Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:29 am
You are right Phillip, I agree with your conclusion.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
No it does not.Philip wrote: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:
Why could not evolution have been the conduit by which that process came about?Philip wrote: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 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 wrote:2. Adam did not come from animals, in fact, he did not even exist until after their creation.
See above.Philip wrote:3. The animal kingdom is complete and "THEN" God said, "Let us make man in Our Image."
He became 'alive' with a rational soul which is what differentiates him (and us) from the rest of creation.Philip wrote:4. Adam was not even alive until he "became a living creature" as well as a newly created adult man.
Exactly my point. He preexisted being endowed by a rational soul.Philip wrote:5. Adam's body is formed and THEN he received "into his nostrils the breath of life."
The text does not say anything one way or the other re: evolution.Philip wrote: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.
All living things are created from the dust of the earth (actually from star dust, but that's a semantic point).Philip wrote:7. Adam is created, instantly/miraculously, from "dust from the ground."
That's simply a relational statement, not a biological one.Philip wrote:8. No other hominids or evolved creatures could possibly have produced Eve, as she was created from Adam's "rib."
And just like Adam she became a human being when endowed with a rational soul.Philip wrote:9. Eve is not yet alive or some evolved creature, in fact, she doesn't even exist before becoming a human being.
See above.Philip wrote: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."
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.Philip wrote: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.
Really?Genesis DIRECTLY contradicts Evolution:
I think they fit in rather nicely actually.PaulSacramento wrote:I grant you this though, the biggest issue facing those Christians that believe in evolution is where do Adam and Eve fit in.
Well, to be honest, I personally don't have a problem fitting them in either BUT some do.Byblos wrote:I think they fit in rather nicely actually.PaulSacramento wrote:I grant you this though, the biggest issue facing those Christians that believe in evolution is where do Adam and Eve fit in.
Evolution literally, or the bible literally?RickD wrote: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 wrote:I think evolution can be made to fit into scripture. Just not 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.Audie wrote:Evolution literally, or the bible literally?RickD wrote:I think evolution can be made to fit into scripture. Just not literally.
I meant in a historical-grammatical sense. Sorry. Should've been less vague.PaulSacramento wrote:To take the bible literally means to take each individual book or letter or poem or story withing its literary context.RickD wrote:I think evolution can be made to fit into scripture. Just not literally.
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 .PaulSacramento wrote:Really?Genesis DIRECTLY contradicts Evolution:
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.
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”
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.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
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 not evolution have been the conduit by which that process came about?
Philip: They COULD have been, but that is not what the text says. You assert so because you read your evolution beliefs into it.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: 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: Exactly my point. He pre-existed being endowed by a rational soul.
Philip: Other than it contradicts it!Byblos: The text does not say anything one way or the other re: evolution.
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.Byblos: All living things are created from the dust of the earth (actually from star dust, but that's a semantic point).
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.
Byblos: And just like Adam she became a human being when endowed with a rational soul.
The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.Philip wrote: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?