Theistic evolution

[Montalban]

But the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not a naturally occuring phenomenon, it was ordained by God that very night in Jerusalem at the hands of Jesus. It wasn’t something God adopted; rainbows, on the other hand, could have been adopted by God as a sign of the covenant.

I believe God created the first life. This is now deemed a ‘naturally occuring phenonmenon’. That it ‘began’ with God doesn’t lessen that it now seems ‘mundane’ (although some people do talk of the *miracle *of life)

If rainbows could appear in the mist of waterfalls, why might they not have appeared in the sky after rain on a pre-Flood Earth? Or was the Flood the first rain?

Some suppose that there was not rain before the flood. On saying that I find myself being moved into a literal defence, and as noted before (see quote re: the late Fr. Seraphim Rose) I don’t follow that stance. However you seem to be taking a literalistic approach, and then arguing by way of reason and science against that.

I believe that it is so.

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

 

[mapleoak]

Of course I believe my parents existed before me. I was playing devil’s advocate with that remark.

Apparent age seems to me to be a deceptive tactic.

‘Accidents’ could also be substituted for ‘Apparency’. Just as in the Consecration, God becomes present as Body and Blood under the accidents of bread of and wine. Any scientific test or observation would indicate that it is only bread and wine. Is this deception?
So also that created matter would, to our limited senses, have to exhibit a property of always having existed.

In Christ - J.M.J
Mapleoak

 

[Montalban]

‘Accidents’ could also be substituted for ‘Apparency’. Just as in the Consecration, God becomes present as Body and Blood under the accidents of bread of and wine. Any scientific test or observation would indicate that it is only bread and wine. Is this deception?
So also that created matter would, to our limited senses, have to exhibit a property of always having existed.

In Christ - J.M.J
Mapleoak

Well said. The Body and Blood seem to be bread and wine, still

There are things we must accept from God despite what our senses tell us, because it is *reasonable *to trust God over ourselves

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

 

[Mirdath]

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!

And you’re assuming that because I say ‘story’ I mean ‘fiction’. I did no such thing.

 

[cpayne]

That’s rather an odd theory. It just assumes that whatever evidence you’ve found for an old earth must be correct because it is because any other evidence would be wrong, because it is. And God doens’t give wrong evidence ! It simply assumes one thing first and then says in effect “God wouldn’t be contradicting our findings of the evidence” because God wouldn’t do that!

Well, no. Let me add words to this (rather odd) paraphrase, since it didn’t really come close to what I was saying. This is closer: “Whatever evidence [meaning: empirically testable evidence] we’ve found [by scientific means] for an old earth must be correct because it is [empirically testable] because any other evidence would be wrong, because it is [contrary to empirically testable findings]. And God doesn’t give wrong evidence [this sentence, at least, does preserve what I was saying], because God is not deceptive.”

Let me try a different approach: Let’s assume (this would be a big assumption) that there is absolutely no creation story in the Bible for people to misinterpret, and never has been. So we have no history of the 6,000-year dating, the “young-earth” idea, the six literal days of creation, and so on. Based on that assumption, let me ask some questions (before writing long posts in reply, let me point out that these are yes / no questions):

1. Would geologists arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old, BASED ON THEIR EVIDENCE?
2. Would astronomers arrive at the conclusion that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on their evidence?
3. Would archeologists and biologists arrive at the conclusion that animal species have only been around for 6,000 years, based on their evidence?
4. Would archeologists and anthropologists arrive at the conclusion that the human race has only been around for 6,000 years, based on their evidence?

Obviously, the 6,000-year “young-earth” idea is based only on a certain interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, not on a reading of the actual evidence. (Before you start listing books by Jonathan Sarfati, Ken Ham, and the rest–I have them and have read them.) Furthermore, this interpretation of Genesis is not necessarily the interpretation held by the Catholic Church.

For example, go back 1600 years to Augustine. It is not the case that the Bible necessarily clashes with scientific discovery, but it perhaps is the case that scientific discovery clashes with some Christians’ interpretations of the Bible. And, as Augustine put it, when historical or scientific discoveries are found to be in conflict with our biblical interpretations, we should take a hard look first of all, not at the discoveries, but at our interpretations. In his article “Augustine and the Interpretation of Genesis,” writer Phil Dowe paraphrases Augustine’s position:

“There may also be external reasons for not accepting the literal interpretation of Scripture. This is where science enters the picture. These external reasons also rely on the premise that there is one God who has produced both creation and Scripture. This means that it is impossible that we should find science contradicting Scripture, or Scripture contradicting science. Augustine’s sense of science refers to that science which is conclusively proven and contradicts Scripture. In such cases, Scripture must be taken metaphorically. In fact, it is only in cases where science has been conclusively proven, that we may reinterpret Scripture. Augustine also urges that Christians must not be what he calls ‘doggedly literal minded’ in continuing to insist on a literal interpretation of Scripture in the face of proven science. He warns that Christians who do not take this advice will bring shame to their religion and its Scripture and prevent people from ever coming to accept what is important in Scripture.” (end of quote)

Contrary to some Young-Earth creationists, taking Augustine’s advice regarding the interpretation of Scripture does not mean we must place the authority of scientific findings over the authority of the Bible, as if God’s Word were “outranked” by advances in scientific knowledge. However, it is true that Augustine would place the authority of scientific knowledge over tendentious and arguable interpretations of the Bible.

SO: Before I’d be willing to continue on in this discussion, let’s have an answer to the four questions listed above. Yes / no?

 

[cpayne]

Wait a second, I thought of two more questions:

1. If the universe has been around for billions of years, would that mean that it would no longer require a Creator?
2. If the universe has been around for billions of years, would that do any damage to Catholic and / or Protestant theology?

My answer is “no” to all six questions.

 

[cpayne]

Well said. The Body and Blood seem to be bread and wine, still

There are things we must accept from God despite what our senses tell us, because it is *reasonable *to trust God over ourselves

Tá Críosd ar éirigh!
Christ is risen

This analogy doesn’t exactly fit. If someone were to ask me, “What are the accidents of the Eucharist,” I would say, “Bread and wine.” Then: “What is the substance of the Eucharist?” I would say, “Christ Himself is the substance.”

Apply that to the universe, using the analogy under discussion. If asked, “What are the accidents of the universe?” I would reply, “Various solar and planetary bodies that are billions of years old.” “And what is the substance of the universe?” If your answer is, “Well, it’s still various solar and planetary bodies, but they’re really only a few thousand years old”–That’s not really a change in substance, is it, but a change in appearance? In other words, I would still argue that it is deceptive. It would be like an actually young human “made up” to look incredibly ancient–i.e., made up to deceive us.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It seems you wish to go no further with this.

Detecting ‘non-natural’ things would still leave the door open to finding God’s handiwork.

That’s not true at all. God is for some small part ‘knowable’ in that I can know that there is a God. However this in no way negates the fact that, in his essence he is beyond my understanding. The mere ‘detection’ of God would not lessen God.

So when the Apostles saw miracles and ‘detected’ that Jesus is God, they didn’t?

Science can be by observation. John observes Jesus walking on water. He tries to do it himself and can not. That’s a simple science experiement.

Science dominated by the philosphy of science that is materialism is okay but science dominated by a philosphy of science that’s not materialistic is bad? Well if you -]rant/-] say so!

I don’t how to make my meaning any plainer - science, no matter of what kind, no matter what the philosophy of the person applying the methods, is wholly incompetent to pronounce on what is not amenable to judgement by scientific criteria. It doesn’t matter whether one is a Thomist Catholic or an atomist or a dogmatic materialist or what one is - science that is not undertaken by properly scientific criteria, is a worthless mess. And exactly the same applies to bastardising any other discipline by trying to combine two methods that don’t go together; appealing to the supernatural to settle questions of Biblical criticism, is a perfect example of such bastardisation of methods.​

Atheist scientists who don’t contaminate their methods by trying to cross-fertilise them by appealing to God’s omnipotence, are in that respect better scientists than those Christians who try mixing the methods proper to one with an appeal to the other.

If you can’t see this, I can’t give you the eyes to do so. ##

Aside from you just saying that science and religion are different (giving an insight into you) no it doesn’t.

 

[Montalban]

Well, no. Let me add words to this (rather odd) paraphrase, since it didn’t really come close to what I was saying. This is closer: “Whatever evidence [meaning: empirically testable evidence] we’ve found [by scientific means] for an old earth must be correct because it is [empirically testable] because any other evidence would be wrong, because it is [contrary to empirically testable findings]. And God doesn’t give wrong evidence [this sentence, at least, does preserve what I was saying], because God is not deceptive.”

But there’s ‘evidence’ for a young earth too!

 

[Montalban]

And you’re assuming that because I say ‘story’ I mean ‘fiction’. I did no such thing.

It’s a non-fictional story? Then what’s your objection?

 

[Montalban]

I don’t how to make my meaning any plainer - science, no matter of what kind, no matter what the philosophy of the person applying the methods, is wholly incompetent to pronounce on what is not amenable to judgement by scientific criteria. It doesn’t matter whether one is a Thomist Catholic or an atomist or a dogmatic materialist or what one is - science that is not undertaken by properly scientific criteria, is a worthless mess. And exactly the same applies to bastardising any other discipline by trying to combine two methods that don’t go together; appealing to the supernatural to settle questions of Biblical criticism, is a perfect example of such bastardisation of methods.​

Atheist scientists who don’t contaminate their methods by trying to cross-fertilise them by appealing to God’s omnipotence, are in that respect better scientists than those Christians who try mixing the methods proper to one with an appeal to the other.

If you can’t see this, I can’t give you the eyes to do so. ##

That’s still nonsensical because you’re still assuming ALL FORMS OF SCIENCE are incompatible with what you already believe is incompatible with science –based as it is on you simply saying that it is so. A science that accepts more than materialism’s going to accept more than materialism – which would accept the possibility of ID.

 

[Montalban]

This analogy doesn’t exactly fit.

That’s the problem with analogies. They are reflections, not portraits.

If someone were to ask me, “What are the accidents of the Eucharist,” I would say, “Bread and wine.” Then: “What is the substance of the Eucharist?” I would say, “Christ Himself is the substance.”

I don’t follow your terminology – your use of the word ‘accidents’ in this context.

Apply that to the universe, using the analogy under discussion. If asked, “What are the accidents of the universe?” I would reply, “Various solar and planetary bodies that are billions of years old.” “And what is the substance of the universe?” If your answer is, “Well, it’s still various solar and planetary bodies, but they’re really only a few thousand years old”–That’s not really a change in substance, is it, but a change in appearance? In other words, I would still argue that it is deceptive. It would be like an actually young human “made up” to look incredibly ancient–i.e., made up to deceive us.

Excepting that people have evidence for a young earth.

Once people thought that the earth was formed through a process called Neptunism. It fit the evidence as it was understood. Then people came up with Vulcanism – which is the currently accepted theory. Did God deceive people into believing in Neptunism?

Did God deceive the ancient doctors of Greece into thinking that the human body is made of only four elements?

 

[mapleoak]

Did God deceive the ancient doctors of Greece into thinking that the human body is made of only four elements?

Other examples:
Did God deceive people into thinking the Earth was the center of the universe? Did He deceive them into thinking the Earth was flat. Did He deceive them into thinking rain comes from flood gates. Etc., etc., etc.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[Montalban]

Other examples:
Did God deceive people into thinking the Earth was the center of the universe? Did He deceive them into thinking the Earth was flat. Did He deceive them into thinking rain comes from flood gates. Etc., etc., etc.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

Indeed.

I have to repeat here what I said in post #26 of this thread

Montalban:

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.

Why has God so confused people that they still don’t know by which pathway man evolved? (because the evidence, as it is supports two mutually exclusive theories - before it supported four completely different, but equally exclusive theories).

The line of thinking of some is to me so weird because it’s based on an uncritical acceptance that whatever evolution science says, just must be.

 

[pedja]

One of the biggest problems I noticed when talking to supporters of theistic evolution is their assumption that ancient, nomadic people would have not understood the principles of evolution, that is why God reserved that amazing discovery for the more brighter audience, waited a few thousand years until finally the modern Western scientific society could properly understand EXACTLY how God did it.

There are just so many wrong conceptions and presumptions about this way of thinking. How could we possibly determine what level of intelligence people had a few thousand years ago? For example, using sophisticated computer software doesn’t make me more intelligent or receptive for complex issues regarding creation. I could argue the same way and say today’s scientists are stupider then nomadic people, they wouldn’t know how to survive in the desert, wouldn’t be able to read the nature, wouldn’t know how to find water etc. but most of all they`d be pretty useless spiritually because all scientists know and care about is science (an assumption again). Do I need intelligence or wisdom to understand evolution? Isnt it actually much more difficult to understand creation ex nihilo then evolution? How can people then claim God just didn’t want to reveal his ways because it would most certainly blow their minds away? Why is technical complexity the measurement of intelligence?

This argument comes from a simple arrogant assumption that WE are cleverer and THEY were not. It is absurd.

And talking about science, isn’t science “knowing” or “to know”? So who`s knowledge are we talking about? Who determines what is possible to know and what not? Is it because the majority of scientists say so? Since when is the majority of any social class a measurement for anything?

 

[cpayne]

One of the biggest problems I noticed when talking to supporters of theistic evolution is their assumption that ancient, nomadic people would have not understood the principles of evolution, that is why God reserved that amazing discovery for the more brighter audience, waited a few thousand years until finally the modern Western scientific society could properly understand EXACTLY how God did it.

There are just so many wrong conceptions and presumptions about this way of thinking. How could we possibly determine what level of intelligence people had a few thousand years ago? For example, using sophisticated computer software doesn’t make me more intelligent or receptive for complex issues regarding creation. I could argue the same way and say today’s scientists are stupider then nomadic people, they wouldn’t know how to survive in the desert, wouldn’t be able to read the nature, wouldn’t know how to find water etc. but most of all they`d be pretty useless spiritually because all scientists know and care about is science (an assumption again). Do I need intelligence or wisdom to understand evolution? Isnt it actually much more difficult to understand creation ex nihilo then evolution? How can people then claim God just didn’t want to reveal his ways because it would most certainly blow their minds away? Why is technical complexity the measurement of intelligence?

This argument comes from a simple arrogant assumption that WE are cleverer and THEY were not. It is absurd.

And talking about science, isn’t science “knowing” or “to know”? So who`s knowledge are we talking about? Who determines what is possible to know and what not? Is it because the majority of scientists say so? Since when is the majority of any social class a measurement for anything?

Well, I said I wasn’t going to respond anymore until the six questions I had asked earlier had been answered, but anyway.

Who on this thread is saying any of the things you are asking questions about? Nobody that I can tell. Certainly we’re not “smarter” today–but are you saying we don’t have more scientific knowledge? Didn’t you write your post on an electronic machine rather than on a parchment skin? (for one obvious example)

Also, you bring up something someone else had said repeatedly–namely, that anyone who accepts theistic evolution (like the Pope, I guess) must be a “materialist” or, as you put it, “pretty useless spiritually because all scientists know and care about is science.”

But I would ask you to notice the word “theistic” in “theistic evolution.” By definition, a theist would be a non-materialist. However, a theist can certainly accept that God uses material biological processes. If a Christian accepts the existence of chemical processes, does that make him a materialist? How about if a Christian accepts the existence of electrical processes–is that Christian a materialist? Should we label that Christian “just like Dawkins”? Is the Pope “just like Dawkins”?

Thanks to the one person who took a stab at answering my questions. For those who overlooked them, here they are again:

1. Would geologists arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old, BASED ON THEIR EVIDENCE?
2. Would astronomers arrive at the conclusion that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on their evidence?
3. Would archeologists and biologists arrive at the conclusion that animal species have only been around for 6,000 years, based on their evidence?
4. Would archeologists and anthropologists arrive at the conclusion that the human race has only been around for 6,000 years, based on their evidence?
5. If the universe is billions of years old, does that mean it no longer requires a Creator?
6. If the universe is billions of years old, does that fact do anything for or against Catholic / Protestant theology?

Okay. This time I mean it!

 

[pedja]

Well, I said I wasn’t going to respond anymore until the six questions I had asked earlier had been answered, but anyway.

Who on this thread is saying any of the things you are asking questions about? Nobody that I can tell. Certainly we’re not “smarter” today–but are you saying we don’t have more scientific knowledge? Didn’t you write your post on an electronic machine rather than on a parchment skin? (for one obvious example)

Also, you bring up something someone else had said repeatedly–namely, that anyone who accepts theistic evolution (like the Pope, I guess) must be a “materialist” or, as you put it, “pretty useless spiritually because all scientists know and care about is science.”

But I would ask you to notice the word “theistic” in “theistic evolution.” By definition, a theist would be a non-materialist. However, a theist can certainly accept that God uses material biological processes. If a Christian accepts the existence of chemical processes, does that make him a materialist? How about if a Christian accepts the existence of electrical processes–is that Christian a materialist? Should we label that Christian “just like Dawkins”? Is the Pope “just like Dawkins”?

Thanks to the one person who took a stab at answering my questions. For those who overlooked them, here they are again:

1. Would geologists arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old, BASED ON THEIR EVIDENCE?
2. Would astronomers arrive at the conclusion that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on their evidence?
3. Would archeologists and biologists arrive at the conclusion that animal species have only been around for 6,000 years, based on their evidence?
4. Would archeologists and anthropologists arrive at the conclusion that the human race has only been around for 6,000 years, based on their evidence?
5. If the universe is billions of years old, does that mean it no longer requires a Creator?
6. If the universe is billions of years old, does that fact do anything for or against Catholic / Protestant theology?

Okay. This time I mean it!

I will answer your 4th question because I study archaeology. The answer is there is no evidence that the human race is older then lets say 10.000 years. Any honest archaeologist will tell you that the dating methods are highly inaccurate. If you want to date human bones the radio carbon dating method is VERY inaccurate and it is based on loads of assumptions. Bones older than ca. 40.000 years can not be dated anyway, their age is determined by the age of the geological layer in which bones have been found. The dating of those geological layers, rock formations etc is even more inaccurate then the C14 dating method and it is based on a number of assumptions again.

There simply is no evidence of how old something is (talking about ape men etc.) The only evidence you have is the remaining bones. That is evidence that a human being once lived and then died. What people do is to give different interpretations of the evidence. And your interpretations will be based on the structure you have already set in your mind.

There is no evidence and there will never be to proof that Neanderthals lived 250.000 years ago. It is impossible for us to find out with any of our dating techniques we have today.

This is why I dont like when fellow archaeologists talk about evidence. I have asked every single preofessor from my uni to explain this to me, the ones who were fair said they dont really date according to the dating methods but rather use the geological record to determine the age.

 

[colliric]

One of the biggest problems I noticed when talking to supporters of theistic evolution is their assumption that ancient, nomadic people would have not understood the principles of evolution, that is why God reserved that amazing discovery for the more brighter audience, waited a few thousand years until finally the modern Western scientific society could properly understand EXACTLY how God did it.

There are just so many wrong conceptions and presumptions about this way of thinking. How could we possibly determine what level of intelligence people had a few thousand years ago? For example, using sophisticated computer software doesn’t make me more intelligent or receptive for complex issues regarding creation. I could argue the same way and say today’s scientists are stupider then nomadic people, they wouldn’t know how to survive in the desert, wouldn’t be able to read the nature, wouldn’t know how to find water etc. but most of all they`d be pretty useless spiritually because all scientists know and care about is science (an assumption again). Do I need intelligence or wisdom to understand evolution? Isnt it actually much more difficult to understand creation ex nihilo then evolution? How can people then claim God just didn’t want to reveal his ways because it would most certainly blow their minds away? Why is technical complexity the measurement of intelligence?

This argument comes from a simple arrogant assumption that WE are cleverer and THEY were not. It is absurd.

And talking about science, isn’t science “knowing” or “to know”? So who`s knowledge are we talking about? Who determines what is possible to know and what not? Is it because the majority of scientists say so? Since when is the majority of any social class a measurement for anything?

Agreed… and I’m a theistic evolutionist. However like you i believe in the truth of Genesis as revealing evolution as being the process by which god created the universe… that’s why I’m a theistic evolutionist, because I believe the narrative of genesis was how Moses expressed the idea of evolution(as he and others back then, understood it.), only like “Transubstantiation”, the idea existed and was written down poetically, as god showed it to Moses, well before it was formally named by us.

 

[pedja]

Agreed… and I’m a theistic evolutionist. However like you i believe in the truth of Genesis as revealing evolution as being the process by which god created the universe… that’s why I’m a theistic evolutionist, because I believe the narrative of genesis was how Moses expressed the idea of evolution(as he and others back then, understood it.), only like “Transubstantiation”, the idea existed and was written down poetically, as god showed it to Moses, well before it was formally named by us.

Ok, but you see I don’t believe it was poetry. As hard as I am trying to understand I cant figure out how you could possibly describe evolution the way Moses apparently chose to do. To me those accounts contradict radically. They present two completely different histories.

If you take Genesis literally then the rest of the Bible makes perfect sense. Through Genesis I understand Paul talking about the first Adam. If there was no perfect creation, then how did sin enter the world? Who was the first Neanderthal to sin? At what evolutionary stage did the human get his free will to choose for or against God (like Adam and Eve)?

And no matter how romantically you try to portray the billions years of evolution, one fact is undeniable, it was a bloody event, characterized with death and struggle for survival, with animals killing each other. I fail to see how we are to understand Gods loving act of creation` through evolution. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Mirdath]

And no matter how romantically you try to portray the billions years of evolution, one fact is undeniable, it was a bloody event, characterized with death and struggle for survival, with animals killing each other. I fail to see how we are to understand Gods loving act of creation` through evolution. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Love is not always servilely kind, and beauty is not always peaceful. But the world is a beautiful place, bloodied as it is, and I’d certainly have little problem believing a creator made it out of love if I had any specific beliefs on the matter.

You especially, as a Christian, should be no stranger to the idea of bloodshed sanctioned or even caused by a deity, from the angel with a fiery sword guarding Eden to the plagues of Egypt to the wars for Canaan to the Captivity to the Maccabbean campaign and on and on and on. It’s written all over your holy book – yet through it all, God’s principle motivation was love for his creation, was it not?

So Moses doesn’t mention that the things created on the fifth day were chowing down on the things created on the third day, and sometimes on each other. That doesn’t serve the point of the story. The point is not to accurately and exhaustively describe why goats have teeth like this and lions have teeth like that. It’s to show that ‘this is here and it is here because God made it, and God saw that it was good’.