Evidence for God from Science

Well I saw this post on an atheist website and wanted to post it here. It was about 4 months ago when I saw this. The question is "Would Xians accept evolution if it was only animals and not Humans?"

Here are my thoughts. Yes, because It says God breathed the breath of life in humans and not animals. So the evolutionary process for animals could be quite possible. What are your guys's opinions?

Some might. Most who don't accept evolution fully probably wouldn't change their minds even with that qualification.

Dallas wrote:Well I saw this post on an atheist website and wanted to post it here. It was about 4 months ago when I saw this. The question is "Would Xians accept evolution if it was only animals and not Humans?"

Here are my thoughts. Yes, because It says God breathed the breath of life in humans and not animals. So the evolutionary process for animals could be quite possible. What are your guys's opinions?

Xians hey first time I've seen that...

Well quite frankly it's a pointless question IMO.

Because we all know that the building blocks and construction of life (DNA, RNA, ribosomes, polymerase, etc.) are the same both in animals as they are in humans. Therefore both would be susceptible to the (supposed) mutational aspects of evolutionary theory.
Perhaps the only way the question might be relevant is if we were of different design?

Xians is a short-hand often used for Christians.

Some take offense at it believing the term like Xmas takes Christ out of it. Some many intend that. The common usage however is using the X as an abbreviation for Christ, and it derives from the first Greek letter in Christ, which is a Chi or transliterated X in english.

In some ways it's like the early Christian symbol of a fish. The greek word for fish is Ichthus. The Greek phrase, Jesus Christ, Son of God when you take the first letter of each word spells the word Ichthus and so early Christians used the symbol of the fish to identify themselves to others under the persecution in early Rome.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Xians is a short-hand often used for Christians.

Some take offense at it believing the term like Xmas takes Christ out of it. Some many intend that. The common usage however is using the X as an abbreviation for Christ, and it derives from the first Greek letter in Christ, which is a Chi or transliterated X in english.

In some ways it's like the early Christian symbol of a fish. The greek word for fish is Ichthus. The Greek phrase, Jesus Christ, Son of God when you take the first letter of each word spells the word Ichthus and so early Christians used the symbol of the fish to identify themselves to others under the persecution in early Rome.

Hmm interesting insights, thanks.
Well personally I'm not very fond of Xians myself.

Dallas, If one is to hold to the bible, and evolution of animals, one would need to reconcile evolution to Genesis 1:20-25:
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after [ah]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after [ai]their kind, and the cattle after [aj]their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

God created the animals, "after their kind". And, God made the beasts of the earth, "after their kind". So, how could we reconcile a belief in Genesis, which says that God created or made animals after their kind, with evolution, which says, first, nothing was created, and second, everything evolved from one kind of organism, not different kinds?


Stu wrote:

Well personally I'm not very fond of Xians myself

Stu, am I correct in assuming that you are not fond of the term "Xians"? Your wording makes it sound like you aren't fond of Xians(Christians), themselves.

Don't forget, "Let's keep "Christ" in xmas".

Stu, am I correct in assuming that you are not fond of the term "Xians"? Your wording makes it sound like you aren't fond of Xians(Christians), themselves.

Don't forget, "Let's keep "Christ" in xmas".

Yip, you are 100% correct, the term

RickD wrote:Dallas, If one is to hold to the bible, and evolution of animals, one would need to reconcile evolution to Genesis 1:20-25:
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after [ah]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after [ai]their kind, and the cattle after [aj]their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Regards the above bit that I quoted.
I visited one Christian (pro-evolution) site that used the above sentence (24) to suggest that it was the earth that gave rise to animals through evolution.
But of course that would conflict with the previous paragraph (22-23) would it not?

Stu wrote:

Stu, am I correct in assuming that you are not fond of the term "Xians"? Your wording makes it sound like you aren't fond of Xians(Christians), themselves.

Don't forget, "Let's keep "Christ" in xmas".

Yip, you are 100% correct, the term

RickD wrote:Dallas, If one is to hold to the bible, and evolution of animals, one would need to reconcile evolution to Genesis 1:20-25:
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after [ah]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after [ai]their kind, and the cattle after [aj]their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Regards the above bit that I quoted.
I visited one Christian (pro-evolution) site that used the above sentence (24) to suggest that it was the earth that gave rise to animals through evolution.
But of course that would conflict with the previous paragraph (22-23) would it not?

It depends upon the meanings of some of the words and there may be some idioms at play. Frankly, I don't believe Genesis was ever intended to be read through the lens of 21st century science. I believe its true. I believe it is not just a metaphor. When we try to fit it into the mold of our scientific approach and culture, we're reading things there in a manner that couldn't have been in the mind and intent of Moses writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the orginal audience which was the nation of Israel either while they were in the midst of the exodus or shortly thereafter when they were established in the promised land.

The purpose of Genesis, as I understand it, is tied to the need of Israel to be reminded or maybe in some cases taught for the first time who they were as God's Chosen nation. Gen 1-11 sets the stage for Gen 12-50 which recounts the history of the same God who created the universe and the world being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

I don't think that the Israelites who heard this were looking at the words and phrases used and attempting to reconcile it with the level of knowledge (or presumed knowledge perhaps) that we are.

Attempting to make Gen 1 and 2, scientific western prose instead of what it is, which is Hebraic Poetry with the purpose of assigning God as the creator of the universe can do a certain level of violence to the text don't you think? I'm not attempting to say that we shouldn't seek to understand all we can and frankly, I think the Genesis account is remarkably harmonizable with what we know. What we know however, will likely change and new interpretations and speculations will arise. Maybe we're better keeping things to the parameters of what the original writer and audience were trying to say.

Regards the above bit that I quoted.
I visited one Christian (pro-evolution) site that used the above sentence (24) to suggest that it was the earth that gave rise to animals through evolution.
But of course that would conflict with the previous paragraph (22-23) would it not?

Stu, in Genesis 1:21, the word for "created", is "bara". This is what I get for the definition of "bara":

Bible Study ToolsOur LibraryLexiconsOld Testament Hebrew LexiconOld Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American StandardBara'
Bara'

The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Strong's Number: 1254
Original Word Word Origin
arb a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Bara' TWOT - 278
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
baw-raw' Verb
Definition

to create, shape, form
(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
of heaven and earth
of individual man
of new conditions and circumstances
of transformations
(Niphal) to be created
of heaven and earth
of birth
of something new
of miracles
(Piel)
to cut down
to cut out
to be fat
(Hiphil) to make yourselves fat


NAS Word Usage - Total: 53
brings about 1, clear 2, create 6, created 32, creates 1, creating 3, Creator 4, cut them down 1, make 2, produced 1

Now, this seems to me, the best I understand it, is the creating of something brand new, possibly from something that already exists. Like, God created animals, after their own kind. Not, God created the building blocks for life, and then things evolved from there.

Stu wrote:

Stu, am I correct in assuming that you are not fond of the term "Xians"? Your wording makes it sound like you aren't fond of Xians(Christians), themselves.

Don't forget, "Let's keep "Christ" in xmas".

Yip, you are 100% correct, the term

RickD wrote:Dallas, If one is to hold to the bible, and evolution of animals, one would need to reconcile evolution to Genesis 1:20-25:
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after [ah]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after [ai]their kind, and the cattle after [aj]their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Regards the above bit that I quoted.
I visited one Christian (pro-evolution) site that used the above sentence (24) to suggest that it was the earth that gave rise to animals through evolution.
But of course that would conflict with the previous paragraph (22-23) would it not?

In my many years debating this issue and having now mellowed somewhat, I would priase the Christian pro-evolution site for looking to Scripture rather than dismissing it, since Scripture is to be used as a guide and instruction. It is more important I think what a Christian believes about Scripture than creation, and of utmost importance what a person believes about Christ than Scripture.

It seems whereas God directly creates man from the dust, and woman from man, that Scripture at least on a surface level supports the idea that God called forth from "the earth" and similarly "the waters" living creatures. Yet, unlike a pure naturalistic evolution which is unintelligently directed, God directed and was personally involved in the creation of animals to produce something new that could not arise on its own. To what extent the process was natural, and what extent God was involved, is the question to be answered.

As I see things, Rich Deem goes a long way towards Theistic Evolution in his article at http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/pseudogenes.html:

The Bible says that God created humans from the dust of the earth.10 This statement suggests that humans were designed from preexisting material. I propose that part of this "dust" consists of the genetic code of previously existing organisms. If you were going to create a new species of primate, you would begin with primate DNA. This DNA would be altered to form the unique characteristics of the new species. I believe that this is the method that God used to create new species of life on earth. How does this differ from evolution driven through natural selection and how can you distinguish the two methods? Naturalistic evolution could, in theory, produce some of the changes in structures that would account for some of the phenotypic differences observed between the old and new species. However, evolution is unable to account for the design of new structures.

The question for Christians in creation is really just how involved God was in the creation process. Many Evangelicals would reject any association with Theistic Evolution, but I can't help but feel Rich here (and even myself) leave the door open to a very particular kind of TE that heavily depends upon God as the one personally involved with guiding and engineering the whole creation process. Here we have two kinds of "Theistic Evolution": One where God is more personally involved during the process of creation -- creating new life from existing material, natural processes and His own fiat creativity; the second is more impersonal where God "watches" life evolve naturally from His initial "seed" planted in the beginning.

I believe Scripture heavily supports God as being personally involved with His creation, as is evidenced by the Holy Spirit which shows God's personal involvement with us in our world. At the same time, the world and my own experience in life seems to evidence but for some special cases, God generally works within the confines of the laws and order of His own creation. Yet, in the Geneiss creation we see God personally involved in creating man and woman, and I believe Scripture also supports God directly involving Himself in the creation process of the different kinds of animals. Right from the very beginning, God is personally involved inside of His creation where the Spirit of God of brooding over the waters (same word used of an eagle brooding over her young - cf. Deut 32:11).

Does it matter either way? I don't think our salvation is contingent upon either belief, so not really. But for those interested in being right , while God used natural processes to multiply life, I think one would be wrong to reject God as being personally involved in the process of creating new kinds of life through fiat creative acts. We will find out in the end who is right.

Canuckster,
Genesis one is not poetry. It has some poetic elements, but it is not Hebrew poetry.


Kurieuo'

It seems whereas God directly creates man from the dust, and woman from man, that Scripture at least on a surface level supports the idea that God called forth from "the earth" and similarly "the waters" living creatures.

God did the same thing in Genesis 2:19 that He did in Genesis 2:7. God made (asa) the animals, Genesis 1:25, just as He made (asa) man, Genesis 1:27.

The waters are not told to produce the swarming creatures and the air does not bring forth the flying creatures.

The only place where God commands the land to produce something and we are then told that the land produces it, is with respect to plants. But, other texts that speak this way about the land doing the producing, are refering to what it does after someone seeds it.

Good points dayage.

Although I'm sure a TE would argue that the very fact God made use of dust could imply something more. But, given Gen 2:19 they would be reading into the text what is not there if they were to argue against God's direct involvement (that is, God simply planted the seeds of life and then watched everything unfold).

Re: passages like plants, God is still believed to have made all kinds of plants despite the land producing them (Gen 1:11-12). We do believe God made plants rather than them naturally evolving right? In a similar way of thinking, while it is not stated God made (asa) plants like He did animals and man, and yet we do believe God created plants, a Theistic Evolutionist might reverse this liberty to believe that God still made kinds of animals despite natural processes being involved. Since without God's divine guidance and input, such a coming into being would not be possible for plant, animal or human life.

As a side, I'm wondering whether I jumped the gun on the two types of Theistic Evolution I mentioned in my previous post. What are the thoughts of others here. If God used pre-existing life, say as a template for a new kind of life He creates (as Rich allows for in his article), is such a belief to be viewed as a form of Theistic Evolution?