Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[SonofAletheia]

But if you can't show how it occurred, you can't confidently say it DID occur.

This is a false view. There are hundreds of examples I could list that we are sure did happen but we don't know how.
Can you tell me exactly how God works miracles? How exactly did God raise Christ from the dead? How was Chris born of a virgin? How did Moses part the Red Sea? How did Christ turn water into wine? And on and on we can go.

Things we are sure happened (we believe in God's Word) but we have little to no idea how they happened.

Think about if this radical view was held in history: Unless we know exactly how someone did something it's not true! That's obviously not how any historian works
Or in science: "Agnosticism, of a kind, is an appropriate stance on many scientific question, such as what caused the end Permian extinction, the greatest mass extinction in fossil history. It could have been a meteorite strike like the one that, with greater likelihood on present evidence, caused the later extinction of the dinosaurs. But it could have been any of various other possible causes, or a combination. Agnosticism about the cases of both these mass extinctions is reasonable"
We have no idea how/why the extinction happened. But it happened.

Heck, I don't even know exactly how my body works. Does it follow that my body is not working? That would be absurd. We know many things happened in history, science, theolgoy even if we don't know exactly how they happened.
Not to mention we know almost exactly how evolution works and did work

Other than agreeing evolution occurred, scientists have been speculating and debating the mechanisms and what they think they know about it for a very long time.

Over 95% of scientist believe in evolution so it's simply not true what you said. If you mean within evolution there are discussions then I would agree. But the main tenets are solidified.

Of course, you can simply say that God guided its processes. Fine. But if you are trying to deduce evolution scientifically, that seems difficult to do, especially if every time you try to defend its insurmountable problems by simply saying, "God guided it."

Just like I think God makes the best sense of the fine-tuning I think the same could be said here about evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c

And so He's going to create on a level of astonishing detail, create a universe, but then He's going to give us some cosmic version of the stork bringing babies when He tells us about it? Whazupwitdat?

This "stork bringing babies" kind of talk is not needed here. We can discuss these issues without having to go to that level. But to answer your question, yes. You realize Saint Augustine took an allergically view on Genesis 1-2? You seem to think this view is outlandish or completely radical when many hold to it.

The story of Adam and Even goes far beyond figurative speech or allegory and metaphor, as it's specific truths are critical to the whole of Scripture. I'm guessing most who endorse evolution take a low view of Scripture.

I think many people think this way. They have held a literal view of Gen 1-2 and when evidence for evolution comes up they disregard the evidence because it would change their theological view. You are welcome to have that view. Many well-respected theologians don't (especially recently).
But to say that many who endorse evolution take a low view on Scripture is absurd and many people would take offense to that ridiculous statement.

And no one is saying that you can't believe in evolution and Scripture - clearly many do both. But if you doubt Scripture, you might as well throw most of the Bible out - as how do you know which parts are true and which parts are not?

Who is doubting Scripture?! Since I read Revelation from an allegorical view I'm doubting God's Word? Come on now

But to elevate evolution to the point that you try to fit Scripture around it - especially as it has so many unproven unknowns - that's putting faith in something you just can't know.

No one is doing this. All I'm saying is that from a scientific stance, evolution is true. From a Biblical stance, I believe Gen 1-2 should be read allegorically.

Plus the available data can be interpreted in a way that also refutes evolution.

Myself and 95% of scientists would disagree with you

But just about every Christian evolutionist is going to say what the Bible says about Adam and Eve's origins are allegorical. Why? Because it doesn't fit what they think they know about evolution. They are trying to interpret the Bible through the lens of unproven pseudoscience.

Again, this is just flat out wrong. Saint Augustine and many past and present brilliant Christians read Gen 1-2 allegorically. Don't assume things here. And calling evolution "unproven pseudoscience" is just an uninformed statement.

And allegory or not, for what purpose is this strange tale of man from dust and woman from a rib? Please explain how that works as allegory, and yet fits with Scripture's teaching of the fall and its implications.

God creating humans from dust? I can think of a number of ideas off the top of my head. To show God creating life from non-life, to show that humans came from a lowly place, to show God is the creator of life/humans, etc
Woman from a rib? Maybe it's to show woman comes from man and therefore he has the authority, to show man and woman are a part of each other, to show that man and woman are "one in the flesh" etc
Honestly though, you should read up on some of the various interpretation of Gen 1-2 if this kind of stuff is unfamiliar or startling to you.

[hughfarey]

Some interesting explanations; thank you. I'm afraid Hugh Ross's book (I always respect people called Hugh; can't think why...) isn't available in the UK, but "More Than A Theory; Revealing a Testable Model for Creation" is. Perhaps it's just a UK edition. Anyway I've ordered it. Interesting that he should use a phrase from Pope John Paul II, in Fides et Ratio, if I recall correctly, as his title.

However, as I understand Philip's last post, Ross has little difficulty with the entire succession of evolutionary history as we know it, but suggests that some of the steps (very few, it seems) that evolutionists connect smoothly together, must in fact be explained by creative saltations. There is an interesting video on his website (Through The Lens: Evolution. What is Evolution?) which accepts 'microevolution' (the dispersal of species into varieties or subspecies) and even 'speciation' (the dispersal of sub-species into varieties so different that they can no longer interbreed), but not 'macroevolution' (the dispersal of species into more distinct types), which I find remarkable, as I do not think Evolutionary biologists would distinguish between the mechanisms of the last two at all.

If I may pursue this a little, I would attribute a series of, say, fossil ammonites, found in relatively large numbers in successive strata of rock with no apparent discontinuity, but with gradually increasing diversity of shape and size, to successive minute mutations in their DNA, caused by cosmic radiation. Creationists attribute some of these these minute mutations to some form of heavenly intervention. Would an observer have noticed the difference? Although similar series for large fleshy land animals are not found to anything like the same extent, for obvious reasons, I think a continuous line that led from some ancestral form of tiger to the one we know today would also be acceptable to the RTB people, the only difference being that here or there along the line, the mutations giving rise to a new variation would be supernatural rather than natural. Does that sound reasonable?

Ryanbouma's version of creation is slightly different, and seems to say (forgive me if I misunderstand), that the appearance of the successive varieties of ammonites was caused by whole species suddenly becoming extinct, and a pair of new organisms being created, which then expanded to fill the ecological niche left by the previous species. In time, this new species also became extinct, and another pair of new organisms, sufficiently different from the one before to be termed a new species, was created. Would that be correct?

[RickD]

Just an FYI, Fuz Rana at Reasons.org is a biochemist who came to the conclusion that Progressive Creationism is the best creation stance. Anyone interested should check him out.
http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/fazale-rana

[hughfarey]

I think Dr Rana is the speaker on the video I mentioned. His version of progressive creation is so close to evolution as to seem indistinguishable in appearance, although I'm guessing his method by which those appearances occurred is different from the method I think was the cause.

[ryanbouma]

I am open to speciation. If God made large cats and they evolved into different types of large cats, that's ok by me. I have a hard time believing, in the face of facts, the large cats evolved from something lesser.

I do think God created the hominids separately, at least humans separately. If you consider that Neanderthals and denisovans seem to go extinct right around the time humans show up. It seems to me there's a pattern of create and destroy in order to prepare this place.

And I do hold closely to the RTB model. They know this stuff better than me. There's no Ryan Bouma model. And if there was I'd probably be the only person who cares, haha.

[hughfarey]

I must say I'm sorry we seem to have lost Alter2Ego, whose interpretation of Creation is very different from that of both Philip and Ryanbouma. Forgive me if you're reading this, Alter2Ego, but I have often found that while the more extreme creationists are quite good are explaining what they don't believe, they find it much harder, at least from a scientific point of view, to explain what they do believe. In this, amusingly enough, they have a lot in common with atheists. Could I press you for a statement, I wonder?

[Philip]

Here's a question for you: What percentage of theologically knowledgeable/Christians who have comprehensive and deep knowledge of the whole of Scripture, would say that much of Genesis is allegorical/figurative and that Adam and Eve were not instant creations but pinnacles of an ape/hominid evolutionary chain, in which God suddenly infused them with His image and a human soul?. I'd say a significant majority of theologically knowledgeable Christians would reject such a belief and would reject evolution as the mechanism that produced Adam and Eve.

The biblical genealogies (both Old and New Testament), Jesus' teachings, and Paul's epistles all refer to Adam as a real individual, not as some allegorical literary creation. It's interesting that Christian evolutionists insist that God miraculously guided evolutionary processes, and they will acknowledge that God began a universe where nothing previously existed. But they have a huge problem with miraculous creations of Adam and Eve. And yet is not the Big Bang even not an instant and miraculous event? And so if Adam and Eve were real people and they did disobey God in the garden, leading to our inherited sinful natures, then why would God make up some cockamamie story about their origins?

And so for Christians who believe that man is linked to lesser lifeforms, and later, to apes - do you view ALL of Genesis as allegory/figurative? And if God was basing Scriptural truths with the Genesis events as their foundation - truths essential to understanding the WHY behind the Creation (and not just the HOW) - why would he be so unclear and misleading - as surely He knew that a large majority of Christians would believe, for thousands of years, and based upon Scripture, that Adam and Eve were instant creations, created to live in a then-perfect world, only later to fall in sin? And whatever you believe about Adam and Eve before they became human, do you believe the subsequent details of their story afterward, or do you also believe that to be allegorical as well? Do you believe they are the father and mother of all mankind?

[SonofAletheia]

I wouldn't know. You say they have to have a "deep knowledge of Scripture", would that also include a deep knowledge of what evolution says? You didn't mention that..
And you seem to assume the opposite with no evidence whatsoever.

But off the top of my head I think of William Lane Craig who sees no problem with it, Francis Collins (brilliant scientist and huge supporter of theistic evolution), Saint Augustine held to the allegorical view. The non-literal view is also held by Meredith G. Kline, Henri Blocher, and Bruce Waltke. I know John Lennox holds to an old earth, non-literal view.

Take a look at what Alvin Plantinga says, "Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that. ...As far as I can see, [b]God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life.[/b] What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God"

If you're saying that the majority doesn't necessarily believe in evolution than you're probably right. If you're saying the majority hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis then you're almost certainly wrong. And this seems to be your main problem with evolution; namely, it doesn't view Adam/Eve as literal humans. So it seems you have a problem not only with evolution and the vast majority of scientists, but also with any non-literal view of Genesis and the majority of contemporary theologians.

The biblical genealogies (both Old and New Testament), Jesus' teachings, and Paul's epistles all refer to Adam as a real individual, not as some allegorical literary creation.

This is not at all agreed upon.
"And so it is written, The first man Adam became a living being.The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." 1 Cor 15:45-46
Who is this literal "Last Adam"? Could it be some metaphorical/allegorical reference to Christ? Or do we have to take every verse literally and say "No! That only means exactly what it says! That's the last Adam on earth!"
Obviously this is not the case. One can easily see how these verses can (and do) have enormous allergically/metaphorical themes in them.

It's interesting that Christian evolutionists insist that God miraculously guided evolutionary processes, and they will acknowledge that God began a universe where nothing previously existed. But they have a huge problem with miraculous creations of Adam and Eve. And yet is not the Big Bang even not an instant and miraculous event? And so if Adam and Eve were real people and they did disobey God in the garden, leading to our inherited sinful natures, then why would God make up some cockamamie story about their origins?

Why do you assume that they have "problems" with God creating Adam and Eve? They just don't think that's what God's Word accurately teaches. Again you're assuming things here. And your last question is easy to answer, unless you read the entire Bible literally (which no serious Christian ever has)

And so for Christians who believe that man is linked to lesser lifeforms, and later, to apes - do you view ALL of Genesis as allegory/figurative?

Depends who you ask, but I would not

And if God was basing Scriptural truths with the Genesis events as their foundation - truths essential to understanding the WHY behind the Creation (and not just the HOW) - why would he be so unclear and misleading - as surely He knew that a large majority of Christians would believe, for thousands of years, and based upon Scripture, that Adam and Eve were instant creations, created to live in a then-perfect world, only later to fall in sin? And whatever you believe about Adam and Eve before they became human, do you believe the subsequent details of their story afterward, or do you also believe that to be allegorical as well? Do you believe they are the father and mother of all mankind?

Unclear and misleading? I don't think it is. But if you think Genesis if unclear and misleading, try teaching a class on the book of Revelation and ask people if it's clear and easy to interpret. Does that make Revelation wrong?
Read up on Saint Augustine and other early Church Fathers who held to a non-literal viewpoint
To your last question: Sure

[hughfarey]

Again, one must ask, what did Adam and Eve look like? Naked citizens of the present USA? Or almost indistinguishable from the not-quite-human hominids who preceded them? How do creationists think they differed, in appearance and behaviour, from homo erectus or its successors? There is reasonable evidence of the use of fire and of the possibility of primitive language in homo erectus, which gets increasingly strong as we make our way through successive species (or subspecies) of homo - from erectus, through heidelbergensis which may have been the first homo species to bury its dead, to sapiens? There is considerable speculation among evolutionists about where and when the species to which we belong differentiated sufficiently from other species of hominid to be called a separate species, but it is likely that it was a group of about 100 000 individuals about 200 000 years ago. These, perhaps, could have been "Adam. Male and female he created them..." Alternatively, it seems that modern human diversity can be derived from only 10 000 individuals, perhaps resulting form a serious population crash about 70 000 years ago. These, I think, would be better described as Adam. By then humans were behaviourally modern and had certainly developed language, control of fire and clothing.

You will be wondering what a Christian evolutionist makes of the disobedience of Adam in the garden. I think of it, as you have supposed, entirely figuratively, but it was, and perhaps still is, a remarkably informative way of looking at the human condition as opposed to that of animals. Why, one may ask, does one not think a lion evil for eating his own children, but we do condemn ourselves for such an act? The answer deals with the emergence of self-awareness to an extent unknown in any other animal species, and an appreciation of our social responsibilities, but if I did not want to get bogged down in scientific detail, I couldn't do much better than the story of the fall as it occurs in Genesis.

[RickD]

hughfarey wrote:
You will be wondering what a Christian evolutionist makes of the disobedience of Adam in the garden. I think of it, as you have supposed, entirely figuratively, but it was, and perhaps still is, a remarkably informative way of looking at the human condition as opposed to that of animals.

Would that mean you also believe Christ's redemptive work on the cross is also entirely figurative as well?

Romans 5:15-17:
15 But [j]the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression [k]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions [l]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

[hughfarey]

I don't want to drift too far away from a scientific comparison between Creation and Macroevolution, between which I see very little difference, at least as far as the old earth creation model is concerned. But since you ask, the term redemption is an abstract noun and therefore figurative by definition. If you mean do I think a real person was nailed to a real cross, then yes I do; if you mean, did this have have a profound significance for the way human society could thereby make better sense of the problems inherent in self-awareness, selfishness and guilt, then yes I do. Can I clarify all that? Yes I can, but I would have to do it figuratively rather than sociologically because I am not an evolutionary sociologist; so I would say that man fell from a state of innocence (the lion eating its babies) to a selfish self-awareness, from which it was impossible or him to escape without the example of a supreme sacrifice. I would call it, for want of a better word, redemption. In fact I would refer you to a priest who would explain the meaning both of the fall and redemption better than I can!

Back to my field... was there a real tree? a real talking snake? even a real garden of Eden?

[Philip]

Hugh, for clarification, let me ask you a direct question: Do you believe Jesus was God in the flesh - and that He was crucified for the world's sins and was raised from the dead - and that all Christians' salvation depends upon that being a historical fact? And what view do you have of the Bible - is it God's word; much of it uncertain; large portions only creative writing? What? I realize you only want to discuss the science, but some of the way you phrase things have me curious about your views on Jesus/God/Scripture. This is not to suggest that just because you have certain scientific views that you can't be of strong faith in God/Jesus - just wondered where you are on those crucial issues?

[neo-x]

Hugh, for clarification, let me ask you a direct question: Do you believe Jesus was God in the flesh - and that He was crucified for the world's sins and was raised from the dead - and that all Christians' salvation depends upon that being a historical fact? And what view do you have of the Bible - is it God's word; much of it uncertain; large portions only creative writing? What? I realize you only want to discuss the science, but some of the way you phrase things have me curious about your views on Jesus/God/Scripture. This is not to suggest that just because you have certain scientific views that you can't be of strong faith in God/Jesus - just wondered where you are on those crucial issues?

Philip that's unnecessary in my view. Tell me what do you think about, was there a real tree? a real talking snake? even a real garden of Eden?

I can tell you right now, I think its abstract story telling. A story for kids passed down by generation, simplified so that it could be learned easily and therefore survive.

[Silvertusk]

I disagree with you there neo. I believe that all that was written in Genesis actually happened and Adam was seen as a representative of the human race at the time. How we actually got to that moment in the first place is up for debate.

[neo-x]

I disagree with you there neo. I believe that all that was written in Genesis actually happened and Adam was seen as a representative of the human race at the time. How we actually got to that moment in the first place is up for debate.

That may be so, ST. I wouldn't say you can not say that. Its more probable that it didn't happen. The story of genesis survived precisely because it was short, easy to remember for kids. My point is that its quite problematic and far away unnecessary for a snake to talk, snake just dont have that equipment to speak, and a tree which can produce fruit that has knowledge in it...plus which language was exactly being used in Gen story? When did Adam learnt that language, when did Eve learn it?

And many other problems in there...to me it makes more sense to think that the story is basically a way to convey a point by ancient people, in words and style which was easy for them to read and remember.