories about how man arose. There were the
the Unilinear School;
the Polyphyletic School’
the Preneanderthal School; and
the Presapiens School
Poirier, F E, (1986) “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology.

Now there’s two theories (that I’m aware of - there may be others) viz.
“Out of Africa” model; and
the Multiregional model.

They’re considered perfectly valid because they fit within the materialistic evolutionary construct, but are mutually exclusive. Evolutionists are happy to teach both.

There’s feminsit views on evolution. Marxist ones too (for instance they emphasise that man evolved through the use of his hands (manual labour) and through co-operation). Capitalist evolutionists talk more about the struggle of the individual.

First, you are wrong about macroevolution. Second, you need to study Gould a little bit if you are going to use him as part of your argument. You also might want to study punctuated equilibrium before using it to refute macroevolution.

Certainly Gould had a different idea on the rate of change. Are you aware, by the way, of the “Hopeful Monster” idea first put forward by Godlschmidt?

No, it is a matter of honesty. The science is very strong in this area.

Peace

Tim

Again you’re delving into your circular reasoning of support by the evidence by the type of evidence you accept.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

 

[Montalban]

Read these, and come on back.

I must say that I find this a most un-helpful means of discussion. You wave to (alleged) evidence somewhere else - quite a number of books.

Evolution as it is taught by science is wholly materialistic. They might say “God is somewhere at work” but ask one to show you where he is. They can’t because they limit science to materialism.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

 

[Montalban]

Genesis 1 does not contradict evolution, for the very simple reason that Genesis 1 is not a scientific text, & is therefore not concerned with science.​

That’s false. Science contradicts Genesis 1 by saying that life began through materialistic means.

Evolution as it is taught gives explanations that are wholly mundane. There’s no ‘super-natural’ reason for the rise of lifeforms - according to evolutionists.

Unless you’re willing to show a recognised evolutionary work that says “This happened… maybe God did it” then I think you need to read up some more, yourself.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

 

[Montalban]

All Old Testament miracles as well as the ones Jesus did are myths too. Because they are scientifically impossible.

I think it’s fairer to say that they’re ‘impossible’ according to materialistic science. These people have succeeded in pushing their form of science as normative. It’s not wise to just accept that it is so.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!

 

[pedja]

I think it’s fairer to say that they’re ‘impossible’ according to materialistic science. These people have succeeded in pushing their form of science as normative. It’s not wise to just accept that it is so.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!

I agree. I was just pointing put that miracles were as miraculous as the creation itself.

But your reasoning in the last couple of posts is very rational and logical, I like that. To me it seems that Darwinists determine what science is and can be and what kind of evidence can be taken as evidence. They set up the entire framework but blame others on being biased or not really understanding evolution.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, if you`re a Christian, how do you back up your belief in evolution biblically? Is Darwin a higher authority than God?

Well, I am a Christian and I don’t back up my acceptance of scientific evidence for gravity by using scriptures. Oops, I’m sorry. You said evolution. Same answer.

Bottom line, the bible is not a science textbook. Your mistaken requirement that I need biblical support to accept scientific evidence is a clear sign that you have a fundamental misunderstaning of the purpose of scripture.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

There’s a problem here though with what is a kind of demarkation dispute. The Bible, for instance, deals nothing with the concept of electro-magetism. If science has an explanation, then it’s not in conflict with a Biblical account, on accound that the Bible says nothing on this matter. However, the Bible does say how the universe came about. Science therefore offers a rival theory.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

Not a rival scientific theory. There is no scientific evidence that the universe came to be as described in Genesis. There is a massive amount of evidence for the “Big Bang”, an old earth and life having evolved from a common ancestor. Therefore, there is no rival theory from the bible.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

No. That’s circular reasoning. You’re saying that the Bible account’s not consistant with the observations - those observations that observe evolution are taken to be valid. Where people observe other forces at work, or for point of fact find logical holes in the ‘evidence’ that points to evolution, people like you just discount it.

No circular reasoning is needed. What is needed is evidence that the earth was created in 6 days 6,000-10,000 years ago. The creationist must also give scientifically valid explanations for things such as isotope dating that puts the age of the earth at about 4.6 billion years old for example. They can’t do that because it doesn’t exist.

You therefore only accept as valid the observations that agree with the finding of evolution by observation. Which is circular reasoning.

Nope. All scientific evidence must be accounted for in the theory. So far, no evidence contradicting evolution has been found. If it ever is, it will have to be explained.

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

Mirdath, you are wrong. The opening chapters of Genesis are not a metaphor but an historical account.

I never claimed it is a scientific text. It is as scientific as the big bang and the string-theory.

You are making the typical mistake of being arrogant and assuming ancient Semitic tribesman would not understand evolution. Not only is that statement arrogant but racist and discriminating at the same time. Who gives you the right to determine who would understand how much? Take a look around in the Western civilised country where you live and tell me how many if THEM would understand what Darwinism is about? I seriously cant believe you just said that!

I agree, saying “was formed from the dust of the earth” is Moses’ way of saying all we came from the tiny creatures that make up the dust of the earth over a period of time. We gave it the modern name of “evolution”, then proceeded to forget and distort the original way it was explained.

Genesis would have been better understood when it was written, then today… and it supports Evolution and would have been understood in it’s context.

 

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by Orogeny forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Hah! You must know a different creationism than that put forth by every single creationist I have had the pleasure to converse with.

I know variations of evolutionary theory.

That’s not an answer to my statement. I don’t know of any scientist that doesn’t understand that there are different theories of how evolution works.

My reply was to pedja who wrote:

In modern science however the only things which are proven are natural selection and evolution of different species. Creationists dont deny that.

I guarantee you, I can find pleny of creationsist that will deny that. Natural selection is thought to be one of the primary forces in evolution. If that has been “proven”, forgetting for a moment that there things are not proven in science, then a major evolutionary mechanism is proven. There are many, many creationists that will deny that.

Certainly Gould had a different idea on the rate of change. Are you aware, by the way, of the “Hopeful Monster” idea first put forward by Godlschmidt?

Certainly Gould was a staunce supporter of evolution. He may have argued about rates, but he never argued that evolution doesn’t happen.

Yes, I am familiar with Goldschmidt’s thesis.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Evolution as it is taught by science is wholly materialistic. They might say “God is somewhere at work” but ask one to show you where he is. They can’t because they limit science to materialism.

What a strange statement. Do you ask your science teachers to show you where God is when you are studying gravititional theory? Is there ANY scientific theory that adds God to the mix?

Peace

Tim

 

[colliric]

Not a rival scientific theory. There is no scientific evidence that the universe came to be as described in Genesis. There is a massive amount of evidence for the “Big Bang”, an old earth and life having evolved from a common ancestor. Therefore, there is no rival theory from the bible.

Peace

Tim

You are making the mistake of assuming the modern interpretation of Genesis in light of seven day creationism is how the author originally intended it. Not so.

Genesis, when read in the correct manner of understanding, which is the Old Earth Thestic evolution position, is in complete harmony with what we know about Evolution and what we presume to know about the so called “Big Bang”, which itself remains theory. It’s the “earth is flat” theory of space, provable(as you say) only because we haven’t left our little corner of the universe and gone to where we think this “bang” originated.

Until we leave our own galaxy and discover the entire universe, we will never truly know how it was created by God(which could have certainly been through the Big Bang), just like how we didn’t know the earth was round until we actually went the entire way around it.

But genesis is a historical document of how God showed Moses how it was created. It is therefore truth, because it was truth as understood in that age of things. It is not a scientific document but rather a poetic yet literal narrative of creation.

It is evolution and creation, as was understood in the time of moses. It remains the true account of creation, however it is a relative truth, it is how things and events were utterly and compleatly understood by the Writer and the people of that age.

We are to understand it in that way, and in light of that, we are not to accept the incorrect teaching of “Seventh day 24 hour time periods, creationism” but we are to accept that Genesis is truth, a poetic, beautiful vision of how things were created, in the Seven days(which were not 24 hours long) of God.

 

[pedja]

Let me just ask you one question then. If Genesis 1-11 is poetry, does real history start from chapter 12?

 

[Orogeny]

You are making the mistake of assuming the modern interpretation of Genesis in light of seven day creationism is how the author originally intended it. Not so.

Well, I don’t take it as literal, so I don’t think your comment applies to me.

Until we leave our own galaxy and discover the entire universe, we will never truly know how it was created by God(which could have certainly been through the Big Bang), just like how we didn’t know the earth was round until we actually went the entire way around it.

I would only comment that we will NEVER know how God created the universe, at least until we reach heaven.

Peace

Tim

 

[cpayne]

Let me just ask you one question then. If Genesis 1-11 is poetry, does real history start from chapter 12?

Continuing my practice of jumping into arguments not my own: To answer this question (as well as previous posts regarding Jesus’ miracles as history), you’d have to define characteristics of “history.” Here are a few:

History should have eyewitnesses.
If no eyewitnesses, then it would be best if described by contemporaries of the events being described.
If no contemporaries, then there should be observable consequences in the world directly traceable to the events.
Specific dates and times would be helpful.

Consider Jesus’ miracles: Described by eyewitnesses? Yes. Described by contemporaries? Yes. Observable consequences (for example, the changed behavior of the apostles after the Resurrection)? Yes. Specific dates and times? Yes. Consequently, Jesus’ miracles are intended to be read as historical in nature.

Consider Creation: Eyewitnesses? No (obviously, since they hadn’t been created). Contemporaries? No. Observable consequences? No, unless you count the existence of the universe as an observable consequence. Philosophically, I would do so (every effect requires a cause outside of itself); historically, I would not. Specific dates and times? No, except the time given: “In the beginning.” Consequently, Creation is not intended to be read as historical in nature.

Yesterday’s post by Gottle of Geer said basically the same thing; I’m just trying to flesh it out a little. Notice also that I (and, I would be willing to bet, most of the posters on this thread) DO consider myself a “Bible-believing” Christian. However, in order to believe the Bible, one has to understand the intentions of its Author. Is the intention always to provide a historical account? Not necessarily.

None of this is intended to tear down anyone’s faith in the Bible as the inspired, infallible Word of God. However, Creation does not have to be read as a historical account. Or, even more strongly, “should not be read as.”