Anthropocentric evolutionary creationism

[Mark F]

I propose the following rudimentary creation scenario. I don't necessarily subscribe to it myself, but offer it as food for thought.

God creates the universe out of nothing ~15 billion years ago.
(God may also have created other (spiritual) universes and dimensions.)

God directs things so that the planet Earth, hospitable to life, is formed ~5 billion years ago.
(God may also create other planets hospitable to life.)

God "waits" a couple of billion years, then starts life on Earth by creating the first living single-cell organisms. God foreknows the results of the evolutionary process (different species) and allows evolution to run its course for hundreds of millions of years.
(God doesn't have to intervene at any point, but He may e.g. kill off the dinosaurs with a meteor to let the mammals gain the upper hand.)

At a specific point (~50-30,000 years ago?) God finally makes the major move. He creates a whole new species, humans, using very similar genes as those of the most evolved animals to date, the primates. The major difference between apes and humans is that the latter are equipped with a sense of moral responsibility, ability to abstract and hypothetical thought, and most importantly an eternal soul that can know and commune with God. This would be the only case where God directly creates a new species. He would create two individuals, later known as Adam and Eve, who live somewhere in the Middle East.

The Biblical accounts of the Fall and the (local) flood etc. would be historical, but impossible to pinpoint in history because of potentially wide gaps in the genealogies and conflicting manuscripts (cf. dates in the Masoretic text vs. dates in the Septuaginta).

God would later reveal his role as the Creator by inspiring Moses to write the Genesis account as a simplified literary narrative and in terms that the people of Moses' age could understand.

In this scenario, humanity would be the main purpose for creating the Earth (and the solar system, maybe even the universe) in the first place. God would have limited interest in other life forms which is why he would let the other species evolve by natural selection. This prompts the question, why did it take billions of years for God to get to creating humans? Again, it should be stressed that "waiting" is not a problem for God if he exists outside of the time of his creation (like a DVD movie viewer exists outside the time of the fictional events he's watching and can jump to the closing scene any time he wishes).

Objections, rebuttals, counter-propositions?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

The theory of evolution was invented to remove the need for a creator in the natural world. Tying evolution by natural selection to a creator's purpose is therefore tricky, though compelling to a degree.

I am of the opinion that our concept of time is quite meaningless to a creator who exists outside those parameters.

I think it's quite vain to assume that the universe was created specifically for us. God made everything for His purpose and we are privileged to be a part of that plan.

In my humble opinion of course!

[shunyadragon]

The theory of evolution was invented to remove the need for a creator in the natural world.

Basically a false assertion, based on the projection of wishful thinking, avoidance of basic sound science, and clinging to ancient archaic thinking.

[shunyadragon]

I propose the following rudimentary creation scenario. I don't necessarily subscribe to it myself, but offer it as food for thought.

God creates the universe out of nothing ~15 billion years ago.
(God may also have created other (spiritual) universes and dimensions.)

God directs things so that the planet Earth, hospitable to life, is formed ~5 billion years ago.
(God may also create other planets hospitable to life.)

God "waits" a couple of billion years, then starts life on Earth by creating the first living single-cell organisms. God foreknows the results of the evolutionary process (different species) and allows evolution to run its course for hundreds of millions of years.
(God doesn't have to intervene at any point, but He may e.g. kill off the dinosaurs with a meteor to let the mammals gain the upper hand.)

At a specific point (~50-30,000 years ago?) God finally makes the major move. He creates a whole new species, humans, using very similar genes as those of the most evolved animals to date, the primates. The major difference between apes and humans is that the latter are equipped with a sense of moral responsibility, ability to abstract and hypothetical thought, and most importantly an eternal soul that can know and commune with God. This would be the only case where God directly creates a new species. He would create two individuals, later known as Adam and Eve, who live somewhere in the Middle East.

The Biblical accounts of the Fall and the (local) flood etc. would be historical, but impossible to pinpoint in history because of potentially wide gaps in the genealogies and conflicting manuscripts (cf. dates in the Masoretic text vs. dates in the Septuaginta).

God would later reveal his role as the Creator by inspiring Moses to write the Genesis account as a simplified literary narrative and in terms that the people of Moses' age could understand.

In this scenario, humanity would be the main purpose for creating the Earth (and the solar system, maybe even the universe) in the first place. God would have limited interest in other life forms which is why he would let the other species evolve by natural selection. This prompts the question, why did it take billions of years for God to get to creating humans? Again, it should be stressed that "waiting" is not a problem for God if he exists outside of the time of his creation (like a DVD movie viewer exists outside the time of the fictional events he's watching and can jump to the closing scene any time he wishes).

Objections, rebuttals, counter-propositions?

I consider this view an attempt to manipulate the evidence to justify an anthropomorphic miracle working hands-on God that operates creation like an ancient Empire.

[franktalk]

Mark F,

It seems you want to make God an evolutionist.

Here is another model that I like but of course can't prove.

God created a highly dense universe filled with water.
He then separated the center water from the outer water.
He then created light which was frozen in dense space.
He expanded the space so light started to move, this separated lightness from darkness. He added land to the ball of water in the center.
Made the planets and sun.
He then expanded space and made the stars. The edge of the universe in the expanded space had it's clocks running very fast so that they ticked off 14.5 billion years and the earth had part of one day go by. (space time)
He then stretched out the heavens so light would speed up throughout space so all of His creation would be seen on earth.
The stretching of space caused the light sources to emit light in quantum steps.
Space settled to its current density over a 3000 year period.
Light slowed down over this period but it wavelength stayed the same.
Large body effects were not affected by the changing density of space.

I like this model. Let me know what you think. It makes for a young earth and an old universe.

[rogue06]

The theory of evolution was invented to remove the need for a creator in the natural world. Tying evolution by natural selection to a creator's purpose is therefore tricky, though compelling to a degree.

I am of the opinion that our concept of time is quite meaningless to a creator who exists outside those parameters.

I think it's quite vain to assume that the universe was created specifically for us. God made everything for His purpose and we are privileged to be a part of that plan.

In my humble opinion of course!
I disagree with your first sentence. Evolution is silent on how life came about in the first place. Evolutionary forces act when there is already a replicating organism on which they can act.

[rogue06]

Mark F,

It seems you want to make God an evolutionist.

Why not? Just why couldn't God use evolution as a tool? What would prevent Him?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Basically a false assertion, based on the projection of wishful thinking, avoidance of basic sound science, and clinging to ancient archaic thinking.

In your not-so-humble opinion. :smile:

[MooseOnTheLoose]

I disagree with your first sentence. Evolution is silent on how life came about in the first place. Evolutionary forces act when there is already a replicating organism on which they can act.

I don't have a copy in front of me but didn't Darwin himself say towards the end of "Origin of the Species" that his theory effectively made a creator redundant?

It has also been said (though not by the man himself) that atheism is a logical progression from Darwinism.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Why not? Just why couldn't God use evolution as a tool? What would prevent Him?

In that case wouldn't Genesis say something along the lines of:

The seed of life was sown from which all plants and beasts grew.

or

The greater beasts were raised from the lesser beasts, and in the end made man.

or something along those lines? I'm not rewriting Scripture but you get the gist?

[rogue06]

Why not? Just why couldn't God use evolution as a tool? What would prevent Him?

In that case wouldn't Genesis say something along the lines of:

The seed of life was sown from which all plants and beasts grew.

or

The greater beasts were raised from the lesser beasts, and in the end made man.

or something along those lines? I'm not rewriting Scripture but you get the gist?

Sounds like you’re making an argument from silence here. But further the whole fixity of kinds argument is primarily based on the philosophy of the Greek philosopher Plato (world is eternal, species are fixed and nothing new could arise), which was brought into Christianity primarily by St. Augustine. Nowhere does the Bible itself say that kinds themselves cannot change and diversify. Reproduction “according to their kind” is absolutely consistent with evolution, as long as it is recognized that kinds aren’t fixed. This is especially true since “kinds” can be as big or as small as you like to fit your argument - from kingdoms (e.g. plants) to species (e.g. dogs). In addition the whole idea that an animal is either a dog (for example) or it isn’t a dog, with an exclusive set of traits that are either 100% doggy or 0% doggy, is an illusion any way. Just like claiming a pile of sand isn't either a pile or not a pile, with the addition of one grain of sand (the Sorites paradox ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/)). Interestingly, many beliefs that creationists accept as gospel today (such as the fixity of “kinds” and the impossibility of life from non-life) would have seemed absurd to many Christians of centuries past. And those earlier Christians would have also cited the Bible to support their views (such as Moses’ staff turning into a snake, and the plagues of Egypt appearing from nowhere), just as creationists today cite the Bible to support their own views.

My ultimate point though is that we shouldn't try to limit God by saying He couldn't do things in such a manner.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Sounds like you’re making an argument from silence here.

Well, as far as the creation goes, Genesis is silent on a lot of things.

[shadowmaster]

I disagree with your first sentence. Evolution is silent on how life came about in the first place. Evolutionary forces act when there is already a replicating organism on which they can act.

I don't have a copy in front of me but didn't Darwin himself say towards the end of "Origin of the Species" that his theory effectively made a creator redundant?



Not in Shadowmaster's copy . Darwin speaks of the Creator's action in evolution.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Not in Shadowmaster's copy . Darwin speaks of the Creator's action in evolution.

I thought he argued that, although everything in nature could arise without a creator, it was no less wonderful?

Or am I confusing Darwin with his number one fan, Dawkins?

[shadowmaster]

Darwin's last statement in Shadowmaster's copy was:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Some atheists claim that this was a political addition after the first edition.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Some atheists claim that this was a political addition after the first edition.

Darwin was effectively a non-believer.

[shadowmaster]

[
Darwin was effectively a non-believer.

Shadowmaster has read several things by/about Darwin. At the most he said that he was sometimes agnostic and he denied ever being completely atheistic.

And actually what does it matter? His theory is either valid or not (given the background of that era).

[jordanriver]

The Book of Genesis was not silent on the creation of the human man Adam from the available materials in the ground, and, is more explicit on the creation of Adam's mate Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

It says what it says. Its either wrong or it isn't.

One does not have to be a hopeless literalist to see that it says what it says.

Its not metaphor like "the four corners of the earth" (since the Bible also mentions "the circle of the earth") . A hopeless literalist might conclude that Jesus turned into a chicken with a beak and feathers when He said He would like to gather His people as a hen gathers her chicks, or conclude that if Jesus is 'the door' that Jesus walks around with a doorknob and hinges.

But one is not a hopeless literalist when the Bible plainly lists father-to-son leading from Noah to Abraham to Jesse to David to Solomon to Jesus and there just aren't hundreds of thousands of years available for a flood, which Genesis plainly states covered all the mountains and killed all flesh.

JR

[shunyadragon]

Basically a false assertion, based on the projection of wishful thinking, avoidance of basic sound science, and clinging to ancient archaic thinking.

In your not-so-humble opinion. :smile:

I at least do not consider any one world view as absolutely true including my own.

Oh, ah . . . yes, in my humble opinion.

By the way, there is nothing in the ToE that asserts what you claimed.

[Mark F]

Mark F,

It seems you want to make God an evolutionist.

Here is another model that I like but of course can't prove.

God created a highly dense universe filled with water.
He then separated the center water from the outer water.
He then created light which was frozen in dense space.
He expanded the space so light started to move, this separated lightness from darkness. He added land to the ball of water in the center.
Made the planets and sun.
He then expanded space and made the stars. The edge of the universe in the expanded space had it's clocks running very fast so that they ticked off 14.5 billion years and the earth had part of one day go by. (space time)
He then stretched out the heavens so light would speed up throughout space so all of His creation would be seen on earth.
The stretching of space caused the light sources to emit light in quantum steps.
Space settled to its current density over a 3000 year period.
Light slowed down over this period but it wavelength stayed the same.
Large body effects were not affected by the changing density of space.

I like this model. Let me know what you think. It makes for a young earth and an old universe.

Quite imaginative. But it wouldn't explain the sediments that point to an old earth.



The Book of Genesis was not silent on the creation of the human man Adam from the available materials in the ground,

Humans (and all species) are ultimately made from materials "in the ground".


and, is more explicit on the creation of Adam's mate Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

Why couldn't it be a poetic metaphor, meant to express the companionship between the sexes? Who's to say God could use metaphors in the Gospel of John, but not in Genesis?


It says what it says. Its either wrong or it isn't.

"The sun rose today at 7:12." It's right and it's wrong.


But one is not a hopeless literalist when the Bible plainly lists father-to-son leading from Noah to Abraham to Jesse to David to Solomon to Jesus

With different versions in genealogies, the Bible itself implies that there can be gaps in them (assuming the Bible is right). It gives us no limit as to how large gaps we could allow, theoretically.


and there just aren't hundreds of thousands of years available for a flood, which Genesis plainly states covered all the mountains and killed all flesh.

Well, the Bible also says that all kings of the earth came to visit Solomon (from China and America, too?). It also says that Jesus taught his disciples all things (including the best way to hunt bisons?). "All mountains" and "all flesh" could be written from the POV of the culture that got destroyed.

[jordanriver]

Quite imaginative. But it wouldn't explain the sediments that point to an old earth.




Humans (and all species) are ultimately made from materials "in the ground".



Why couldn't it be a poetic metaphor, meant to express the companionship between the sexes? Who's to say God could use metaphors in the Gospel of John, but not in Genesis?



"The sun rose today at 7:12." It's right and it's wrong.



With different versions in genealogies, the Bible itself implies that there can be gaps in them (assuming the Bible is right). It gives us no limit as to how large gaps we could allow, theoretically.



Well, the Bible also says that all kings of the earth came to visit Solomon (from China and America, too?). It also says that Jesus taught his disciples all things (including the best way to hunt bisons?). "All mountains" and "all flesh" could be written from the POV of the culture that got destroyed.

Then the Bible is pretty flimsy. Maybe its all metaphor.

When its written in Revelation 20 that the sea gave up the dead and that death and hell delivered up every man that was in them and that they were judged , maybe its just a local sea from the Middle East, and maybe 'every' man doesn't really mean 'EVERY' man, and maybe the promise of resurrection is just nice poetry to give people hope

and maybe when Jesus said that He was the only way to the Father it was just a figure of speech and maybe the broad way that "leadeth to destruction" and the "narrow way that leadeth to life" are both relative terms , what is narrow for some may be broad to others and what is broad to some may be narrow to others.

Maybe one can simply make the Bible say whatever one wants it to say. Maybe where it says "thou shalt not murder" can mean "thou shalt not murder unless thou can get away with it" but that last qualifier is just one of those gaps that was left out of the commandment details.

JR

[Mark F]

Then the Bible is pretty flimsy. Maybe its all metaphor.

When its written in Revelation 20 that the sea gave up the dead and that death and hell delivered up every man that was in them and that they were judged , maybe its just a local sea from the Middle East, and maybe 'every' man doesn't really mean 'EVERY' man, and maybe the promise of resurrection is just nice poetry to give people hope

and maybe when Jesus said that He was the only way to the Father it was just a figure of speech and maybe the broad way that "leadeth to destruction" and the "narrow way that leadeth to life" are both relative terms , what is narrow for some may be broad to others and what is broad to some may be narrow to others.

Maybe one can simply make the Bible say whatever one wants it to say. Maybe where it says "thou shalt not murder" can mean "thou shalt not murder unless thou can get away with it" but that last qualifier is just one of those gaps that was left out of the commandment details.

I think there's a crucial difference between interpretative licence in statements that deal with nature or history, and similar licence in verses which present essential moral or religious truths.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

The Garden of Eden situation comes across as some kind of lab experiment with Eve being the first example of human cloning/genetic modification.

Well, maybe that's exactly what it was.

Yep, all life is made more or less of the same stuff, which I suppose is why everything is related to everything else.

The theory of evolution does not cope adequately (if at all) with the Fall of Man. Scriptures clearly state that man was made a perfect being, presumably with a perfect immune system and perfect tolerance to those pesky free radicals that are responsible for so much ageing and decay. Man sinned and subsequently devolved into the short-lived, ailment ridden specimen we have today.

The Fall is an absolute keystone of Christian belief. It led to our saviour's sacrifice on the cross. Although I accept that much of the Adam and Eve story may be metaphorical (I wasn't there so I don't really know) the idea that man dies as a result of original sin is the bedrock of redemption.

Evolution makes little or no allowance for this, unless you want to argue that what goes up can come down again.

[Mark F]

The Fall is an absolute keystone of Christian belief. It led to our saviour's sacrifice on the cross. Although I accept that much of the Adam and Eve story may be metaphorical (I wasn't there so I don't really know) the idea that man dies as a result of original sin is the bedrock of redemption.

That's why I proposed a scenario where other life forms evolved with little or no divine interference, but the human race was created by God in a singular act.

[kuboes1831]

Some atheists claim that this was a political addition after the first edition.

Darwin was effectively a non-believer.

Was he? You got one thing wrong already

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Was he? You got one thing wrong already

:bawl:

I said he was effectively a non-believer, not an out and out nailed to the cupboard door non-believer. I gleaned the former impression from the profiles I have read. Yes he was conscientious and supported his local church, but it seems to me that his belief in God had pretty much sunk to the bottom of the tank.

Pedants... sheesh! My mortal existence is too short to go on arguing with Darwinites.

[shadowmaster]

The Garden of Eden situation comes across as some kind of lab experiment with Eve being the first example of human cloning/genetic modification.

Well, maybe that's exactly what it was.

Yep, all life is made more or less of the same stuff, which I suppose is why everything is related to everything else.

The theory of evolution does not cope adequately (if at all) with the Fall of Man. Scriptures clearly state that man was made a perfect being, presumably with a perfect immune system and perfect tolerance to those pesky free radicals that are responsible for so much ageing and decay. Man sinned and subsequently devolved into the short-lived, ailment ridden specimen we have today.

The Fall is an absolute keystone of Christian belief. It led to our saviour's sacrifice on the cross. Although I accept that much of the Adam and Eve story may be metaphorical (I wasn't there so I don't really know) the idea that man dies as a result of original sin is the bedrock of redemption.

Evolution makes little or no allowance for this, unless you want to argue that what goes up can come down again.

Or if you argue that Eden was not an evolutionary part of this earth. You know, like the Creator can actually do more than one thing.

[kuboes1831]

Was he? You got one thing wrong already

:bawl:

I said he was effectively a non-believer, not an out and out nailed to the cupboard door non-believer. I gleaned the former impression from the profiles I have read. Yes he was conscientious and supported his local church, but it seems to me that his belief in God had pretty much sunk to the bottom of the tank.

Pedants... sheesh! My mortal existence is too short to go on arguing with Darwinites.


what's a Darwinite?

[shadowmaster]

what's a Darwinite?

It's a little bitty mite that believes in evolution.

Or is that a Darwin Mite? :huh:

[MooseOnTheLoose]

what's a Darwinite?

Richard Dawkins?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

what's a Darwinite?

Richard Dawkins?

You know, like the Creator can actually do more than one thing.

The creator can do anything he likes, but you try telling that to the guys over in Natural Science.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Whoops, I repeated myself, I must be caught in some strange temporal loop.

Whoops, I repeated myself, I must be caught in some strange temporal loop.

[rogue06]

You know, like the Creator can actually do more than one thing.





The creator can do anything he likes, but you try telling that to the guys over in Natural Science.
Would that include using evolution as a "tool"? :ahem:

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Would that include using evolution as a "tool"?

You try telling that to the atheists over in Natural Science.

[shunyadragon]

You know, like the Creator can actually do more than one thing.

The creator can do anything he likes, but you try telling that to the guys over in Natural Science.

For the first time we agree, but, ah . . .the Creator may do things a bit different than you and I believe.