Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?

Charles said:

OK I hear you Charles, but if evolution is true why then didn't God give us a simple statement to that effect?

How hard would it be (or have been) for God to have conveyed the following?:

And after a multitude of years, the Lord commanded the man to come forth from out of the beasts of the field and caused him to become a living soul.

I really don't feel that "fundamentalist theology" is the crux of this issue but the plain and simple meaning of words especially in an expanded context such as the recounting of the creation in the Book of Genesis, later confirmed by many other inspired writers.


HankD

 

That's one quote. The book has over 400 pages of quotes. Care to take on the rest too?

Didn't think so.

 

I can't agree with the first part of this statement.

We have the statement in Genesis 1
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

We see that there is no death implied in these verses, no shedding of blood. When one eats an apple and follows the natural process, the seeds are either discarded or go out in the waste of digestion, which aids the tree in reproduction.

Then God proclaims that it is "very good" (tov mod). It seems unlikely that God would say this if predators, scavengers and death reigned over the earth.

Compare also this passage with Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

How did the whole creation of God go from Very Good! to groaning and traveling in pain? Simple answer: through the consequence of Adam's sin

Also, the proof text of the the unique and special creation of man is:

Genesis 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Evolution (either theistic or atheistic) is a plain contradiction of this passage in that not only are we distinct and unique from the animal creation being "in His image and likeness" but that we came directly from the "dust of the ground" and cannot possibly have a genetic connection or common ancestory with the animals (of whom they themselves do not have a genetic connection or common ancestory among themselves each species being created "after his kind").

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Even if the Earth is old, that would not contradict Scripture that states that the world was formless and void at the time of creation. It could be that God and the angels had fellowship on Earth for millions if not billions of years before Lucifer fell, and then God judged the world. We don't know. I doubt this model, but it would not contradict Scripture.

So the old Earth argument doesn't have to support the theory of evolution at all.

But we do know that man hasn't been on the Earth for long, neither has any of the physical beings that He created.

"For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness:
because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." Rom. 9:28

We do have the geneologies to back this up as well. Not to mention...

http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm

http://www.biblelife.org/bigbang.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html

 

"That's one quote. The book has over 400 pages of quotes. Care to take on the rest too?

Didn't think so."

It is a waste of time to do every one. The pattern of misrepresentation is established by doing a sample. If you are really interested, there are folks out there who have tackled this job on a much wider basis.

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quotes.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html

http://www.ntanet.net/quote.html

I would simply suggest that because YE leaders have such a horrid track record of being able to accurately and correctly quote scientists, that before you ever post or use what you think is a juicy quote, you should be sure that you have a reference to the original quote. You should then check the original reference and read the quote in context. You should then verify for yourself that the author intended the quote to mean what you plan to present it is saying. Because of the prponderance of misquotes, you stand a reasonable chance of accidentally bearing false witness if you fail to heed these warnings.

BTW, did you know that the Creation Science Foundation published The Quote Book containing nothing but these sorts of things. I have heard that they were successfully pressured into pulling the book after a flood of complaints about the accuray of the quotes. They did, later, issue a revided book. I hear it is not much better.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part5.html

 

I agree, animal death isn't implied at all. How does that show that animals didn't die? Did land animals, birds and fish have access to the Tree of Life in Eden as well? The account seems to imply that it was only for humans. How would a fish manage to eat from it? Was the tree planted on a bank so that its fruit dropped into the water?

Also, are you claiming that Genesis 1:29-31 lists the only things that could be eaten? If so, what were the fish to eat? They are left out of the list of creatures that are given food (contrast the lists of creatures in 1:28 and 1:30), and the only vegetation mentioned in Genesis 1 is what covered the dry land, not what would be in the sea or under the sea. This makes perfect sense if these verses are showing the purpose of the vegetation (it was made for food), but it's rather odd if the purpose was instead to enforce a vegetarian diet on every living thing. It would mean that fish couldn't eat anything until humans sinned, or perhaps until after the flood, or maybe even for all time!

No, it isn't talking about animals reigning over the earth. God goes from describing creation as "good" to "very good" after humanity is created and given dominion over the earth. This is the difference between good and very good, not anything about predators or animal death. As for the existence of predators and scavengers, prey for lions are among what is called tov in Psalm 104:20-28, just as animals are called tov when they are created (Genesis 1:21,25). Not only is your reasoning arguing from silence, but it is arguing against what God declared to be good elsewhere.

Because the whole creation was given to humanity's dominion, and humanity turned its back on God and became sinful. Creation is suffering as Israel suffered under a corrupt king.

Evolution is only in plain contradiction with the passage if one takes a very literal reading and insists that there can be no intermediate processes. And, if one does that, then Genesis 1:26-28 is also in plain contradiction with the passage, since those verses describe humanity's creation with no mention of dust or ground. It appears that Scripture can describe humanity's creation without itemizing each step of the process. To insist otherwise is to force Scripture into contradiction with itself.

If we can't trust Genesis 1:26-28 when it says humans were created by God's word, with no mention of any source material such as dirt, or any division between the creation of male and female, then how can we trust the rest of the Bible? The answer, of course, is that finding that we may have interpreted one passage incorrectly should not lead us to doubt all the rest of the Bible.

Hank, I'm sure that in your Christian life you've sometimes encountered a verse that you came to read differently. For instance, as a former Catholic, you probably no longer take Jesus' statements in John 6 about his flesh being real food as literally as you used to. Did that change in understanding cause you to doubt that any other Scripture can have a literal meaning? I hope not.

If the earth is round, why didn't God give us a simple statement to that effect? Not an ambiguous statement about the "circle of the earth", which can be made compatible with any view of its shape, but something clear like "the earth is like a ball"? If the earth orbits the sun, why didn't God give us a simple statement to that effect? If there really are single-celled organisms, then why isn't there some mention in Scripture that God made them? If there really is such a thing as DNA, why isn't there any mention of it in Genesis 30?

On the other hand, why do you expect Scripture to reveal scientific information that God has given humanity the ability to someday discover on its own? Why should God ruin all the surprises about his creation? Why shouldn't the Bible instead focus on telling us those things that creation alone can't reveal?

 

No such thing as theistic evolution. No evidence in Scripture of this theory.

 

No such thing as heliocentricity. No evidence in Scripture of this theory.

No such thing as electromagmetism. No evidence in Scripture of this theory. God creates lightning, not nature!

No such thing as gravity. No evidence in Scripture of this theory. God holds the universe together, not natural forces!

No such thing as germ theory...

 

God allowed us to discover the wonders of His microscopic creation on our own. I'm sure He created algae when He created the trees. And bacteria when He created the "creeping things." I don't think Bible-times people could have handled information about microscopic organisms and DNA. He told people what they really needed to know in His Word. The rest is extra.

So why are animals so much like us in many ways? How would we learn from them or care for them as well if they had been made completely different? God did that to help us help them and ourselves.

 

Hank,

Recall my point had nothing to do with scripture - or with the virtues of evolution in general. I merely have stated the facts - namely that science thus far seems to support an old earth.

Whether or not one thinks that evolution devalues man or disrespects scripture - that's not the topic of discussion.

Once again my point is that whether or not we believe evolution we must be honest in addressing science, even if that means admitting (at least for now) that there is a good bit of evidence that suggests the earth is old and that some evolution has likely occurred.

 

Indeed, and I think the same applies to the wonders of God's macroscopic creation. For instance, our view of the stars has changed quite a bit due to science. Whether they are lights to aid in ruling the night that are placed in the same firmament the birds fly beneath, or immense balls of gas incredibly distant from us, they remain the handiwork of God. One doesn't need to know all the scientific details about the stars to be awed by them, though the details certainly don't diminish the awe.

Personally, I think that if one is going to insert algae into the six day account of creation, it should be on day 2. This is because of the symmetry of the days. Day 1 (creation of light, day and night) corresponds to day 4 (filling day and night with luminaries). Day 2 (creation of the firmament to divide the waters) corresponds to day 5 (filling the waters with sea creatures and the firmament with birds). Day 3 (creation of dry land and covering it with vegetation) corresponds to day 6 (filling the dry land with animals and humans). The author seems to have purposely divided God's creation into three realms that are each in turn filled with inhabitants. Since algae fits in the second realm (firmament and waters), and it is part of the makeup of the realm rather than an inhabitant of it (just as the plants on dry land are), it would fit best on the second day.

There are also some things that don't fit well in any of these realms. This includes bacteria and angels, for instance. Perhaps that's why the author didn't mention the creation of those things, even if he did know about them (I suspect he did know about angels, even if he didn't know about bacteria).

Maybe they couldn't have handled it, or even if they could, I don't think God would ruin the surprise and awe those discoveries would later elicit. I think God enjoys watching us learn more about the world he's given us. I agree that what we have in Scripture is what we really needed to know.

Good points. In addition to that, I think animals (and also the rest of creation) allow God to speak to us in ways we can understand. God is the Lion of Judah, and also the Good Shepherd. We are like sheep, and we are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Jesus wished he could gather his children in Jerusalem together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings. A few verses earlier he called Herod a fox. Animal sacrifice and a bronze serpent lifted up on a pole pointed to Jesus' ultimate sacrifice. Creation, and particularly animals, provide a common vocabulary that God uses to reveal things that go beyond the physical and natural. That's not all creation is for, but I think it's an important part of it.

 

I'm glad you are still aware of that objection (nothing is worse than starting from scratch each time the topic is brought up again), but I don't see how that joke fully addresses it. It is funny, though.

Only in the sense that if man came from dust, we were actually originally dirt.

God's image isn't in the dirt or the beast, but rather in how God raised the dirt or the beast, and how God views the resulting creature.

I agree. That is part of what makes us more than just beasts.

I think that shows that God values us -- in fact, loves us -- and does not say anything much about our physical bodies. In fact, I think our resurrection bodies will be different from the bodies we have now. I think they'll still be physical in some way, but not the same way. Perhaps we will be able to walk through walls just as Jesus could.

We went back and forth quite a bit about this, and I'm again glad that you've included most of the clarifications when stating your view. Genesis 2 says that all creatures, including Adam, were formed from the ground, and became living creatures. We know that all creatures, including humans, have the breath of life. We know that God provides and takes away this breath to all his creatures (Psalm 104:29-30). And yet, we also know that humans are special because they alone have God's image, and in Genesis 2, we see that no other creature is compatible with man, and no other creature is shown having the same relationship with God, and no other creature is allowed to name the others (which generally indicates a level of authority and ownership of what is named). So, I see many good reasons within the text to point to the special nature of humanity without placing undue emphasis on some distinction in Adam's nostrils.

 

Double-posted by accident.

[ September 18, 2005, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

Something that got missed in this thread's first day blitz:

A more terse translation of the Hebrew muwth muwth would be "die die". But, both that reading and "In dying, you will die" ignore a Hebrew idiom.

This type of repetition is common in Hebrew and well-known to translators. It generally indicates an emphasis on the word that is repeated. Another instance in this same account is in Genesis 3:16 where the Hebrew reads rabah rabah, meaning literally "multiply multiply", and is generally translated as "greatly multiply" or "surely multiply".

But, closer to home, the same thing is found in the verse directly before the one under discussion -- part of the same sentence, in fact:

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17, ESV)

The words translated "you may surely eat" are 'akal 'akal. The words translated "you shall surely die" are muwth muwth. In both cases (and also Genesis 3:16), the first word is in the infinitive while the second is imperfect, so the tenses do not help to indicate a difference here.

Interestingly, in the 1611 KJV both verses have a margin note. Beside "thou mayest freely eate" it reads "Hebr. eating thou shalt eate." Beside "thou shalt surely die" it reads "Hebr. dying thou shalt die." So, the translation Helen mentioned is quite close to a literal translation. But, the clause no more indicates two types of death than the previous verse indicates two types of eating. (And of course it says nothing about telomerase production slowing down.)

 

Charles asks:

I don’t know, I have to assume it was some kind of seaweed or kelp or some other vegetation.

Tov is not the Hebrew superlative Tov mod is.
A very simple explanation: We and all of creation fell from the superlative at the sin of Adam. Believe what you will, that is my belief.

Uh, that’s what I said. It started with Adam.

Only one of the Gospels gives the account of the Virgin Birth. Are the others in contradiction or is it still literally true?

No, but in the case of the creation there is enough supporting Scripture to convince me of a literal 6 day creation.

The creation account is already there in abundance and in detail. The shape of the earth is not. If God took the trouble to describe the creation in detail, I assume He got it correct.

I'm off to church brother, talk with you later.

Debbie asks:

We have a common creator not a common ancestory.

HankD

 

Sorry Mercury. I guess whatI should have said was that God created the world and all that is in it. There is no evidence to show that anything evolved after God created it.

 

Gravity is a weak force. It does not hold the universe together. The Bible tells us what holds the universe together:

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
Hebrews 1:3

 

UTEOTW
Please allow me one more quote mine that proves that evolutionist scientists don't really believe their own theory. See if you can find a loop-hole for them in if or if it's taken out of context.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Rom. 1:18-23

Please explain to me how scientists are exempt from this Scripture, espicially the bolded parts. Not that Paul says that they are "without excuse" before you answer.

Case closed.

And BTW, your sampling of some what you consider to be out of context quote mines does not clear all evolutionists from all 450 pages of those quotes. They can't all be out of context.

Here is quote that Dr. D.J. Kennedy gives about a conversation he heard that Sir Julian Huxley had with an interviewer on TV.

Sir Julian Huxley, nephew of Thomas Huxley, know as Darwin's Bulldog, when asked why evolution has caught on, said, "I suppose it was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual morays."

How is that taken out of context?

 

Unless you think that that scripture quote was intended by the author to address evolution specifically, then yes, it is being used out of context.

As far as your 400 pages of quotes, please follow the links I provided and I am sure you will find many of those quotes addressed. The problem about all these great quotes that get posted is that too often, when they are investigated, they are found to be out of context. One of the specific ones you posted in the last few days was made up out of thin air even. This happens often enough that such quotes should be considered suspect unless they can be presented in context and with a full reference to the original work. Both of those never happen with these quotes.

As for your Huxley quote, a few things. First, what qualifies Julian as an expert to be quoted other than a family relationship with a recognized expert? Second, such opinions have absolutely no bearing on whether the theory is correct or not. Third, notive that you fail to give a reference for exactly when he said this. There is no way to verify where or if he actually said it. There is no way to look at the broader context to see if he is being acturately quoted and that he is being quoted in the current context. It is a meaningless and useless quote that has no bearing on the discussion. Except as an example of the dangers of quote mining.