Theistic evolution

[colliric]

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

There is no real point when it switches from “poetic” to “real” the point being that it is all real history, simply told in a very poetic “dreamtime” like way that the hebrews would understand. Personally though I take it as beginning to get more and more literal history after chapter 3 and their booting from “the garden of eden”. There are many ancient accounts of floods and we know there was a real tower of babel that collapsed(although it was actually a gigantic temple and not a “tower” in the modern sense of the term).

Also it was ancient custom in the middle east to consider a man “alive” until their name was no longer used frequently. Customs give simple explination of how the bible’s earliest historical characters lived for so long. With possible exception of Adam who’s live was prolonged by his stay in the Garden of Eden.

The decision by god to limit man’s life to 120 years may have simply been a decision by God to change our customary practices somehow.

 

[japhy]

I dont understand how Christians can believe in a theistic evolution. It is illogical and contradicts the scripture from cover to cover.

But I’m not made out of clay, am I? I think Genesis 1 supports an evolutionary creation more than you might expect.

Consider the origin of plant-life: And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:11-12) Scripture says that the earth brought forth the plants. The earth obeyed the command of God to produce plant-life.

Consider the origin of animals: And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." (Gen 1:20) These creatures came from the water! And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. (Gen 1:24) These creatures came from the earth! So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air. (Gen 2:19) God didn’t create them out of nothing, they came forth from the ground.

Why didn’t God create everything ex nihilo? Why did God produce life from other, lesser forms?

 

[Mirdath]

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

Are there any other primary sources that back up its account? No. Only other myths.

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!

Most people today don’t understand evolutionary theory or natural selection. However, we have microscopes, know about the cell and the atom, the scientific method, and have such people as biologists and taxonomists devoting their entire lives to explaining this thing. Is it racist to know that the authors of Genesis had no such knowledge whatsoever? Come on, they lived around six thousand years ago! The microscope wouldn’t be invented for millennia yet…

 

[Montalban]

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

It is a rival theory, regardless of whether it’s a rival scientific theory.

And as far as ‘evidence’ goes, well I already know that you only accept one set of evidence, anyway… which is materialistic scientific evidence.

 

[Montalban]

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

Peace

Tim

a) How will you know then?
b) Why can’t God let you know now?

 

[Montalban]

Are there any other primary sources that back up its account? No. Only other myths.

Do you have any sources to show that it’s a myth?

 

[Montalban]

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.”

If you accept Jesus, then accept that he was an eye-witness

“Through whom all things were made”

 

[Mirdath]

Do you have any sources to show that it’s a myth?

Yes. Merriam-Webster online, entry ‘myth’: 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

The early parts of the book of Genesis is an excellent illustration of that definition in all respects. As I mentioned in my post, I am not aiming to impugn the veracity of the bible by calling the creation story mythical; I am simply saying that it is not necessarily literally true. The Catholic Church itself has no official stance on how creation was specifically accomplished beyond ‘God did it somehow’, so my statement that the six days and so forth were allegorical is not contradictory to Catholic teaching.

 

[cpayne]

If you accept Jesus, then accept that he was an eye-witness

“Through whom all things were made”

I accept Jesus as an eyewitness of creation; in fact, through Him all things were made. These are wonderful and powerful truths about Him. However, they have absolutely nothing to do with evidence either for or against evolution.

Take a look at the Christian Creeds: God Almighty, “Creator of Heaven and Earth.” That’s as far as the Creeds go, because that’s as far as the Bible goes. Nowhere do we confess “I believe in God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth in six 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago, instantaneously and not by any other natural processes.” Praise God for His direction in steering the Church clear of this problematic position.

 

[Montalban]

Yes. Merriam-Webster online, entry ‘myth’: 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

So a dictionary definition of myth, and then you apply it to Genesis, without showing why, and hey presto… it just must be one! (note you’ve yet to show why the word ‘ostensibly’ (as part of your definition) applies here)

The early parts of the book of Genesis is an excellent illustration of that definition in all respects. As I mentioned in my post, I am not aiming to impugn the veracity of the bible by calling the creation story mythical; I am simply saying that it is not necessarily literally true.

I don’t take a literal approach either, in one sense. Here’s someone who says it better than I can…

Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood ‘literally’; we don’t even have words, for example, to describe ‘literally’ how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn’t yet exist?”

Fr Seraphim Rose, (2000) “Genesis Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision”, (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood; Platina, CA), p69

or, from the same book St. Basil the Great in his Hexatemeron says “Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written.”

Therefore we ‘believe it’.

The Catholic Church itself has no official stance on how creation was specifically accomplished beyond ‘God did it somehow’, so my statement that the six days and so forth were allegorical is not contradictory to Catholic teaching.

I’m not Catholic, and I could be wrong, but I didn’t think that this thread was restricted to ‘what Catholics believe about theistic evolution’. Nope, just checked the OP and it doesn’t.

 

[Montalban]

I accept Jesus as an eyewitness of creation; in fact, through Him all things were made. These are wonderful and powerful truths about Him. However, they have absolutely nothing to do with evidence either for or against evolution.

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church’s teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
pravoslavie.ru/english/age-of-earth.htm

 

[Mirdath]

So a dictionary definition of myth, and then you apply it to Genesis, without showing why, and hey presto… it just must be one! (note you’ve yet to show why the word ‘ostensibly’ (as part of your definition) applies here)

It really isn’t that hard to figure out, you know. Here, I’ll do the thinking for you anyway:
a usually traditional story – well, Genesis IS a story, and it IS traditional, being several thousands of years old.
of ostensibly historical events – Genesis relates events that are supposed to have happened.
that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people – this would be Jews and Christians.
or explain a practice – several examples of such are present: the wearing of clothing, the exile of criminals, etc.
belief – the big one; the idea that God created the world.
or natural phenomenon. – the rainbow is an excellent example of this function of myth in Genesis.

 

[japhy]

or natural phenomenon. – the rainbow is an excellent example of this function of myth in Genesis.

Heh, that’s a good example. As if water molecules didn’t diffract light until after the Flood.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

No, they are primeval history. Not myth, not history. “Myth” is your word, not mine.​

Was Terah the immediate male parent of Abram ? It’s impossible to say. There is no way of knowing - & no reason to insist that we have to believe that Nahor was the grandfather of Abram or immediate male parent of Terah or that Terah died aged 205. The text is not interested in these things, but in Abram - so it supplies him with an origin. The family tree of Abram connects him with Noah, which by implication connects him with the creation of all things, including mankind; which prepares us for what is said about Abram &, in particular, the promise he received that he would be given a son. The family tree & the ages & names are there for the theology of the book. The traditions that went into the book may well be very old indeed - it doesn’t follow that they have to be strictly historical, like a list of kings or presidents.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

But it cannot go behind the means to their source, or Source. Besides, God is not one in a chain of causes - nor is God an object within the universe. Are you non-existent because you are not limited by your computer, so that I cannot find you within it ? ​

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

1. Yes, I freely admit I need to read a lot more​

1. Science cannot deny that God is the Creator of all things, as it is not a transcendent cause, which God is; & it is in any case not competent to pronounce on theology. Only theology can do that; because there is no proportion between science & theology. Otherwise, one might as well say that sight rules out hearing; it doesn’t, because they are different windows on the same world; they complement each other, & don’t cancel each other out.
2. So there is no need to be able to ferret out books seting out out evolution which invoke theological explanations. ID might do that, but ID is intellectually & theologically worthless

 

[Montalban]

It really isn’t that hard to figure out, you know. Here, I’ll do the thinking for you anyway:
a usually traditional story – well, Genesis IS a story, and it IS traditional, being several thousands of years old.
of ostensibly historical events – Genesis relates events that are supposed to have happened.
that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people – this would be Jews and Christians.
or explain a practice – several examples of such are present: the wearing of clothing, the exile of criminals, etc.
belief – the big one; the idea that God created the world.
or natural phenomenon. – the rainbow is an excellent example of this function of myth in Genesis.

You’re doing too much thinking here. Or rather, you’re still just assuming that the account in Genesis is just a story. How do you know? You just repeat that you do. How do you know? Because you do, because you do because you do. You’re actually (and the irony is brilliant) making a statement of faith!

 

[Montalban]

Heh, that’s a good example. As if water molecules didn’t diffract light until after the Flood.

Are you saying that a few water molecules caused a rainbow! Like Mirdath you simply assume certain things about the world, assume that they were same back then and then work off that.

 

[Montalban]

But it cannot go behind the means to their source, or Source. Besides, God is not one in a chain of causes - nor is God an object within the universe. Are you non-existent because you are not limited by your computer, so that I cannot find you within it ?​

What do you mean “it cannot go behind the means of their source”?

1. Yes, I freely admit I need to read a lot more​

So do I. I’ve several books on evolution I’ve not yet found the time to really sit down and read.

1. Science cannot deny that God is the Creator of all things, as it is not a transcendent cause, which God is; & it is in any case not competent to pronounce on theology.

Materialistic science can not.

Science can already detect (in certain fields) where non-natural things happen.

1. So there is no need to be able to ferret out books seting out out evolution which invoke theological explanations. ID might do that, but ID is intellectually & theologically worthless

Do you have a measure for ‘worth’?

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

 

[japhy]

Are you saying that a few water molecules caused a rainbow! Like Mirdath you simply assume certain things about the world, assume that they were same back then and then work off that.

Are you saying that God changed the properties of water molecules and light after the Flood so that rainbows became possible?

 

[mapleoak]

I dont understand how Christians can believe in a theistic evolution. It is illogical and contradicts the scripture from cover to cover. It is important to question the motivation behind Darwinism. Charles Darwin, his grandfather Erasmus, Lyell, Wallace, Huxley, Haeckel, all of those big names were anti-Christians with an agenda. There is absolutely no need for a Christian to believe in Darwinian evolution and I wish ALL churches should stand together in this!

Exactly. There is no reason to believe in evolution of any sort. Especially given the fact that there is no possibility of verifying or confirming any hypothesis regarding the matter (neccessary for proper application of the scientific method). Procedures used to date materials, for example, cannot account for a created universe with an ‘apparent’ age. A fully grown tree by appearances could seem 60 years old when in fact it could have been just created. The universe could appear to be 60 billion years old when likewise it may have been created in a state of existence.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak