Theistic Evolution

[jbthree]

Some people claim they believe God made everything and then let evolution take over. But is this possible for the one who says he or she believes the Bible? Can evolution be reconciled with scripture?

[Lycorth]

It can't be completely reconciled with the Babble since the Babble doesn't say nor imply anything about Gawd "stepping back" or such. It says he made the world in six days and that's that. No implication of evolution anywhere, though of course you can easily twist the text around to suggest that. I was taught both in Catholic grammar school as well as that the Earth and universe were very old.

[jbthree]

It can't be completely reconciled with the Babble since the Babble doesn't say nor imply anything about Gawd "stepping back" or such. It says he made the world in six days and that's that. No implication of evolution anywhere, though of course you can easily twist the text around to suggest that. I was taught both in Catholic grammar school as well as that the Earth and universe were very old.

 

[JB] Right, there is nothing in the "Bible" that implies evolution. I was just wondering how the theisitic evolutionist justifies his belief in evolution with Genesis.

 

Peace

[Artur]

*

[jbthree]

Some people claim they believe God made everything and then let evolution take over. But is this possible for the one who says he or she believes the Bible? Can evolution be reconciled with scripture?

 

It depends largely on the way an individual interprets Genesis.

 

There are many non-literal interpretations of Genesis, and most of the rest of the bible, that present no problem for the theistic evolutionist. I've read several works by those who fall into this grouping and, whatever the merits of the position, their view of Genesis is uncompromised by their belief in evolution because they don't hold it to be a literal record in the first place.

 

Right, for many, portions of the first eleven chapters are not accepted as literal (history) because they cannot be reconciled with evolution and an old earth. But if theistic evolutionists believe that Christ is God, then it seems to me that it's pretty difficult to say Gen. 1-11 aren't literal, because in the NT Jesus affirms man's creation and a young earth.

 

Peace

[Artur]

*

[jbthree]

 

But if theistic evolutionists believe that Christ is God, then it seems to me that it's pretty difficult to say Gen. 1-11 aren't literal, because in the NT Jesus affirms man's creation and a young earth.

 

 

Interesting.

 

Could you expand on this part just a little bit? I'm not sure of the necessity of connecting belief in Jesus as God and holding a literal interpretation of Genesis. Also, while the words attributed to Jesus in the NT do refer to man as a special creation, I'm not immediately aware of any that affirm a young earth.

 

Thanks.

 

I think the issue is what evolutonists apply "theism" to. If they apply it to the God of the Bible, than the God must be Jesus. If not, they have some other god in mind.

 

Matt. 1:17 speaks of the generations from Abraham to Jesus, which was about 2000 years. From Abraham to the present therefore would be about 4000 years. From Adam, who was created on day six, to Abraham was another 2000 years. This adds up to about a 6000 year old creation. Mark 10:6 basically says that same thing. God created them male and female from the beginning of creation.

 

Peace

[Artur]

*

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Some people claim they believe God made everything and then let evolution take over. But is this possible for the one who says he or she believes the Bible? Can evolution be reconciled with scripture?

 

I've read various things from theistic evolutionists and yes, it can be reconciled. The Bible just has to become much less literal and a whole lot more metaphorical. Sometimes it get's downgraded to just poetry about a god. It's quite the balancing act. If you want to read more on their positions and those of all other stripes of creationists and evolutionists you should check out this book:

 

Intelligent Design Creationism and it's Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives edited by Robert T. Pennock

[jbthree]

 

 

Thanks for the citations. I wasn't sure what you were referring to in your earlier post.

 

Again, without addressing the merits/fallacies of the theistic evolutionist position, these NT quotes do not pose a problem for them. Just as Genesis is not taken literally, the genealogy at Matthew's opening is not regarded as complete listing, but rather a construct using prominent names to arrive at fourteen generations between major events, and an attempt to show Jesus' royal lineage.

 

For the literalist, Matthew's genealogy is an embarassing problem. For those who do not take the bible literally, it presents no insurmountable difficulty.

 

[JB] I'm only referring to Matt. 1:17 and Mark 10:6 which, when linked with the genealogies of Gen. 5 & 11, do reveal a young age for the earth. Some people say that you can't take these verses literally, but others will disagree. As far as evolution goes, I don't see how it's possible to reconcile it with the creation of Adam and Eve. Also, the created animals in Gen. 1:20-25 are basically the same as today. Evolution requires millions of years, not a few thousand.

 

Peace

 

 

Some people claim they believe God made everything and then let evolution take over. But is this possible for the one who says he or she believes the Bible? Can evolution be reconciled with scripture?

 

I've read various things from theistic evolutionists and yes, it can be reconciled. The Bible just has to become much less literal and a whole lot more metaphorical. Sometimes it get's downgraded to just poetry about a god. It's quite the balancing act. If you want to read more on their positions and those of all other stripes of creationists and evolutionists you should check out this book:

 

Intelligent Design Creationism and it's Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives edited by Robert T. Pennock

 

[JB] My only question to those who would not take the Genesis creation verses literally is offer their explanation of them. For example, Gen. 5:3-32 & 11:10-26 record about 2000 years of history, from Adam to Abraham, and they only speak about who begot who and how many years they lived. If these passages are not literal, what other message might the author be trying to get across? What would be your understanding of them?

 

Peace

[Fweethawt]

For example, Gen. 5:3-32 & 11:10-26 record about 2000 years of history, from Adam to Abraham, and they only speak about who begot who and how many years they lived. If these passages are not literal, what other message might the author be trying to get across?

To keep your head buried in that book and locked in meaningless, circular wonderment so that you never realize that the priests are fleecing the hell out of you.

What would be your understanding of them?

See comment above.

[jbthree]

There are numerous creation stories that take place over a long period time. Do theist hold the bible in some higher regard, or does it vary from theist to theist? Also, if most god based creation stories go more along with modern science, why again does the bible cause a theist a problem? If anything shouldn't the theist rid the religion that doesn't go with the flow?

 

There may be many stories about the creation, but the Bible presents the only authentic version. And according to the Bible, the earth is very young (apx. 6000 years).

 

I'm not sure how theistic evolutionists regard the Bible. But there is no way they can reconcile evolution and an old earth with the scriptures cited here. There shouldn't be a problem with Theists about science and the Bible, but there is with theistic evolutionists. This is because they can't reconcile the creation of man and animals with their evolutionary beliefs.

 

Peace

 

For example, Gen. 5:3-32 & 11:10-26 record about 2000 years of history, from Adam to Abraham, and they only speak about who begot who and how many years they lived. If these passages are not literal, what other message might the author be trying to get across?

To keep your head buried in that book and locked in meaningless, circular wonderment so that you never realize that the priests are fleecing the hell out of you.

What would be your understanding of them?

See comment above.

 

Your comment offers no explanation as to what you think those verses are saying.

[jbthree]

There may be many stories about the creation, but the Bible presents the only authentic version.

 

Proof please.

 

[JB] My statement is directed to evolutionists who might base their theism on the Bible. I don't expect a non-theist to accept the Bible.

 

Peace

[Dhampir]

I guess I am a theist of a very vague sort, but in no way christian, so if you could accept that, I guess I could respond here.

 

In my way of thinking, god would a being of a sort that is as incomprehensible as is the christian god, although posessed of none of the contradictory aspects which make that god impossible as well as incomprehensible. An intelligence so high above ours that it would seem to rank as purest arrogance to even think it would commune with us just because we happen to be the smartest beings on some tiny rock in a cosmos created for a purpose which may well have had nothing to do with our eventual arrival.

 

In fact, that we (life on earth) even came to be might be an accident, or a detail of micromanagement so insignificant as to compare to the finding of cultures in yogurt, or there being billions of types of benign viruses in the oceans. From that POV, evolution is either perfectly in line with the plan, or acting independent of any intent on the part of the creator.

 

But of course, I'm sure this is not what you're looking for.

[Fweethawt]

For example, Gen. 5:3-32 & 11:10-26 record about 2000 years of history, from Adam to Abraham, and they only speak about who begot who and how many years they lived. If these passages are not literal, what other message might the author be trying to get across?

To keep your head buried in that book and locked in meaningless, circular wonderment so that you never realize that the priests are fleecing the hell out of you.

What would be your understanding of them?

See comment above.

Your comment offers no explanation as to what you think those verses are saying.

Perhaps not. But your reply proves me right.

They (verses) HAVE to be saying something! Otherwise, they'd never have been put in the Bible!! Please, please - someone tell me what it means!!! I just have to know!!! It just HAS to be important! It's the word of god after all! Tell me what its blessed meaning is!!!!!

 

Keep your head buried... That's what it's made for.

 

If you want a real challenge, try figuring out the Blessed Meaning™ in Judges 19. Start somewhere around verse 15 to the end.

 

Even though I know that it's all bullshit, I'd still like to know what the Blessed Meaning™ is behind that particular part of The Good Book™.

[theunraveler]

Some people claim they believe God made everything and then let evolution take over. But is this possible for the one who says he or she believes the Bible? Can evolution be reconciled with scripture?

of all the hypothesis from the creationism camp, theistic evolution is one of the more "readily acceptable" by christians who major in biology. its the only way to unite the bible and science, but not to atheists of course as it would raise the qn of who created the creator?

[jbthree]

Some people claim they believe God made everything and then let evolution take over. But is this possible for the one who says he or she believes the Bible? Can evolution be reconciled with scripture?

of all the hypothesis from the creationism camp, theistic evolution is one of the more "readily acceptable" by christians who major in biology. its the only way to unite the bible and science, but not to atheists of course as it would raise the qn of who created the creator?

 

Hello Unraveler. Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that atheists are outside this consideration, but I think the Christian who believes in the Bible and evolution has to somehow reconcile the creation of Adam and Eve, along with all the created animals, and then sqeeze evolution into a few thousand years.

 

Peace

[Guest GenVIUU]

Personally, I don't know why any reconcilliation with Genesis is necessary. I have never been able to figure out why people who want this years latest medical advances are willing to take the word of a third century clergyman. If you would go to a third century dentist, why would you take the word of a third century cleric?

 

I think there is a strong part in all of us that would like to believe in certain inate fairnesses in the world and the idea of some lost secrets of faith that would make them all come true are enticing. I'd rather put my faith in the humanity of this world. Just look at how Billy Graham's daughter centered on the horrible actions of a few terrorists after 9/11 and how she turned her back on the response of hundreds of thousands who stood up to be counted and help. Make's you wonder what kind of agenda she's pushing when she focuses on "the punishment" rather than the blessing.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I would hardly call destroying all life with a great flood. with the exception of a few on a boat, "creating the world and stepping back to let evolution take its course."

[Taphophilia]

Personally, I don't know why any reconcilliation with Genesis is necessary. I have never been able to figure out why people who want this years latest medical advances are willing to take the word of a third century clergyman. If you would go to a third century dentist, why would you take the word of a third century cleric?

 

I think there is a strong part in all of us that would like to believe in certain inate fairnesses in the world and the idea of some lost secrets of faith that would make them all come true are enticing. I'd rather put my faith in the humanity of this world. Just look at how Billy Graham's daughter centered on the horrible actions of a few terrorists after 9/11 and how she turned her back on the response of hundreds of thousands who stood up to be counted and help. Make's you wonder what kind of agenda she's pushing when she focuses on "the punishment" rather than the blessing.

 

Hi Gen,

 

That's really good! I like that arguement!

I hope you stick around for a while. You'll be a great addition to the boards.

 

Taph

[jbthree]

Personally, I don't know why any reconcilliation with Genesis is necessary. I have never been able to figure out why people who want this years latest medical advances are willing to take the word of a third century clergyman. If you would go to a third century dentist, why would you take the word of a third century cleric?

 

The truths of scriptures are as applicable today as they were back then. There is no antiquity to the meaning of scripture, esp. the New Testament. Jesus said his words will never pass away. Now I don't expect a non-theist to believe that, but again, I'm addressing those who say they believe the Bible and theistic evolution.

 

I think there is a strong part in all of us that would like to believe in certain inate fairnesses in the world and the idea of some lost secrets of faith that would make them all come true are enticing. I'd rather put my faith in the humanity of this world. Just look at how Billy Graham's daughter centered on the horrible actions of a few terrorists after 9/11 and how she turned her back on the response of hundreds of thousands who stood up to be counted and help. Make's you wonder what kind of agenda she's pushing when she focuses on "the punishment" rather than the blessing.

 

[JB] I don't think she did anything different than Jesus when he was confronted with tragedy (Luke 13:1-5). The point is, death is certain whether it comes through 9-11s, accident, old age or disease. Whether 9-11 was a judgment of God is debateable. But that strains at the gnat and swallows the camel because being READY to die is the most important thing a person can do. And being ready means one is prepared for eternal life through repentance and faith in Christ.

 

Peace

[Skankboy]

Actually there are several arguments that theistic christians could use that reconcile Genesis and evolution:

 

1. The "God's days are not as our days" argument. Bascially says that "6 days" means 6 of "god's days." The exact amount of "god's days" varies depending on the theory: some say a thousand years, some say a million years.

 

2. God created the universe and world through mechanistic processes we see around us. Adam and Eve is a parable about god's gift of a soul to one select line of the early anthropods and diliniates when an animal became "man".

 

3. Jesus was misquoted. When Jesus said such things as "I am the father am one" or "I am the son of god" we wasn't saying HE was unique. He was saying we are ALL "sons of god". This eliminates the need for original sin. The theological point that seems the underpinning of our argument. If original sin doesn't exist, Adam and Eve can be metaphorical and not be comprimised.

 

And these are just off the top of my head. Maybe what you should have asked is how can someone believe in the literal bible and be considered a theist in the first place?

 

IMOHO,

[jbthree]

Actually there are several arguments that theistic christians could use that reconcile Genesis and evolution:

 

1. The "God's days are not as our days" argument. Bascially says that "6 days" means 6 of "god's days." The exact amount of "god's days" varies depending on the theory: some say a thousand years, some say a million years.

 

Well, there actually is nothing in scripture that suggests a creation day is any longer than 24 hours. Note Exo. 20:10,11 where our work weeks is patterned after the creation week: Work six days, rest on the seventh.

 

2. God created the universe and world through mechanistic processes we see around us. Adam and Eve is a parable about god's gift of a soul to one select line of the early anthropods and diliniates when an animal became "man".

 

Jesus did not view Adam and Eve as a parable. He notes in Mark 10:6 that God created them male and female from the beginning of creation, and that they began the institution of marriage.

 

3. Jesus was misquoted. When Jesus said such things as "I am the father am one" or "I am the son of god" we wasn't saying HE was unique. He was saying we are ALL "sons of god". This eliminates the need for original sin. The theological point that seems the underpinning of our argument. If original sin doesn't exist, Adam and Eve can be metaphorical and not be comprimised.

 

We have no evidence that Jesus was misquoted. I believe we are all creations of God, but not sons of God. John notes, "But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to becomes children of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12) Also, Paul referred to the sin of Adam which was passed on to humanity (Rom. 5:12). If man evolved, he would not have the nature to sin because his ancestry would be in the animal kingdom.

 

And these are just off the top of my head. Maybe what you should have asked is how can someone believe in the literal bible and be considered a theist in the first place?

 

I think the true theist will believe that the Gen. 1-11 can be taken literally. Thanks for sharing your views.

 

Peace

[Skankboy]

I think the true theist will believe that the Gen. 1-11 can be taken literally. Thanks for sharing your views.

 

Ah...a "true" theist. So someone who believes there is a god but not the god of your bible isn't really a theist? I pretty sure there's some people here that would disagree. Your defintion of theist seems eerily similar to christian. The two are not synomynous. A christian can be a theist, but a theist is not necessarily a christian. So I guess you would argue that anyone that calls themselves a christian, but doesn't believe every word of the bible is literal, isn't a "true" christian?

 

Your other counter-arguments all pre-suppose the bible is perfectly accurate description of past events. May I ask, which version of the bible you believe is the most "perfect"?

 

If the entire bible is literal and is all the inspired word of god, why do you choose to follow some of the commandments and not others?

 

IMOHO,

[TCH]

I think I missed something. This topic is "Theistic Evolution", right? Merriam-Webster defines these words as:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theistic

Main Entry: the·ism

Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m

Function: noun

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

- the·ist /-ist/ noun or adjective

- the·is·tic /thE-'is-tik/ also the·is·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective

- the·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion

Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements

2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved

3 : the process of working out or developing

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

5 : the extraction of a mathematical root

6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb

- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun

- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective

 

I think the subject got off track as a lot of them do because people don't take the time to get on the same page with definitions. People 'think' they know the meaning of the words so they do not bother to look them up. Can I assume we're looking at #4 for Evolution?

 

My two cents: Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. Where are the contradictions?