IF evolution is true,

[Paul of Eugene]

A religion has to do with deity or deities, supernatural things, ethical guidelines. Evolution is none of those things. Evolution is science.

An atheistic philosophy requires a commitment to the idea that God does not exist. Evolution does not, it simply seeks to explain what we can naturally, seeing how far we can carry natural explanation by means of reason and evidence alone.

It is not the fault of the science that it turns out the natural explanations can be carried farther than anyone ever dreamed they could be, and that carrying out farther does not mean God wasn't behind it all along anyway.

It does, however, require a revisiting of our interpretation of the way God did things.

 

[HankD]

Yes, I know. But, I think a position based on the difference between what God can call "good" and "very good" is on shaky ground.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

HankD

 

[HankD]

It is not the fault of the science that it turns out the natural explanations can be carried farther than anyone ever dreamed they could be, and that carrying out farther does not mean God wasn't behind it all along anyway.

It does, however, require a revisiting of our interpretation of the way God did things.

What is there to interpret?

NKJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

"created" (Bara) Perfect tense, completed action.

"... after his kind ..."

NKJV Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'

HankD

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes, I know. But, I think a position based on the difference between what God can call "good" and "very good" is on shaky ground.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.</font>[/QUOTE]Based on Matthew 4:4, what do you make of the fact that the Bible uses exactly the same word to describe both prey for lions and other food sources (Psalm 104:21,27-28) and the creation of animals (Genesis 1:21,25). Both are called "good" (Hebrew: tov). In neither place is "very good" used -- just "good".

Are you allowing what God has called "good" to be spoken of as evil?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
A religion has to do with deity or deities, supernatural things, ethical guidelines. Evolution is none of those things. Evolution is science.

An atheistic philosophy requires a commitment to the idea that God does not exist. Evolution does not, it simply seeks to explain what we can naturally, seeing how far we can carry natural explanation by means of reason and evidence alone.

It is not the fault of the science that it turns out the natural explanations can be carried farther than anyone ever dreamed they could be, and that carrying out farther does not mean God wasn't behind it all along anyway.

It does, however, require a revisiting of our interpretation of the way God did things.

THIS ARTICLE IS BY AN EVOLUTIONIST
NOT A CREATIONIST

HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION
Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics
Saturday, May 13, 2000 - National Post
By MICHAEL RUSE

Source: http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
NKJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

"created" (Bara) Perfect tense, completed action.

What do you think was the completed action? I assume you don't mean the deistic idea that God created the world and walked away. Is God still active in bringing forth life in the world today? Psalm 104 talks quite a bit about God's ongoing creative activity in nature. Are you a creation of God as well? Was the psalmist really formed by God (Psalm 139:13-16)? I'm curious as to how much creative involvement you allow for God today.

"... after his kind ..."

Evolutionary theory agrees that every animal reproduces after its kind. It doesn't claim that two cats could mate and give birth to a dog -- in fact, such a thing would falsify the theory. This is why the relationships between living things are often shown as a tree. Every organism is of the same kind as its ancestors, because it is on the same branch, regardless of whether the branch divides into smaller twigs. To follow the twigs to the thicker branches, we see that humans are part of the ape branch, and apes are part of the primate branch. All primates are on the mammal branch, which is on the tetrapod branch, which is on the vertebrate branch, which is on the animal branch, which is on the eukaryote branch. That's the way common descent works. Every mammal is an animal, but not every animal is a mammal.

Every organism is the same kind as its ancestors, but it may be subclassified into more kinds. For instance, dogs that are bred only give birth to dogs. But, some populations of those dogs can become distinct, so that we now have different breeds of dogs. Some of those breeds are even distinct enough that they can't interbreed with certain other breeds. But, it did not take any defiance of "after its kind" to create these distinct breeds. Neither did it defy evolutionary theory.

NKJV Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'

Certainly it is possible to interpret this verse in a way that contradicts science. It's also quite possible to interpret it in a way that contradicts Genesis. It could contradict Genesis 1 because humans weren't made until the end of creation, six days after the beginning. It could contradict Genesis 2 because male and female weren't made at the same time; the female was only formed when the male could not find a suitable mate.

Now, I hope you'd agree that these contradictions are only due to reading the text more woodenly than is necessary. The same is true of a reading that contradicts science. It is quite reasonable to interpret this verse (and its parallel in Mark 10:6) as saying that humans were made male and female from their beginning -- from the time of their creation. And, evolutionary theory agrees that there never was a time when human beings were not male and female.

Why make a contradiction where one isn't necessary? Why be more literalistic with the word "beginning" in this verse than you would in other verses? Would you interpret John 15:27 as saying Jesus was with the disciples since the creation of the universe, or even since his incarnation? If not, why would you use that approach here?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Mercury:
Evolutionary theory agrees that every animal reproduces after its kind.

If what you say is true, and it is not, how did man evolve from a single cell which evolved from non life?

 

[Mercury]

Evolution doesn't explain the transition from non-life. As for the rest, I explained that in brief in the paragraph you quoted from. Populations that diverge due to evolution are still on the same branch as their ancestors. If you want more detail on any part, just let me know.

 

[HankD]

Based on Matthew 4:4, what do you make of the fact that the Bible uses exactly the same word to describe both prey for lions and other food sources (Psalm 104:21,27-28) and the creation of animals (Genesis 1:21,25). Both are called "good" (Hebrew: tov). In neither place is "very good" used -- just "good".

Are you allowing what God has called "good" to be spoken of as evil?

The use of "good" in Genesis 1:21,25 is before God brought Adam into existence.

The superlative "very good" (Tov Mod) of Genesis was then used.

Genesis 1:31
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.

There was one more element in the superlative which was to be achieved by Adam and Eve.

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.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This part of the human responsibility of bringing creation into "dominion" was interrupted and affected all of creation:

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 8
21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

And will be dealt with later:

Romans 8
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Revelation 21
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

This is beyond "very good" and is "the best" or "glorious" state of being where God will not just visit (in the cool of the evening) but dwell with us with no more death, sorrow, crying, pain, etc.

HankD

 

[HankD]

I'm curious as to how much creative involvement you allow for God today.

None, not in the context of Genesis Chapter 1. God maintains (upholding all things by the word of his power,) the creation even in it’s corrupted state, which is later to be made “new”.

Personally, I could also include the new birth under the umbrella of the “new creation”.

Your comments concerning “after his kind”:

From this repeated Scripture I just can not make the leap from Adam having been uniquely taken from the “dust of the ground” by a direct act of creation in the image and likeness of Elohim to having descended from a dumb animal(s) a “beast of the earth”.

Why make a contradiction where one isn't necessary? Why be more literalistic with the word "beginning" in this verse than you would in other verses? Would you interpret John 15:27 as saying Jesus was with the disciples since the creation of the universe, or even since his incarnation? If not, why would you use that approach here?

Context.

HankD

[ June 25, 2005, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[HankD]

Evolution doesn't explain the transition from non-life.

True, but those who support the theory of evolution as the origin of the species also promote the idea of the "primordial soup" along with a "primordial spark" to get things going.

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Evolution doesn't explain the transition from non-life.

True, but those who support the theory of evolution as the origin of the species also promote the idea of the "primordial soup" along with a "primordial spark" to get things going.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]"Primordial soup" is still non life. I make a little soup every now and then in which i put everything but the kitchen sink, supply a little heat energy, and I still get nothing but soup. Wonder what I am doing wrong?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Mercury:
Evolution doesn't explain the transition from non-life. As for the rest, I explained that in brief in the paragraph you quoted from. Populations that diverge due to evolution are still on the same branch as their ancestors. If you want more detail on any part, just let me know.

Evolution can't explain the transition from non-life. Neither can it explain anything else. It is simply an atheistic philosophy whose purpose is to undermine the Christisn Faith.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
The use of "good" in Genesis 1:21,25 is before God brought Adam into existence.

The superlative "very good" (Tov Mod) of Genesis was then used.

So the animal "circle of life" was good in both Genesis 1:21,25 and Psalm 104:21,27-28, but all of creation, including sinless humans, was very good? If so, I think we agree.

This part of the human responsibility of bringing creation into "dominion" was interrupted and affected all of creation:

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 8
21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

No argument here. Neither Romans 5 nor Romans 8 specifies that animal death or animal predation started as a result of human sin. Romans 5 talks about death passing to all men, and Romans 8 talks about creation being in bondage -- quite appropriate considering that God placed creation under humanity's dominion, and humanity is now corrupt and sinful.

This is beyond "very good" and is "the best" or "glorious" state of being where God will not just visit (in the cool of the evening) but dwell with us with no more death, sorrow, crying, pain, etc.

Hank, you didn't deal with the fact that God is going to barbecue some steak for us to eat at this time. Whether that feast is literal or figurative, it strongly suggests that the death to be destroyed is not animal death.

Isaiah 25:6-8: "On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken."

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm curious as to how much creative involvement you allow for God today.

None, not in the context of Genesis Chapter 1. God maintains (upholding all things by the word of his power,) the creation even in it’s corrupted state, which is later to be made “new”.</font>[/QUOTE]Why would God's sustenance rule out God sustaining and working through natural processes? If it doesn't, then perhaps our disagreement is only about whether we consider reproduction, mutation, and natural selection to be natural processes.

From this repeated Scripture I just can not make the leap from Adam having been uniquely taken from the “dust of the ground” by a direct act of creation in the image and likeness of Elohim to having descended from a dumb animal(s) a “beast of the earth”.

Are you able to make the leap from God speaking animals into existence (Genesis 1:20-25) to God forming them from the ground (Genesis 2:19)? If so, I don't think the problem with this other leap is what the Bible says, but rather what you accept about science. I'm not trying to convince you about the science, but am trying to show that the Bible doesn't rule out what science has discovered.

As for the "image and likeness of Elohim", I do not believe that refers to a physical likeness. Do you?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why make a contradiction where one isn't necessary? Why be more literalistic with the word "beginning" in this verse than you would in other verses? Would you interpret John 15:27 as saying Jesus was with the disciples since the creation of the universe, or even since his incarnation? If not, why would you use that approach here?

Context.</font>[/QUOTE]That begs the question of why you're willing to consider the context of John 15:27 but not the context of Matthew 19:4. The context of this second verse is referring to the first humans to make a point about divorce, so it's quite reasonable to think the beginning it refers to is the beginning of humanity. It's at least as reasonable as thinking the beginning of John 15:27 refers to early in Jesus' earthly ministry. To me, using Matthew 19:4 to contradict evolution is about as convincing as a Mormon using John 15:27 to prove that people eternally existed from the beginning with God.

 

[HankD]

"Primordial soup" is still non life. I make a little soup every now and then in which i put everything but the kitchen sink, supply a little heat energy, and I still get nothing but soup. Wonder what I am doing wrong?

You are responding to an argument that I didn't make.

You claimed that evolution doesn't explain the transition from non-life. My response was that that many evolutionists (secular humanists) promote the idea of a "priordial soup" which brought about through chance happening the constituents elements of life along with another chance happening (the "primordial spark"), or the subsequent coming together of chemical processes and phenomena which collaboratively ignited the life process at precisely the right window of time, again by chance.

Now I know a TE perhaps does not subscribe to the time and chance alone theory but you didn't qualify it as a TE statement.

It is often blithely assumed that the combination of time plus chance can account for the origin of life. World-famous Nobel prize-winning biologist George Wald, writing in the Scientific American in 1954, not long after the Miller experiment, argued that random processes following the physical laws of the universe can account for the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter. He argued that life is just an inevitable product of chemical processes.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. . . . Given so much time the "impossible" becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. The Origin of Life,’ Scientific American, 191 [1954], p. 48).

http://www.stalbans.org.nz/teachings/rob_yule/creation/orig_lif.htm </font>[/QUOTE]An improbable godless explanation of the journey from non-life to life but an explanation nonetheless.


HankD

 

[Mercury]

Hank, you realize that quote was from OldRegular and not me, right?

 

[HankD]

So the animal "circle of life" was good in both Genesis 1:21,25 and Psalm 104:21,27-28, but all of creation, including sinless humans, was very good? If so, I think we agree.

Agreed, except that "very good" (IMO) was not the product of billions of years of death, pain and suffering.

Hank, you didn't deal with the fact that God is going to barbecue some steak for us to eat at this time. Whether that feast is literal or figurative, it strongly suggests that the death to be destroyed is not animal death.

where and what is the suggestion that God is going to "barbeque some steak" in the Isaiah passage which you quoted?

The only possibility is the word "marrow" (from the Hebrew words Hebrew Shemenim memkim - (Strongs 2410, 1181a), the Hebrew phrase is not one of the typical phrases for bone marrow, though it could mean that. The phrase refers to rich foods of any kind.

Tha New American Bible is good on this verse.

NAB Isaiah 25:6 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will provide for all peoples A feast of rich food and choice wines, juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines.

Are you able to make the leap from God speaking animals into existence (Genesis 1:20-25) to God forming them from the ground (Genesis 2:19)?

Yes.

If so, I don't think the problem with this other leap is what the Bible says, but rather what you accept about science. I'm not trying to convince you about the science, but am trying to show that the Bible doesn't rule out what science has discovered.

In the one case I can make the leap, but the other; I am not able.

True, I have two minds when it comes to "science".
I went up though Modern Physics and Vector Analysis and I must admit that for a long time I was ambivalent.

Now I dismiss the science when in my perception it is contrary to the Bible because I am not able to integrate evolution and creation.

That begs the question of why you're willing to consider the context of John 15:27 but not the context of Matthew 19:4. The context of this second verse is referring to the first humans to make a point about divorce, so it's quite reasonable to think the beginning it refers to is the beginning of humanity.

I thought you were asking the difference between the "beginnings", the one found in John 15:27 and the other in Matthew 19:4 and how one could determine whether they were the same "beginnings".

My answer was the "context". John 15:27 is the beginning of Jesus earthly ministry, the other the creation of Adam and Eve. This is clear from the context, they are not the same beginning.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Hank, you realize that quote was from OldRegular and not me, right?

I am a little confused as to who said what right now, but presumably my responses would (or should) be the same no matter to whom I direct them.

HankD

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
The only possibility is the word "marrow" (from the Hebrew words Hebrew Shemenim memkim - (Strongs 2410, 1181a), the Hebrew phrase is not one of the typical phrases for bone marrow, though it could mean that. The phrase refers to rich foods of any kind.

Tha New American Bible is good on this verse.

Yes, I've been through this before in the Science forum. Thanks for providing that quotation. I was wondering if there were any English Bible versions that didn't use a word referencing meat in that verse, and now it appears that there is at least one. Of course, virtually every translation does use a word or phrase that implies animal meat at that feast. They could all be wrong, but I wouldn't base an interpretation on it. From what I can see, your view of animal death being part of the death caused by sin requires them all (except the NAB) to be wrong.

Now I dismiss the science when in my perception it is contrary to the Bible because I am not able to integrate evolution and creation.

Fair enough. I don't see the integration problem as any worse than is necessary to acknowledge God as the provider of my daily bread even though I work, or God's judgement as the cause of Israel's captivity even though invading armies were used. I see the same concept of God being totally involved in things that have natural explanations throughout the Bible. I think it's important to maintain that God is involved even when there is a natural explanation. Certainly there is also unnatural intervention (the start of the natural realm could not have a natural explanation, for instance), but God is involved in both the natural and the supernatural.

I thought you were asking the difference between the "beginnings", the one found in John 15:27 and the other in Matthew 19:4 and how one could determine whether they were the same "beginnings".

My answer was the "context". John 15:27 is the beginning of Jesus earthly ministry, the other the creation of Adam and Eve. This is clear from the context, they are not the same beginning.

Oh, then we agree. That's what I think Matthew 19:4 refers to too. The beginning of humanity, not the beginning of the world.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
I am a little confused as to who said what right now, but presumably my responses would (or should) be the same no matter to whom I direct them.

Yeah, I don't really follow your post about the argument you didn't make, so I'll leave that one alone.