Theistic Evolution and Genesis

[jerickson314]

Here's my big question: Is it possible to reconcile theistic evolution in some form with a literal reading of Genesis? We should not be too quick to dismiss this notion; an old earth has been succesfully reconciled. Is it possible that God created a primitive unicellular organism from dust (explaining the passages about Adam and the animals being formed from dust) and that everything else is descended from this organism? Is an undirected process driven by mutation and natural selection compatible with a literal reading? How about if we accept common descent but reject mutation and natural selection?

Or does accepting theistic evolution require a figurative interpretation of Genesis?

I personally think that OEC is the most consistent view of Genesis in light of science, but I would like to see the views of others.

I would be especially interested to see how the theistic evolutionists on this board (such as Mastermind and Kelly) respond to these questions.

[Kelly]

In general I do not think is is possible to reconcile our current scientific views of the universe with a literal reading of Scripture. Although there are many contradictions, the simplest and easiest to understand is the age of the universe: we see heavenly bodies which are 10-15 billion light-years away, which means that we are seeing parts of the universe which are at least 10-15 billion years old. Genesis tells us that the universe is much younger.

Either Genesis is wrong in its literal sense, or God is playing tricks on us by deliberately creating the illusion of an old universe.

[jerickson314]

Actually, your example is something that has already been reconciled. The word used for "day" can mean a long period of time. See the main godandscience.org site or http://www.reasons.org for more info. Many of us here believe in "old earth creationism" or OEC, the name of this view.

We do not believe that OEC contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. (Referring to the original text, not necessarily a modern English Bible) The question is, does theistic evolution?

[Kelly]

I guess it depends on what one means by a literal interpretation. A day is defined fairly precisely in Genesis, so to say that a day isn't really a day as we know it does not seem to be a literal interpretation.

Unfortunately, this is almost always the problem: how much flexibility is one allowed in interpreting Scripture? Given enough massaging, all inconsistencies can be overcome--usually at the price of any true meaning or content.

[Kurieuo]

Well I was under the impression from what the conclusion the creation activities of Genesis 1, that everything was created in a day.

Genesis 2:4—"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" (KJV)

Kurieuo.

[Forge]

Or does accepting theistic evolution require a figurative interpretation of Genesis?

Well, what exactly does "figurative" mean? Like you, I believe the Bible is infalliable. However, I also believe that the Bible isn't always literal.

To me, there are literal historical accounts (Jesus' accounts, Moses, Acts), metaphorical historical accounts that use figurative langauge to tell a true story (Genesis) and parables/fables, that aren't true but express a truth (Jesus' parables, perhaps Job).

As long as evolution != atheism, I really don't care. I'll let them debate until truth is found.

[Calum]

Jerickson:

Here's my big question: Is it possible to reconcile theistic evolution in some form with a literal reading of Genesis? We should not be too quick to dismiss this notion; an old earth has been succesfully reconciled. Is it possible that God created a primitive unicellular organism from dust (explaining the passages about Adam and the animals being formed from dust) and that everything else is descended from this organism? Is an undirected process driven by mutation and natural selection compatible with a literal reading? How about if we accept common descent but reject mutation and natural selection?

Or does accepting theistic evolution require a figurative interpretation of Genesis?

I personally think that OEC is the most consistent view of Genesis in light of science, but I would like to see the views of others.

I would be especially interested to see how the theistic evolutionists on this board (such as Mastermind and Kelly) respond to these questions.

Until recently, I thought theistic evolution was not compatible with Scripture, and that in order to allow for evolution you would need to completely dismiss the Genesis creation account as nothing more than figurative.
As I got into more and more debates in the old earth/young earth issue, I realized that it fit rather neatly into Genesis.

As you stated that, in your view, OEC was the most consistent view of Genesis, I won't bother to go into the tedious "yom" argument. Instead, I'll address the issue of evolution only:

Genesis 1 opens with:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

The word used for "hovering", or "moffatt", is used only one other time, and that is in Deuteronomy 32:11 to describe the eagle’s movements in stirring its young into flight. "Moffatt" most likely means hovering protectively. It is strongly implied that God was either creating down there, or protecting (possibly) the very seeds of life. That is to say, in the theistic evolutionary view, abiogenesis.
Scientists tend to place abiogenesis roughly 3 billion years ago. The beginning of the Eoarchean era was characterized by numerous asteroidal bombardments - the Late Heavy Bombardment. It makes sense that God would be protecting something precious down on Earth while chaos raged in the solar system.
Incidentally, it seems well supported that during the Eoarchean era there were oceans.
"Formless" does not mean the earth was a blob of water, it just means the continents had not yet arisen. "Void" means the land was void of all life. I'm sure there were microorganisms in the water.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

So basically, on day three, God gives the first command for the earth to bring forth plants. Turns out, the first life forms on land were photosynthetic. This was absolutely necessary anyway, for transforming the atmosphere to make it better suited for sustaining advanced life.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the fifth day.

When I first read this passage, I saw a contradiction between Scripture and science. Land animals appeared prior to flying animals, didn't they?
Actually, this verse seems to completely leave out fish, octopi, jellyfish, and sea anemones. The Hebrew words that describe these animals are "Tanniyn", which refers to enormous creatures like whales, and "sherets", swarming creatures. We would assume that "sherets" means 'fish', because fish swarm. The Hebrew word used here (nephesh) connotes creatures with mind, will and emotion. This indicates the sea creatures created on the fifth "day" were not fish but air-breathing mammals -- whales, dolphins, porpoises (hence 'swarming' animals) and the likes of them, as fish are NOT nephesh.
It seems the creation account completely leaves out sea animals like Leedsichthys and Pliosaurus and Anamolacaris. We know that at least the creation/evolution of sea animals takes place after the dinosaurs, as there were no whales prior to the Cenezoic era.

So, therefore, what about the birds?
Incidentally, birds appear before the sea animals mentioned on day one, as there were birds prior to the Cenezoic as well. Some feathered dinosaurs might even be considered birds.
Here, the YEC disagrees. They usually state that the birds made on day 5 include insects. However, the Hebrew word used here (owph) means to fly and is normally restricted to birds. For example, this is used to describe the birds Noah took aboard the ark, so if "owph" alone included insects, it would mean Noah took aboard all insect 'kinds', and thus the YEC would be faced with a bigger problem of including more animals in the ark. However, if Genesis was referring to insects, it would have described them with the Hebrew word sheres connoting "winged creeping thing". The usage here restricts the meaning to birds.

So what about land animals?

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

The land animals in Genesis are described by the following:
Behema - large, four footed animals that are easy to domesticate.
Remes - small animals like rodents and possibly small reptiles.
Chay - wild or alive. Comes from root Haya, which conveys living life to the fullest, requiring mind, emotion, and will. essentially, Nephesh animals.

If the creation account wanted to include spiders and snakes, it would have included the word Sheres, rather than just saying Remes.
The animals on land are described as mammals. Behema - cows, oxen - Bovids/giraffes?. Remes - squirrels, rats, skunks. Chay - lions, monkeys, giraffes.

YECs unharmoniously attempt to squeeze dinosaurs into the creation account. However, the context is obvious here. It is only referring to animals relevant to humans. No therapsids, coelacanths, or brachiosaurs.

In the theistic evolutionary perspective, God first commanded the Earth to bring forth whales and birds, then commands the earth to bring forth Behema (not behemoth). in TE, Genesis are merely days of proclamation, when God commands the Earth to bring forth. When we look at the fossil record, we see animals starting to look like whales and birds prior to animals like bovids (cows, antelope, etc). Makes sense.

This isn't a problem in the Progressive creationist viewpoint, except for maybe God commanding the EARTH to bring forth animals. I'm rather stuck in between Progressive/theistic evolution. I now know the Theistic evolution view fits neatly within Genesis, but I just don't know enough of the science behind it yet to come to a valid conclusion.

[PaulSacramento]

When we decide to speak of OT writings and even NT writings, we need to take the genre of the writing into context AND we also need to be clear as to what is suppose to be figurative, literal, literal AND concrete, allegory, parable, etc.
Even withing a text that is stating something historical that happened, there can be figurative ways of saying things:
"And all the land was laid to waste by the invading army" or "All the enemy was destroyed, all their cities laid to waste, women and children and livestock!"
Bot those things are NOT to be taken as literal AND concrete but are meant to give the picture of the degree of devastation or victory and the typical "wording" of the times.

[dayage]

Kelly,

I guess it depends on what one means by a literal interpretation. A day is defined fairly precisely in Genesis, so to say that a day isn't really a day as we know it does not seem to be a literal interpretation.

Nowhere does Genesis one define the creation periods as 24-hours. Evening is the time when work ends and morning is the time when work begins (Psalm 104:22-23). The first day starts with evening, because it was closing the period of work called "In the beginning." The seventh day does not use the phrase "and was evening and was morning," because it is not a new work day. The whole seventh day is a period in which God ceases from creating (rests).

Yom "day" is the only Biblical Hebrew word for a long, but finite, period of time. Hebrews four is very clear about the fact that we are still in the seventh day. The creation "days" are long periods of time.

So, we old-earthers take the passage quite literally.