Is Man a Cosmic Accident?

It's a common misconception that theistic evolution considers man to be a "cosmic accident". For a Christian, nothing God does is an accident.

Hence, His use of nature to create living things is merely the way He decided to do it.

 

The problem with insisting on accepting literal interpretation of the Bible no matter what science says is nobody does that in every case. There are some biblical assertions that are literally stated that nobody believes to be literally true.

 

CHRISTINE J WATSON,
GENESIS 1;26-And God said,Let us make man in our image,after our likeness;and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle,and over all the earth,and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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.

No man is not a Cosmic Accident.

God Bless.

 

Nor does evolutionary theory say that he is.

 

Yes, I agree. I find it interesting that those opposed to theistic evolution refuse to understand the idea of evolution by design.

 

Personally, I like the idea of God the Creator, rather than God the Designer. All intelligent beings can design, but only one of them can truly create.

 

If man was not created by God, fully human as we are now, at what point in his evolution did man take on God's image and likeness?

If man was not created by God, fully human as we are now, at what point in his evolution did man become capable of making this kind of decision?

If man was created by God as a single celled bactirium sort of creature, was that creature made in the image of God, and was that creature capable of making the decision to, or not to, eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

At what point in man's evolution do these two verses of scripture become applicable to man?

 

If man was not created by God, fully human as we are now, at what point in his evolution did man take on God's image and likeness?
When God gave man a soul. "Image and likeness" does not refer to the physical form, but the spiritual form.

If man was not created by God, fully human as we are now, at what point in his evolution did man become capable of making this kind of decision?
Again, when God gave man a soul.

If man was created by God as a single celled bactirium sort of creature, was that creature made in the image of God, and was that creature capable of making the decision to, or not to, eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Physical appearance does not determine "in the image and likeness of God".

At what point in man's evolution do these two verses of scripture become applicable to man?
After God gives man a soul. Note that Gen2:7 supports the physical being as separate from the spiritual:

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.

Now, whether God "formed man" via evolution over time or all at once, God did not give man a spirit until after man was formed, and man did not become a living soul until after the process of formation and until after God gaiving man a spirit were completed. Man was not "in the image and likeness of God" until man "became a living soul".

 

And when did that occur?

And where is there any mention of there ever being a "man creature" that was not a living soul?

 

...where is there any mention of there ever being a "man creature" that was not a living soul?
Gen2:7 Man is not complete (aka, become a living soul) until AFTER he is formed, AND until AFTER the breath of life is breathed into him.

 

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.

Does this verse, as it is written, give any indication of a great amount of time between the forming of man out of the dust of the ground and the subsequent breathing into his nostrils the breath of life?

 

It doesn't discuss time at all. The purpose of the verse isn't to discuss time. It's purpose is to explain what constitutes a man being a living soul, as per the image and likeness of God.

 

So, in other words, you have to read into the text a great amount of time to fulfill the supposition that evolution has occured.

[ April 17, 2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: JamesJ ]

 

One has to look to the evidence. And all the evidence points to a very old universe.

 

So, in other words, you can't get from the text of the Genesis account that evolution has occurred, you have to trust in something other than God's Word.

You speak of evidence. What is your best evidence that evolution has occurred?

 

Here, check out this picture of a contemporary whale skeleton, showing vestigal hip/leg structures. There are some species of whales with these vestiges completely absent, there are others with these vestiges somewhat larger.

I cite the presence of these whale vestigal hips as evidence for evolution.

http://www.epud.net/~richmond/science/vbones.jpg

 

I've heard that used before. I've also heard that those bones are attachment points for muscles that the whales use during mating.

 

It doesn't say anything about the issue. It doesn't say anything about molecular biology, or nuclear power, or superconductivity, either. You may think that God was remiss in not telling us about these things, but most Christians think that the Bible was for a different purpose, and that God expects us to find out some things for ourselves.

Yep. Fortunately, he gave each of us intelligence and the ability to find out these things. Even if He didn't specifically mention them in Scripture.

Directly observed speciation is a good one. But let's review the major sources of evidence, from earlier in the thread:

What is the evidence for evolution?

First, anatomy shows homologies among organisms that show evolutionary histories. Similarities may or may not be homologies. For example, wolves and thylacines are superficially similar, but the details shows that one is related to canids and other carnivores, while the thylacine is related to other marsuipials. The same kind of teeth are in both animals, but the dental formula of the wolf is like other canids, and the superficially similar teeth of the thylacine follow the marsupial dental formula.

Not surprisingly, when we look a the DNA of the two animals, we find that this analysis give us the same evolutionary history as anatomical information. (thylacines are presumably extinct, but we still have enough remains to do such analyses)

And biochemistry gives us many other examples. Widely-distributed molecules in living things have small differences, which when analyzed, give us the same phylogenies we get from other, independent sources of evidence.

Incidentally, vestigial legs are not common on whales, but only show up on some of them. They have no function at all now.

James is probably thinking of the extinct whale Basilosaurus, which still had very small hind legs with a hip joint that permitted only two positions. This seems likely to have been used in mating as claspers. No species of whale today has hind legs that perform any function at all.

 

Does that necessarily have to be due to common ancestory, or might it also be due to common design?