Questions on Theistic Evolution

[Calum]

Baraminology is strictly a Creationist study. It is based on certain interpretations of Scipture.
There has been speculation on what classification level 'kind' is on. Is it at Order or Family?
It is most likely on the Family level. All primates are a single Order, and therefore we would be a member of the created 'kind' of ape. We obviously know Noah did not give rise to gibbons and orangutans.
However, even if it was at the Family level, it would imply gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangs were in the same Baramin as humans.
One of the main reasons baraminology is so important in young-earth circles is because they must find a way to squeeze all those millions of species of animals on the ark.
In my numerous debates I have suggested that Deuteronomy 14 tells us that 'kind' would more than likely refer to any recognizable species or group of animals.

3 Do not eat any detestable thing. 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep.[a] 6 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

So we know the sheep, the goat, the gazelle, and the antelope are different 'kinds'. These animals comprise family Bovidae. So we know there is no Bovid 'kind'. Another YEC claim down the drain.
What about the two goats mentioned? The wild goat is obviously distinguishable from the domestic form.

11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, 14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

So according to this verse, there are two 'kinds' of kite. There are several different kinds of falcon (genus Falco) different kinds of owls (the great owl is the Pharoah eagle owl, there are numerous kinds of hawk (there are numerous species within subfamily Acciptridae). Ospreys are also members of Acciptridae.
In my numerous debates I have brought his up. Here are some objections to my theory as to what 'kind' means, coupled with responses:

It could merely be listing any recognizable species within their 'kinds'.
Response:
It tells them to avoid 'any KIND of falcon.' We know there are numerous 'kinds' within genus Falco. You can't have it any other way. It tells you right there in the most obvious light that there are several kinds of falcons.

According to your reasoning, anything with fins and scales ought to be a single 'kind', as it tells us in the previous passages that these you can eat.
It neglects to say all creatures with fins and scales are a single 'kind', so I don't think all things with fins and scales are a single 'kind'.

It's in a different context.
It's in the very same context to describe as 'kind'. There is no way around it. 'kind' means roughly the species level.
It identifies the stork as a single Kind. Storks form Family Ciconiidae.
We do not know what type of stork it was referring to. For all we know, there might have only been on recognizable species in that region at that time. There might even be just one genus/species of stork living in that region today.

'Kind' does not have to be restricted to the strictures imposed by evolutionary model.
Actually, according to young earth creationists, there are Bear kinds, Dolphin kinds, Cow kinds, Camel kinds, Cat kinds. They are ALL on the family level. No animals have been interbred outside of Family level. Besides, today's classification scheme is based off of Carl Linnaeus' method, who happened to be a creationist.

It's quite obvious that there would have been no room on the ark for all those animals.
However, all of this implies something else as well: Theistic evolution.

One of the main objections of evolution is that God commands the creatures to bring forth after their kinds. However, we notice the red kite and the black kite have the ability to reproduce (they have successfully 'brought forth' in captivity) but yet they are supposed to be different "kinds". Sheep and goat have been interbred, but they clearly are different kinds, according to the Bible.
Every biologist knows that the offspring is the same species its parent is. A duck does not lay crocodile eggs, a goat does not give birth to a monkey, and chickens don't lay platypus eggs. I think the passage is implying this very same idea. These two kites, although of two different 'kinds', had offspring that was essentially what both its parents were.

Another interesting thing to note would be that God commands the "EARTH" to bring forth. It doesn't seem to imply anywhere in the Bible that God created the animals individually as species. Doesn't it seem like evolution fits better into the Bible? He just lets the Earth teem and produce on its own, it seems, yet commands the final outcome. No matter which way evolution went, it would lead to Adam.

Adam: that's a tricky part. I would say Adam was an individual amongst many of his species (Homo sapiens idaltu, which were anatomically modern, but not behaviorally) and when God breathed a spirit into Adam, he became spiritually alive. It just so happens that homo sapiens have been around for 100,000 years, but when we start showing signs of spiritual behavior, as well as behaving in a modern fashion, is circa 50,000-60,000 years ago. Roughly the time calculated for Adam's appearance.

The reason I remain creationist is because I simply do not know enough of the science behind it yet to come to my conclusion However, I do have strong theistic evolutionary leanings, as that's what the Bible implies. What are your thoughts?

[PaulSacramento]

Sometimes it is best to keep things simple ( as simple as we can).
Evolution is change, adaption over time of a living organism to the demands imposed on it by its environment.
We see it all the time.
The issue is HUMAN evolution.
Most won't argue that dogs and wolves share a "common ancestor" or the we are discovering new species on a pretty regular basis ( though this doesn't mean that these are new evolved species per say).
That humans share so much of their DNA with other primates can SUGGEST a common ancestor.
We do need to understand that evolution doesn't mean that man evolved from apes, simply that humans and primates SHARED a common ancestor at a point in time.
HOW they shared and WHY they evolved in two VERY different ways is another matter ( one that some think natural selection answers).

When I see God and I see the adaptability of living organisms, I see a God that made life ABLE to adapt, A God that gave living organisms the ability and tools to overcome their environment and survive.

[RickD]

Similar DNA, can also simply suggest a Creator chose to use similar building blocks for different creatures.

[PaulSacramento]

Similar DNA, can also simply suggest a Creator chose to use similar building blocks for different creatures.

Indeed, that the very Earth that all life came from is THE common ancestor.

[dayage]

Calum,

Another interesting thing to note would be that God commands the "EARTH" to bring forth. It doesn't seem to imply anywhere in the Bible that God created the animals individually as species. Doesn't it seem like evolution fits better into the Bible? He just lets the Earth teem and produce on its own, it seems, yet commands the final outcome.

Genesis 1:25 "And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good."

Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name."

Adam: that's a tricky part. I would say Adam was an individual amongst many of his species (Homo sapiens idaltu, which were anatomically modern, but not behaviorally) and when God breathed a spirit into Adam, he became spiritually alive.

Where did you find this in the Bible? The breath that God breathed into Adam was not a spirit, it was actual life. Idols do not have it (Jeremiah 10:14). I have a list of verses showing that this breath is in both man and animal and has to do with actual physical life, but I'll have to hunt it down.

[RickD]

Adam: that's a tricky part. I would say Adam was an individual amongst many of his species (Homo sapiens idaltu, which were anatomically modern, but not behaviorally) and when God breathed a spirit into Adam, he became spiritually alive.

Where did you find this in the Bible? The breath that God breathed into Adam was not a spirit, it was actual life. Idols do not have it (Jeremiah 10:14). I have a list of verses showing that this breath is in both man and animal and has to do with actual physical life, but I'll have to hunt it down.

Calum,
I agree with dayage here. To say the bible says that God took a preexisting hominid, and breathed a spiritual nature into him, is quite a stretch.

Maybe dayage can go more into detail here if you want, but the text seems pretty clear that Adam was a completely brand new "creature".
Just like every other "creature" that God created along the way to His final creation of Man.

[PaulSacramento]

Adam was the first of his kind, the issue I guess is how get got to BE the first.
Was he created out of the earth into a fully formed human being ( God snaps his fingers and voila) or did he naturally evolve from the source of all life ( earth and water) to the point where he was fully formed and then, as the pinacle of evolution, was blessed by God with a spirit?
Or did God use the very elements of the earth and form a new species which, because it was formed of the earth, has common elements with all other creatures of its kind (mammal) ?

[Byblos]

Adam was the first of his kind, the issue I guess is how get got to BE the first.
Was he created out of the earth into a fully formed human being ( God snaps his fingers and voila) or did he naturally evolve from the source of all life ( earth and water) to the point where he was fully formed and then, as the pinacle of evolution, was blessed by God with a spirit?
Or did God use the very elements of the earth and form a new species which, because it was formed of the earth, has common elements with all other creatures of its kind (mammal) ?

FYI, everything on earth, including the planet itself is star dust. We are literally made of the stuff of 3rd generation stars.

[PaulSacramento]

Adam was the first of his kind, the issue I guess is how get got to BE the first.
Was he created out of the earth into a fully formed human being ( God snaps his fingers and voila) or did he naturally evolve from the source of all life ( earth and water) to the point where he was fully formed and then, as the pinacle of evolution, was blessed by God with a spirit?
Or did God use the very elements of the earth and form a new species which, because it was formed of the earth, has common elements with all other creatures of its kind (mammal) ?

FYI, everything on earth, including the planet itself is star dust. We are literally made of the stuff of 3rd generation stars.

Indeed.
The raw material we are made of is universal.
Sure some have more A then B and some more Y than X, but that is to be expected.

[RickD]

Adam was the first of his kind, the issue I guess is how get got to BE the first.
Was he created out of the earth into a fully formed human being ( God snaps his fingers and voila) or did he naturally evolve from the source of all life ( earth and water) to the point where he was fully formed and then, as the pinacle of evolution, was blessed by God with a spirit?
Or did God use the very elements of the earth and form a new species which, because it was formed of the earth, has common elements with all other creatures of its kind (mammal) ?

FYI, everything on earth, including the planet itself is star dust. We are literally made of the stuff of 3rd generation stars.

Byblos, you truly are(literally) a superstar, among us common stars.

[Byblos]

Byblos, you truly are(literally) a superstar, among us common stars.

Thank you, thank you very much!

[KBCid]

Theistic evolution is a failure of concept from its inception as it infers that all unique lifeforms were formed in a fashion as evolutionists assert from something pre-existing. Such a concept would require that mankind, both male and female arose as a step in the variation of a pre-existing living structure which is absolutely contrary to the biblical assertion of how God formed them;

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

As most anyone knows... any variation of a creature comes through and is born from a mother in an evolutionary setting. If theistic evolution were true then both Adam and Eve would have owed their origin to a creature that would have been similar yet different and God could not have said that Eve was taken from Adam. Remember Adam is a man... men don't bear children. So evolutionary method requires anything new to be born from a mother and the biblical text clearly defines that Eve was made from Adam and not the other way around.
It would seem that God wanted to make sure that such a concept as theistic evolution could not be inferred from the text since the order of arrival and the defining of what was generated from what is carefully defined. So, if one would like to believe in theistic evolution then one must begin by positing another god from a source other than the text provided by the hebrew God.

[PaulSacramento]

Theistic evolution is a failure of concept from its inception as it infers that all unique lifeforms were formed in a fashion as evolutionists assert from something pre-existing. Such a concept would require that mankind, both male and female arose as a step in the variation of a pre-existing living structure which is absolutely contrary to the biblical assertion of how God formed them;

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

As most anyone knows... any variation of a creature comes through and is born from a mother in an evolutionary setting. If theistic evolution were true then both Adam and Eve would have owed their origin to a creature that would have been similar yet different and God could not have said that Eve was taken from Adam. Remember Adam is a man... men don't bear children. So evolutionary method requires anything new to be born from a mother and the biblical text clearly defines that Eve was made from Adam and not the other way around.
It would seem that God wanted to make sure that such a concept as theistic evolution could not be inferred from the text since the order of arrival and the defining of what was generated from what is carefully defined. So, if one would like to believe in theistic evolution then one must begin by positing another god from a source other than the text provided by the hebrew God.

Are you suggesting that God LITERALLY removed one of Adam;'s ribs to make Eve?

[Calum]

dayage:

Genesis 1:25 "And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good."

Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name."

What's your point?
it still says they were formed out of the ground

Where did you find this in the Bible? The breath that God breathed into Adam was not a spirit, it was actual life. Idols do not have it (Jeremiah 10:14). I have a list of verses showing that this breath is in both man and animal and has to do with actual physical life, but I'll have to hunt it down.

First of all.....
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

God made man in His image. God is not physical, made out of atoms or molecules or protons, or 'dust', he is purely a spiritual being. He's completely non-material. When God wanted to make Adam in His image, he did not make him non-material. He already was material. God merely breathed spirit into Adam.
Homo sapiens idaltu had our brainpower, and were within the sapiens phenotype range, but they didn't have our ingenuity. The boundary between idaltu and sapiens marks the creation of spiritual man. Prior to sapiens, man was just another hominid. Hence the passage mentioning how God is going to breathe spirit into him so he can have dominion over the earth.

Second:
you use Jeremiah 10:14 as evidence to support. However, the purpose of an idol was to capture the spirit or essence of the god or deity in question for luck or worship. Idols were not meant to be the physical bodies of gods, as gods usually were spiritual or supernatural. It is clear in meaning that these idols had not the spirits or essences of the gods, as the gods themselves didn't exist. Therefore, this 'breath' referred to is spirit.

Thiiird...
I think the verses that you are referring to are basically like Genesis 7:15:
Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.
However, animals are not created in God's image. They have no spiritual capacity, and 'the breath of life' carries an entirely different meaning here.

In the theistic evolution viewpoint, hominids fit much better into the creation.

KBCid:

Theistic evolution is a failure of concept from its inception as it infers that all unique lifeforms were formed in a fashion as evolutionists assert from something pre-existing. Such a concept would require that mankind, both male and female arose as a step in the variation of a pre-existing living structure which is absolutely contrary to the biblical assertion of how God formed them;

Actually, you can be theistic evolutionist and believe in a literal Eve.
Here are some thoughts: When God breathed into Adam the spirit of life, he might have breathed it into his genetic makeup. It would very well explain why God decided to take a genetic sample from Adam and turn it into a woman. There's no reason to think, in a theistic evolutionary perspective, that God would not use preexisting genetic material (already 'breathed' on) and use it to construct Eve with, and from those two new creations, the spirit would be passed on from generation to generation. There is no contradiction. It really is quite evolutionary, as God changed some genetic material around to make Eve. I think evolution better explains the fossil record, and the relation Homo sapiens idaltu has to Homo sapiens sapiens.

PaulSacramento:

What's your opinion on Adam and Eve?

[PaulSacramento]

PaulSacramento:

What's your opinion on Adam and Eve?

They were real people that actually existed in the Garden of Eden that were cast out and had to deal with the rest of the world.
I believe that the rest of the world already had people in it by the time they were cast out.