Evidence for theistic evolution

[neo-x]

You are right Phillip, I agree with your conclusion.

[Byblos]

As for those believing in theistic evolution, the Genesis accounts go FAR beyond what could truthfully be considered (accurately) symbolic, as it makes statements that are not only are not symbolic of evolutionary connections, but that would have to be considered lies - IF evolution had occurred instead. Remember, God cannot lie. So even IF He has given us a version of how man came into being using symbolism, that symbolism cannot contradict the truth of the actual events, nor can it misrepresent them - it could be symbolic, but not contradictory so - certainly not in so MANY, obvious ways.

Genesis DIRECTLY contradicts Evolution:

No it does not.

1. The animals are not connected whatsoever to Adam and Eve, as they were all created with different natures (after their kind) than man (in God's Image).

Why could not evolution have been the conduit by which that process came about?

2. Adam did not come from animals, in fact, he did not even exist until after their creation.

Why could Adam and Eve not have been the first 'humans' endowed with a rational soul in the image of God? After all, God is spirit so we could not have been created in His image in the physical sense.

3. The animal kingdom is complete and "THEN" God said, "Let us make man in Our Image."

See above.

4. Adam was not even alive until he "became a living creature" as well as a newly created adult man.

He became 'alive' with a rational soul which is what differentiates him (and us) from the rest of creation.

5. Adam's body is formed and THEN he received "into his nostrils the breath of life."

Exactly my point. He preexisted being endowed by a rational soul.

6. From his beginning, Adam was created in the Image of God - there is no period of evolvement or an otherwise living creature connected to his existence.

The text does not say anything one way or the other re: evolution.

7. Adam is created, instantly/miraculously, from "dust from the ground."

All living things are created from the dust of the earth (actually from star dust, but that's a semantic point).

8. No other hominids or evolved creatures could possibly have produced Eve, as she was created from Adam's "rib."

That's simply a relational statement, not a biological one.

9. Eve is not yet alive or some evolved creature, in fact, she doesn't even exist before becoming a human being.

And just like Adam she became a human being when endowed with a rational soul.

10. Eve's creation from Adam cannot be symbolic of evolved processes, as if she might somehow have been part of Adam's related lineage - to be sure, we're told that after the rib "operation" that produced Eve, God "closed up its place with flesh."

See above.

So, the above goes far beyond any truthful symbolism of asserted evolutionary processes leading to man, but actually, even if symbolically told, directly contradicts evolution. It separates man's sequence from the animals, and Adam and Eve from any prior creatures, and their immediate creations in God's Image, Adam coming from Eve. One can call this symbolism that supports evolution all they desire to, but, in my opinion, not credibly so.

I certainly don't read the Genesis account as symbolic in any way. I firmly believe in the literal/physical existence of Adam and Eve.

[PaulSacramento]

Genesis DIRECTLY contradicts Evolution:

Really?
Where does Genesis DIRECTLY state that living organisms do NOT change and adapt ?
Because that is the whole core of evolution.
Evolution states that all life started from the very base materials on this planet, ie: The Earth.
Does Genesis DIRECTLY contradict this?
Genesis says that the earth brought forth all vegetation and animal life.
No contradiction there.

I grant you this though, the biggest issue facing those Christians that believe in evolution is where do Adam and Eve fit in.

[Byblos]

I grant you this though, the biggest issue facing those Christians that believe in evolution is where do Adam and Eve fit in.

I think they fit in rather nicely actually.

[PaulSacramento]

I grant you this though, the biggest issue facing those Christians that believe in evolution is where do Adam and Eve fit in.

I think they fit in rather nicely actually.

Well, to be honest, I personally don't have a problem fitting them in either BUT some do.

I mean, IF we are to read Genesis 1 and 2 ( for example) in a literal manner and in a chronological one as well, we get a very interesting picture of the creation account of the world AND of what happened in the Garden In Eden and they are NOT the same thing and, reading it in a literal and chronological manner, the events in Eden are separate and distinct compared to Genesis 1 ( even the order of creation is different).
Just saying...

[RickD]

I think evolution can be made to fit into scripture. Just not literally.

[Audie]

I think evolution can be made to fit into scripture. Just not literally.

Evolution literally, or the bible literally?

[PaulSacramento]

I think evolution can be made to fit into scripture. Just not literally.

To take the bible literally means to take each individual book or letter or poem or story withing its literary context.

[RickD]

I think evolution can be made to fit into scripture. Just not literally.

Evolution literally, or the bible literally?

I meant evolution can be made to fit in the bible, as long as the bible isn't read in a historical-grammatical sense.

There. That's better.

[RickD]

I think evolution can be made to fit into scripture. Just not literally.

To take the bible literally means to take each individual book or letter or poem or story withing its literary context.

I meant in a historical-grammatical sense. Sorry. Should've been less vague.

[abelcainsbrother]

Let me say that I really like the various view points raised and I respect them and can even agree to an extent,the problem for me that is in my way is evidence.It does not matter to me what people say they believe.The question is why do you believe life evolves based on the scientific evidence? I mean you can believe scientists if you want to and you can find ways to make the bible line up with evolution however,what if life does not evolve?

Then you have a problem.I know many of my brothers and sisters in Christ choose to believe scientists but I don't,maybe I'm just wired differently,because if you say life evolves I expect scientific evidence that demonstrates it and yet their own evidence does not show or demonstrate life evolves,therefore you must believe scientists by faith and then make that faith fit into the bible too.

I have a problem with this and it is something I cannot do so easily especially when the biblical interpretation that I go by actually rules out evolution while using pretty much the same evidence they use.

You can look at the evidence of death and extinction and you can find ways to extrapolate evolution from the evidence Charles Darwin did this, or you can look at the same evidence and extrapolate that a former world full of life did indeed perish before God created this world we live in now.
Why do you choose to look at this evidence from an evolution perspective when I see no evidence in science that demonstrates and shows life evolves?I mean I'm looking at the very same evidence and yet it is evidence that a former world perished like I believe Peter and Jeremiah,etc reveal to us.

This means there is no way the life in the former world evolved into the life in this world.Dinosaurs did not evolve into birds because they died in the former world and there was a gap so that there is no way any of the life that existed in the former world evolved into the life in this world and on top of it there is no evidence in science that shows or demonstrates life evolves.

[bippy123]

Genesis DIRECTLY contradicts Evolution:

Really?
Where does Genesis DIRECTLY state that living organisms do NOT change and adapt ?
Because that is the whole core of evolution.
Evolution states that all life started from the very base materials on this planet, ie: The Earth.
Does Genesis DIRECTLY contradict this?
Genesis says that the earth brought forth all vegetation and animal life.
No contradiction there.

I grant you this though, the biggest issue facing those Christians that believe in evolution is where do Adam and Eve fit in.

Paul if genesis states that animals were created after their own kind , it is a bit harder to explain how common descent happens unless the evolution happened the way that the wife of Carl Sagan (Lynn margolis) says where there were multiple common descent happenings, which then isn't really common descent in the traditional way we understand it .

Are you saying that God started with one animal and the ability to change was pre programmed into that one celled creature ? And how does this jive with the Cambrian explosion where there seems to be no descendants of the major 7 body plans that just almost suddenly appeared with no realistic ancestors .

I could acceot a guided evolution and in fact intelligent design isn't against guided evolution but the gaps in these stages makes it a lot hard to jive with the theory . Like I said , the way Rick explained it makes sense but we need to explain the major difficulties like the Cambrian explosion to make more sense of it .

I will show u posts from all the major intelligent design advocates that show that intelligent design isn't anti evolution but it's definately anti natural evolution . I still have a hard time understanding how they can acceot it with the Cambrian explosion , but hopefully I'll read up more on this .
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science- ... uest-post/

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. — page 109 of “The Design of Life”

Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.– IBID, page 142

And dembski are wells are both bible believing Christians even though wells is part of a Christian group that believes that some guy in Korea is the next messiah or next prophet.


This kind of says what Byblos and Rick are talking about , that an input of intelligence is being shown as the best explanation for these different kinds of animals .

This kind of reminds me of the car analogy where it shows how a car in 1910 changed over time to look like the car of today . This was first brought up by an evolutionist to show how this proved evolution , but was quickly scraped when he realized that this was proof for intelligent design.

Ok so genesis says that God created each animal after their own kind . Genesis doesn't however say how God did this .
I happen to lean towards a non common descent belief because of the major differences in change is harder to explain between the different kinds and the fact that breeding shows a limit to the amount of change that an animal can go through , such as dog breeding and cat breeding , but it doesn't necessarily have to be anti evolution , but it's definately against a natural explanation of evolution or materialistic evolution .

I just happen to believe that genesis jives more with a non Macroevolutionary explanation of life .

[Philip]

Everyone that has disagreed with my analysis has read into the text things it does not say, and they have also changed it's plain meaning.

Byblos: Why could not evolution have been the conduit by which that process came about?

Philip: Because how the text is worded, Adam from dust, Eve from Adam's Rib, with no animal natures, in fact, we're told that, BEFORE their creations, they were to be created in God's image.

Byblos: Why could Adam and Eve not have been the first 'humans' endowed with a rational soul in the image of God? After all, God is spirit so we could not have been created in His image in the physical sense.

Philip: They COULD have been, but that is not what the text says. You assert so because you read your evolution beliefs into it.

Philip: Adam's body is formed and THEN he received "into his nostrils the breath of life."

Byblos: Exactly my point. He pre-existed being endowed by a rational soul.

Philip: But it doesn't say Adam pre-existed - in fact, the opposite, he he was human with a soul upon the creation of his body, we're told he was not yet alive until receiving the "breath of life."

Byblos: The text does not say anything one way or the other re: evolution.

Philip: Other than it contradicts it!
Philip: Adam is created, instantly/miraculously, from "dust from the ground."

Byblos: All living things are created from the dust of the earth (actually from star dust, but that's a semantic point).

Philip: But YOU have said Adam was an evolved creature that came from a long evolved line. Why would the text say "dust?" Why would it say "rib?" Why would it tell us he had not yet received the breath of life until he was created as a man? Dust? Rib? It's akin to telling an adult that the stork brought a woman a baby. Why would the text not link Adam as having pre-existed as some type of hominid or such if that were the case. It's not like they were so stupid that they could not have been told they originated from a long line of animals. In fact, there were such myths about - the Egyptians even had gods that had animal features.

Philip: Eve is not yet alive or some evolved creature, in fact, she doesn't even exist before becoming a human being.

Byblos: And just like Adam she became a human being when endowed with a rational soul.

Philip: But the text says she did not exist prior to Adam, and that she CAME from a part of his body. Her soul has nothing to do with this.

People can read anything into the text, but one has to wonder why God would give some crazy Creation story instead of the basics of the truth?

[Philip]

Interesting, the different reactions to the Genesis text. Those who don't believe the Genesis Creation accounts are true, like Audie, and even Neo - a Christian - can see the text doesn't allow for evolution. And those that believe it does must force un-natural meanings or read into it things the text does not say - or that it clearly contradicts.

So, if the evolution of man from animals occurred, why did God give some crazy, stork-like story as opposed to the simple truth? And how could Genesis 3:20 be true? "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." And if God gave us some wild symbolic story about the foundational story of the Bible, how many other miraculous parts of Scripture are simply symbolic. And how do we know which are which, upon the precipice of that treacherously slippery slope?

[Audie]

Interesting, the different reactions to the Genesis text. Those who don't believe the Genesis Creation accounts are true, like Audie, and even Neo - a Christian - can see the text doesn't allow for evolution. And those that believe it does must force un-natural meanings or read into it things the text does not say - or that it clearly contradicts.

So, if the evolution of man from animals occurred, why did God give some crazy, stork-like story as opposed to the simple truth? And how could Genesis 3:20 be true? "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." And if God gave us some wild symbolic story about the foundational story of the Bible, how many other miraculous parts of Scripture are simply symbolic. And how do we know which are which, upon the precipice of that treacherously slippery slope?

The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.

Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?

There is an epiphany lurking in there.