Evolution, Age of the Earth, and my faith.

[zstep14]

Hello.

I'm new here. I have browsed the boards a few times, but this is my first post.

I don't understand (in a respectful manner) how some Christians believe that the Earth was created 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. It is in violation of so much science, which does not just include biology. I don't interpret the beginning of Genesis at literal, because I think that if God started introducing the ideas about the age of the Earth, or macroevolution, the people of the time would not be able to understand well what God was talking about.

I also don't understand the problem between evolution and God. Most Christian websites that I've seen which talk about ID/Evolution, explain evolution along the lines of "random, unplanned, atheistic, just chance" which seems to be an assumption.

Any help or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

God bless.

[August]

Hi zstep, welcome to the boards.

Hello.

I'm new here. I have browsed the boards a few times, but this is my first post.

I don't understand (in a respectful manner) how some Christians believe that the Earth was created 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. It is in violation of so much science, which does not just include biology. I don't interpret the beginning of Genesis at literal, because I think that if God started introducing the ideas about the age of the Earth, or macroevolution, the people of the time would not be able to understand well what God was talking about.

I think that most here adhere to an old-earth position. I personally also hold to an old-earth position, since I believe the premises for a young earth are flawed.

As for interpreting Genesis as literal or not, remember that interpreting something literallt means that you understand the intent and the message that the writer tried to get across. There has been quite many discussions on this forum on what the literal intent of Genesis was, mainly around the meaning of the Hebrew wods used in the relevant passages. Suffice to say that you can read Genesis literally and still believe in an old earth.

I also don't understand the problem between evolution and God. Most Christian websites that I've seen which talk about ID/Evolution, explain evolution along the lines of "random, unplanned, atheistic, just chance" which seems to be an assumption.

The definition and characterisitics of the theory of evolution used comes straight from the mainstream texts on evolution, like Futuyama's "Evolutionary Biology". Can you maybe tell us why you think it is an assumption, when it is clearly reflective of the thoughts of those who write their textbooks?

There has also been a good many discussions here about that topic, but if you believe that evolution was started and is guided by God, and God is an intelligent being, would that not be a position feasible under intelligent design? You seem to hold to theistic evolution, which has some problems of it's own, but for now I would like to understand what you see as the difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design?

[zstep14]

"...but for now I would like to understand what you see as the difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design?"

Doesn't intelligent design involve God and nature on much broader scale?

[August]

"...but for now I would like to understand what you see as the difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design?"

Doesn't intelligent design involve God and nature on much broader scale?

I'm not sure I follow, if it is on a broader scale, would it not include the biological?

BTW, here is the quote from Futuyama, form the intor to his book:
"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

[sandy_mcd]

By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.

The theory of evolution may make God as the direct creator of various species fully formed unnecessary, but it does not disprove the existence of God.

But the Cardinal is wrong in asserting that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is inherently atheistic. Neo-Darwinism, he tells us, is an ideology proposing that an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” gave rise to all life on earth, including our own species. To be sure, many evolutionists have made such assertions in their popular writings on the “meaning” on evolutionary theory. But are such assertions truly part of evolution as it is understood by the “mainstream biologists” of which the Cardinal speaks?

Not at all. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: “The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner - of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak.”

Exactly. Science is, just as John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose, an issue that lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not make the claim of purposelessness. It does not address what Simpson called the “deeper problem,” leaving that problem, quite properly, to the realm of faith.

[sandy_mcd]

I don't understand (in a respectful manner) how some Christians believe that the Earth was created 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. It is in violation of so much science...

Why? If you are taught by your parents, teachers, and clergy that the earth is young, if all your friends and acquaintances have the same beliefs, if you are taught that science and scientists are flawed, and that the Bible claims the earth is young, why would you consider any other viewpoint? How much research and study would such a person have to undergo in order to convince himself that he knows enough science to overturn everything he has been taught so far?

[Moriah]

After the eruption of Mt St Helens a few years ago, scientists are totally surprized at the FACT, that they can count layers in the lava. New layers, that most said at some time where proof of the millions of yeas theory.

The hebrew language is different from ours in that we have only one word for the word Day. The Hebrew language has many words for the word Day

For example a work day - yom avoda - יוֹם עֲבוֹ is one type of use and spelling for the word day.

Exodus 20: The ten commandments written by God the Father himself. The fourth commandment, Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.

The words in Hebrew in both Genesis and Exodus are the exact same word.
And God wrote that himself. God cant lie he is perfect so why use the same word.

The millions of years theory just supports satan and the evolution theory more and more. Let one toe of satans in and he will have his whole body in the door.

Read the WORD for what it is. Not what man would like it to be. Science does NOT have to prove the bible. In fact over the last 10 years the bible has been proving science. Interesting right.

answersingenesis is a great site to visit and learn from. Take a gander.

Welcome Moriah.

Believe it or not, those of us who believe in an old earth are not necessarily card-carrying members of the "We agree with Satan" club.

Thanks for the "kind" words however.

If you'd like to discuss the Biblical basis of both the Young Earth position and the Old Earth position we'd certainly welcome you and encourage you to do that. I'd even suggest you do so based on your own reading of those passages and not just what one particular site offers.

That's up to you. I'd certainly be interested in why you believe that anything other than a young earth position equals promoting Satan.

With that statement, you've just written off a majority of Christians worldwide, both today and throughout history. Do you think you may be overstating things just a wee bit?

(BTW, sorry I posted in your original post. I'm new to moderating here and hit the wrong button. I'm going to leave it as is though for now.)

Bart

[August]

By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.

The theory of evolution may make God as the direct creator of various species fully formed unnecessary, but it does not disprove the existence of God.

But the Cardinal is wrong in asserting that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is inherently atheistic. Neo-Darwinism, he tells us, is an ideology proposing that an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” gave rise to all life on earth, including our own species. To be sure, many evolutionists have made such assertions in their popular writings on the “meaning” on evolutionary theory. But are such assertions truly part of evolution as it is understood by the “mainstream biologists” of which the Cardinal speaks?

Not at all. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: “The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner - of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak.”

Exactly. Science is, just as John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose, an issue that lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not make the claim of purposelessness. It does not address what Simpson called the “deeper problem,” leaving that problem, quite properly, to the realm of faith.

When Occam's Razor applies, if something is unneccessary, it does not exist, the simplest explanation is the right one.

I am well familiar with Ken Millers writings, but he makes several logical errors in his arguments. On the one hand, he wants to adhere to a theistic od who plays an everyday role in people's lives, but on the other hand, he wants to adhere to a deistic God when it comes to nature, he wants God to inivisibly and seamlessly interact with the world through natural causes. It is a logical possibility that Miller may be right, but by no means is it a logical neccessity. Natural causes are, as far as science is concerned, undirected causes, and I would love to see a logical argument that leads you to the conclusion that that is the only way that God can interact with the natural world.

Also, I have long contended with you that as far as origins are concerned, you cannot seperate the first step from the rest of the process, and I won't repeat the whole argument here. The ToE is at the very best a deistic theory.

In the quote above, Miller accepts and expands the category error made by Gaylord Simpson, he wants to equate "ultimate purpose", i.e. why are we here, with the purposelessness described in the natural processess of the ToE, i.e. there is no proof that the natural mechanisms of evolution has a predetermined and specific outcome.

I will also ask you the same question I asked above, if God started evolution and decreed that through natural processes there will be a predetermined and specific outcome, why is that not intelligent design? Yet Ken Miller is an ardent opponent of the intelligent design movement, so we can reach the following conclusions:
1. God is not intelligent
2. Even if we grant Millers premise that God set everything in motion, Miller also accepts "This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner", making God a deistic God.
3. He creates a false dilemma by wanting God to either be acting in a miraculous way all the time, or be acting through natural causes all the time. We know from Scripture that is inaccurate.

Overall, I have found Miller to be liberal to the extreme in his interpretations of the Bible(e.g. Genesis is an outdated myth), while religiously holding to every tenet of the ToE.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I don't think Sandy disagrees with the premise of intelligent design. I think it is safe to say that most of us here beleive God has a direct hand in creation be it through instant creation or through gradual molding, ie evolution. The problem is not this beleif.

The conflict lies in characterizing this as a science. The actions of nature may be a direct result of the will of God, but scientifically how can we detect this, and how can we attribute it to him?

Most of the opponents of Intelligent Design are only opposed to it being characterized as a science.

[Canuckster1127]

I don't think Sandy disagrees with the premise of intelligent design. I think it is safe to say that most of us here beleive God has a direct hand in creation be it through instant creation or through gradual molding, ie evolution. The problem is not this beleif.

The conflict lies in characterizing this as a science. The actions of nature may be a direct result of the will of God, but scientifically how can we detect this, and how can we attribute it to him?

Most of the opponents of Intelligent Design are only opposed to it being characterized as a science.

With all due respect, I think this overstates the Intelligent Design position.

Intelligent design does not presume to identify God as the creator or designer. Intelligent design simply seeks to promote the theory that there are elements of biology in which the presence of intelligent design is present and valid to consider by inference. Who (singular or plural) or what may have put that design in place is not presumed.

That is a fine point I understand and I do understand the difficulty with introducing such a concept within the confines of strictly adhered to science with the elements of falsification and measurement etc.

The point is that there are elements of evolution presented as science that do not meet that standard as well that have yet to be established with proof to a level similar to what is being demanded of Intelligent Design.

I think the point being made is to ask for an even handed establishment of standards to both concepts and either allow ID to be referenced in the context of science or remove those elements of popular evolutionary teaching that fail to meet the same standard and include them in the realm of philosophy or religion where they belong.

I'm not entirely sold on that argument, but I think that better represents what they are trying to say than your admittedly general comments above.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Of course,
ID doesn't presume that God is the designer.


I didn't mean to imply that intelligent design presumes God as the designer. What I was trying to say is that those of us here who adhere to the theory presume it is God.

And even many of those who are not proponents of ID would presume that God created the Universe.

The point being that the disagreement is not with this idea but with trying to protray ID as a science.

[zstep14]

"You seem to hold to theistic evolution, which has some problems of it's own.."

In what ways does theistic evolution have problems?

[Moriah]

Thank you for the welcome.

I don't just listen to one site, nor do I just go to sites to learn about the WORD, I use the word to define the WORD.

The foundation of the christian world is found in Genesis. I have some knowledge of Hebrew and what I don't know I look up.

There is a picture I have seen many times, It depicts a church building and outside the building is a cross. Bombs are coming down all around the church, but everyone is happy because the bombs don't hit the church or the cross. What they fail to notice is that the foundation is crumbling away and nothing is left to support the church building or the cross.

This is what happens when you ignore the bombs all around that just change "little things". The foundation is gone.

Like I said the word day in Genesis is the same word and the word for day in Exodus and God wrote that himself on the tablets.

95% of so called christians can say that God didn't make the world in 6 days, that does not make them right. Gods word is right and nothing else.l

If you want to look from a scientific point of view, lets take the following for an example.
In Switzerland, they have created a diamond that is so true, no one can tell them apart from the ones they find in the soil. They combine animal,vegetable and minerals together, same that is in a diamond and can know apply the exact pressure that is needed to make a diamond that the greatest gemologist can not tell if it is dug up or man made. (Just a side, if you want to take your loved ones remains to them, they will use their remains for the organic material necessary for process).

Can you imagine the ramifications of such a thing being done to produce oil???????

Only reason I used this example, is because some people only want the scientific point of view.

Like I said I want to stick with the WORD.

God Bless you...

[Canuckster1127]

Thank you for the welcome.

I don't just listen to one site, nor do I just go to sites to learn about the WORD, I use the word to define the WORD.

The foundation of the christian world is found in Genesis. I have some knowledge of Hebrew and what I don't know I look up.

There is a picture I have seen many times, It depicts a church building and outside the building is a cross. Bombs are coming down all around the church, but everyone is happy because the bombs don't hit the church or the cross. What they fail to notice is that the foundation is crumbling away and nothing is left to support the church building or the cross.

This is what happens when you ignore the bombs all around that just change "little things". The foundation is gone.

Like I said the word day in Genesis is the same word and the word for day in Exodus and God wrote that himself on the tablets.

95% of so called christians can say that God didn't make the world in 6 days, that does not make them right. Gods word is right and nothing else.l

If you want to look from a scientific point of view, lets take the following for an example.
In Switzerland, they have created a diamond that is so true, no one can tell them apart from the ones they find in the soil. They combine animal,vegetable and minerals together, same that is in a diamond and can know apply the exact pressure that is needed to make a diamond that the greatest gemologist can not tell if it is dug up or man made. (Just a side, if you want to take your loved ones remains to them, they will use their remains for the organic material necessary for process).

Can you imagine the ramifications of such a thing being done to produce oil???????

Only reason I used this example, is because some people only want the scientific point of view.

Like I said I want to stick with the WORD.

God Bless you...

I want to stick with the WORD as well.

Please demonstrate to me using the WORD that only a Young Earth is possible.

I'll respond in the same manner.

[August]

"You seem to hold to theistic evolution, which has some problems of it's own.."

In what ways does theistic evolution have problems?

Sorry zstep, only saw this now.

Before we carry on, I want to understand how you define theistic evolution, since there a few schools of thought on it. The primary ones are:
1. God created the basic building blocks at the very beginning, and everything, including the origin of life, followed from those building blocks.
2. God created the basic building blocks and also created the first life, and from there it developed by itself.
3. The same as 2, but also includes that God intervenes in the process from time to time to steer it.
The bottom line is that all of these involve some line of thinking that God used natural processes as His method of creation. Adam's body was the result of natural processes, and God completed the creation of man by giving Adam an immortal soul.

Would that reflect what you believe it to be?