The Unique distinctive of this board - Christian Evolutionism debates

You're wrong about that. The Bible clearly tells us about the origin of life. It says that living things were brought forth by the earth and waters.

So, for a Christian, life begins by natural means. Ex nihilo creation of life is specifically ruled out by God in Genesis.

However, He does not comment on evolution one way or another. For that, we must depend on the evidence.

 

Yup, in a couple of DAYS. But Galatian doesn't like that part....

Oh baloney! "And God said..." is followed IMMEDIATELY by the fulfillment. "And it was so" is a past completed statement. Each thing happened on the day -- the 24 hour day with an evening and a morning -- stated. The term 'bara' also means created from nothing when used in contrast to 'asah' which means 'formed.'

In other words, ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation is listed specifically on three occasions in Genesis 1:
Genesis 1:1 -- the creation out of nothing of time, space, and matter
Genesis 1:21 -- the creation out of nothing of that which we call soul: responsiveness, the ability to obey, unique individuality -- as expressed through the complex central nervous system.
Genesis 1:27 -- the creation out of nothing of man's spirit.

It's very clear in the Hebrew.

Unless you have punctuated equilibrium at a speed that would absolutely astonish Gould (who now knows better) and Eldridge, evolution is simply ruled out because of the creation account.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Galatian. You claim Genesis says life was brought forth from the earth and water and then you say that Genesis does not deal with the matter of evolution -- which you are trying to back up with those very verses.

Logic doesn't work that way.

 

Bob,

The Bible is a science book only if read through the eyes of modernism; but it's contents well predate the Enlightenment, the scientific method, and the modernist worldview on which Creationism depends.

If we respect the Bible as what it is, the collected writings which generations of faithful people viewed as accurately defining their experiences as a people of God - the need to force it into a science textbook evaporates. Theologians can then focus on learning the theological lessons our ancestors wanted us to understand; and scientists can do their work unencumbered by a need to see the world through the science of the ancient world.

Joshua

 

Joshua, why wouldn't it still be relevant in our times? We've seen prophecies in the bible come to pass after they were written, some are still future, and some things not understood until we were sufficiently developed to understand them. Why would it be different when it comes to science? Weren't some scientific elements contained in the bible that were not understood until later times?
Gina

 

Rev. Joshua wrote:

I only half agree with that last. What you say might be true of part of the modern creationist movement descended from early 20th century fundamentalism, since that fundamentalism presupposes the Englghtenment, modern science, theological modernism and its perceived falling away.

But there is a line of creationism that antedates all of these. We should not fogret that about half of the original "Team of Ten" of the Creation Research Society were MIssouri Synod Lutherans. I suppose one could say that their history presupposes the Enlightenment, since that church formed largely in response to German Church Rationalism. However, its literal understanding of Genesis may be traced back to Luther himself. See, for example, Luther's Lectures on Genesis, given shortly before his death. (They occupy part of the St. Louis Edition of Luther's Collected Works, Concordia Publishing House). Luther complains that there is hardly an author to be trusted concerning the origin of the world of all the Latins, Greeks or Hebrews. It is clear that Luther takes Genesis as actual history (although he does allow that "Moses" seems to forget himself.

It is true that Luther is not particularly concerned with any "science" that might be found in Genesis, but he does clearly insist that the events it records actually occurred as told.

Luther may or may not have been concerned about the Bible giving correct science. The remark from his "Table Talk" in which he calls Copernicus a "fool" for teaching that the earth goes around the sun is well known. It is a disputable remark, and it is almost certain that it is embellished in the form we have it. Nevertheless, the remark attributed to Luther certainly reflects the opinion of the Lutheran Orthodoxy of the mid to late 16th century. Although Luther never publicly wrote anything about Copernicus, Melancthton did condemn it based in part upon Scripture.

So there is at least one continuous creationist tradition going back before the Enlightenment and which did insist that the Bible was scientifically (in the sense of that day) accurate.

Having said that, I notice what may be a continuing difference between those Lutheran and fundamentalist-influenced creationists. It seems that the latter may be more eager to do Biblical speculation. The alleged breakup of the continents during the days of Peleg, for example, didn't come from Lutherandom, nor Henry Morris' battle between St. Michael and Satan creating the craters on the moon. I cannot think of much Lutheran Biblical creationist speculation. However, that might be due to Lutherans' reluctance to engage in such Biblical speculation at all. They do not talk about Armageddin (sp?), a millennial reign of Christ (except once in a while to reject the whole thing), are not fond of interpreting prophecies from Revelation or Daniel or Eziklel. Lutherans, including Lutheran creationists, are a staid bunch! No doubt Lutheran Creationists have been influenced by other modern (and Modernist-influenced) creationists, but I think those Lutheran creationists should at least be considered as a separate strain of creationism, where some of the generalizations one might want to make about creationists might not apply.

 

Lutherans, like Baptists and other branches of Christianity are not all creationists. The creationists seem to come out of the Missouri synod. I realize your intent was not to broad brush Lutherans, but it is important to point out that it is likely only a minority of Lutherans are creationists.

EF

 

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong about that. The Bible clearly tells us about the origin of life. It says that living things were brought forth by the earth and waters.

I like it fine. Like most Christians, I admit that the "days" are figurative, but that doesnt' mean that it isn't true.

Barbarian observes:
So, for a Christian, life begins by natural means. Ex nihilo creation of life is specifically ruled out by God in Genesis.

Sorry. Not a realistic position. God says it came from the earth and waters. That is not ex nihilo, no matter how strenuously you object. That is how life was created.

Actually, it doesn't say IMMEDIATELY. It doesn't even say it in lower-case letters.

But most Christians realize that these are not 24 hour days.

Not in the Hebrew/English dictionaries I see.

Sorry, not living things.

Sorry. Special creation just for man, who was otherwise created from the soil. Our immortal soul, of course, is directly from God.

 

Elena wrote:

That is correct. I certainly do not want to accuse most Lutherans of being (Young Earth) Creationists, although very many Missouri Synod Lutherans, and possibly nearly all Wisconsin Synod Lutherans are.

(Of course LUtherans are theologically sophisticated enough to know that heologically "creationism" has nothing to do with denial of evolution, but was the doctrine that God created specially every human soul. The contrary position, that the soul is propagated, is known as traducianism. Some Lutherans from all Lutheran bodies are creationists, while others are traducianists. Quite a few, I suspect, understand this traditional usage of "creationism.")

 

BobRyan clearly has hit the nail on the head with his observation;

But Bob, you haven’t gone far enough in your statement: the same question needs to be asked to the Young Earth Creationists as well. While you and other YEC’s hold resolutely to a literal interpretation of the Bible, you often fail to take into account the physical aspects of the world around you. I picture many YEC’s as holding their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and saying, “I believe”.

I’m a curious person. I want to know how God created. I don’t believe that His creation shows us a history that wasn’t real. Old earth creationists have the strong conviction (faith) that God created. Their exploration into the aspects of His created work leads them even closer to understanding the majesty of God’s creation. I do this with both my eyes and ears open.

Part of the problem between the two opposing camps (OEC and YEC) is there is so little said about the events that occurred in the process of creation that many of the areas that need to be addressed are left to speculation. Many of the verses dealing with creation are open to varying interpretation depending upon the views one takes before reading them, others are problematic for both sides. It seems that for each Christian studying the problem of origins there is another theory about how it may have been accomplished (yes, even among the YEC’s). Debates between Christian evolutionists and young earth creationists have suffered not only from a failure to listen to the opposing side but also from a lack of attention to the wide range of possible meanings of the biblical terms used to describe God's creative work. Looking at the vast possibilities of how God may have performed his wonder of creation has personally lead me closer to the faith mentioned in Hebrew 11:1-3.

Bob, perhaps as a start to further theological understanding between the opposing viewpoints, rather than address topics as “shot gun“ posts that cover broad ranges of topics, threads can be posted that address single problems for discussions and study. It may limit the distracting name-calling and lead to further understanding.

Rob

 

Of course it is very specific about the way life began. It says that God did it by natural means. It specifically rules out the creationist "ex nihilo" creation of life.

It does not address each form of life, rather vaguely enumerating a few without specifics to sequence and type. It describes life as a "kind" not "kinds".

Creationism cannot be reconciled with Genesis.

 

(Barbarian observes that Scripture says that living things were brought forth by the earth and waters)

Hmm...

Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Genesis 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, calle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so.


There's a lot of good things therein, if you take the time to read about them.

 

Scripture quoting, whether yec, oec or evolutionist is irrelevant to the scientific exploration of the universe, the earth and life itself. Bible-spewing as if it were science is poor apologetics especially when applied to non-believers. God gave us a brain and he left us with the evidence. I'll never understand why some Christians cannot accept the fact that our God is powerful enough to create via evolution on a time scale that is unfathomable to most of us. If you want omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence there is plenty of that to go around in evolutionary biology, astronomy and geology. You need only to unloose the chains of biblical fanaticism (it can hardly be called literalism) to marvel at his creation.

EF

 

Elena, if you choose to use your brain to figure out where the Bible is wrong "according to science", that is up to you. For the Christian, however, God's Word stands rock solid as the foundation of everything in life, including science. If God has said something, it's true. Period. If man has said something, it's noise -- which occasionally has a bit of truth in it. And when the truth is found in something man has said, it will also be found that the starting point for that truth was in the Bible all along.

So we will 'spout Bible.' God is our first love and our authority. He made us; He knows how to communicate to us; He has commanded us to love Him -- that includes respect and belief.

Man's knowledge changes constantly. Man's opinions about what it is he has found out changes constantly.

God, on the other hand, as the Creator, has known it all since forever. And He has given us the parameters of where to find the truth in the Bible -- whether it be in science or history or anything else.

We all know that God is powerful enough to do anything He wants. We also know that we can trust Him to have communicated clearly to us what He did do which, in this case, was to create all that there is we are aware of in six days, not so many thousand years ago.

I don't see why evolutionists and old-earthers cannot have enough faith in the God some say they believe in to believe that He did exactly what He said He did. He is powerful enough for that...

The Bible is not at all irrelevant to exploration of the universe! It tells us twelve times that God stretched the heavens -- long before man decided that space had expanded. It tells us that the star clusters in Orion are disrupting -- long before we knew that. It tells us that Pleiades is bound together -- long before we knew that. It tells us one star differs from another in glory -- long before we even knew how many stars there were!

The Bible has a pretty good batting average for the science it presents. About a thousand, from what I can see.

I've learned to trust it. So have a lot of other followers of Christ. And a number of them are actually scientists.

So I would save comments like the one you made for an atheist and/or evolutionist board where they will all applaud you. Your comments do not belong on a Christian board.