My response and some questions about an anti-TE article

[Kelp]

First I'd like to say that I'm not a TE, I'm a YEC by default since it's what I was taught. However I don't know all that much about the individual scientific issues involved here. I plan to look into it more heavily in the future, right now other areas of theology are more important to me and I mostly just post in origins discussions out of boredom and to respond to what I feel are unjust or unreasonable claims by some YECs.

LostSheep asked me to look at this article that alleges that the Reformers opposed Transubstantiation for the reasons that now make TE wrong. I'm not going to discuss the issues with Transubstantiation or the strength of the analogy between the two here. Right now I just want to give my opinion on the points against TE in the article:

Theistic Evolution, which many hold dear, is in fact an odious doctrine. By embracing that doctrine, taken to its logical conclusion:

You spoil Christ’s finished work of Creation completed as "very good" on day six as Gen 1:31, Gen 2:2 and Ex 20:11 make clear (John 5:17 refers to God working continuously post-Fall and is not to be applied here). As Bishop Ryle implies, a work that requires repeated refinement is not a perfect and complete thing [they are referring the claim that the RC Mass is a repeated sacrifice of Christ.]

First off, who says very good has to mean "perfect"? Why can't it just be "very good" for God's purposes? As the Psalm affirms, "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints". As it says in Amos 3:6

Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?

God causes and approves of suffering all the time when it suits His purposes and we still call His plan a good thing. It's not as if when the Fall happened He was caught flat footed. He wanted it to happen (this will especially hit home to Calvinists). Who are we to question God's right to do things as He wants and to call His works imperfect?

As the completed creation argument, I'm not sure. I'll have to others what they think.

Besides, why are we putting animal death on par with human death?

You spoil Christ’s office as Creator by applying to Him a faltering, dead-end, mutation-and-death-filled process of Creation.

Dead end? It works fine for what God wants it to do. Seems like in Scripture God has no problem causing scads of suffering when it suits His purpose. The suffering is a means to an end to how He wanted to cause the universe to come to be, just as the suffering of the Cross is a means to an end of how He wanted to save man.

You spoil the doctrine of the authority of Scripture (or Word of God) by exalting sinful men to knowledge of origins, to the subjugation of the inspired writing of Moses. In so doing you engage in idolatry (Romans 1: 23–25).

Mere assumption that YEC is the true reading of Scripture. As such is a bit out of purview right now.

You rob Christ of His glory as Creator.

How so? I don't get this one. No one is saying that evolution somehow happened without God, He is still behind it all and He caused the entire universe to come to be and designed it all.

You overthrow the true doctrine of the righteousness of Christ by asserting He created by causing the weak to suffer and die for the strong (in a process over millions of years prior to the Fall) which is a complete reversal of His nature expressed in Law, Teaching, Redemptive Work and Person. In your doctrine (and in its corollary, “old-Earth creation”) death cannot be an enemy which invaded the created order through sin (1 Corinthians 15:26). It is simply an outworking of the Nature of Christ before and after Creation and therefore is no reason for Him to take on flesh to redeem the Creation by dying on the Cross.

Again, no one is saying that God violates His nature by causing and allowing suffering everyday or by going ahead with His plan even though He knew it would involve so much suffering, why should this be different? The reason for Him to take on flesh would be simply because He wanted to redeem us that way. Does He need a more specific reason?

About the death as the last enemy argument, I've never been sure about that. I've heard it argued that it could be referring merely to spiritual death of humans, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, these are my opinions, your thoughts?

ETA: Forgot the link to the article.

[greentwiga]

Good Thoughts. Sometimes people argue based on logical extensions of their interpretations. They assume their interpretations are right and the only possible ones.

On the Spiritual Death, look at the creation of Adam. Compare it to Christian Salvation. In both cases, one has the spirit of God placed within. In both cases, one became spiritually alive at that point. Notice also that David (I believe) is the one who says he was made from dust (an analogy to being formed in the womb.) Finally, Scripture says that in the day that Adam sinned, in that day he died. He did not die physically that day. One either has to say he died spiritually, and thus spiritual death was introduced to the world. The other option is that day does not refer to 24 hours. In the first two references to day after Gen 1, neither could be a 24 hour day, if it refers to physical death. Either interpretation shoots down the YEC argument that you mentioned.

[Crow]

Kelp, here's what I feel about it--

Some folks like to assign all sorts of motives/related beliefs to others whose beliefs differ from theirs. That's their opinion, not necessarily fact. The old "if you believe this, then you must believe that." You'll see it on a plethora of non-salvatory beliefs, from how God created to whether or not Christians should spank their kids.

I don't really care what other's opinions are of what motivates my beliefs in the area of creation. That is between myself and God. He knows my motives. He knows how I've arrived at my beliefs. He knows my mind and my heart. I answer to Him, not to other's opinions and conclusions.

[Kelp]

Good Thoughts. Sometimes people argue based on logical extensions of their interpretations. They assume their interpretations are right and the only possible ones.

On the Spiritual Death, look at the creation of Adam. Compare it to Christian Salvation. In both cases, one has the spirit of God placed within. In both cases, one became spiritually alive at that point. Notice also that David (I believe) is the one who says he was made from dust (an analogy to being formed in the womb.) Finally, Scripture says that in the day that Adam sinned, in that day he died. He did not die physically that day. One either has to say he died spiritually, and thus spiritual death was introduced to the world. The other option is that day does not refer to 24 hours. In the first two references to day after Gen 1, neither could be a 24 hour day, if it refers to physical death. Either interpretation shoots down the YEC argument that you mentioned.

I think another might be, Adam "began to die" as in he started to decay physically, first slowly. In a way, we are all dying from the day we are born; this could be what is meant in Romans 8 that creation is "subjected to futility" as well.

Then again, most YEC's acknowledge that the Second Law of Thermodynamics would have to have been around before the Fall as well and it seems like entropy is the ultimate beginning of decay.

It's difficult.

[Kelp]

Kelp, here's what I feel about it--

Some folks like to assign all sorts of motives/related beliefs to others whose beliefs differ from theirs. That's their opinion, not necessarily fact. The old "if you believe this, then you must believe that." You'll see it on a plethora of non-salvatory beliefs, from how God created to whether or not Christians should spank their kids.

I don't really care what other's opinions are of what motivates my beliefs in the area of creation. That is between myself and God. He knows my motives. He knows how I've arrived at my beliefs. He knows my mind and my heart. I answer to Him, not to other's opinions and conclusions.

Well, I definitely agree with you that's it no good to impugn people's motives for holding beliefs (usually, obvious exceptions being things like the Serpent Seed doctrine).

But it seems to me that arguing that this or that belief leads to unacceptable conclusions is just fine; it's a valid use of the reductio ad absurdum and slippery slope arguments. Of course, one has to be careful to rigorously establish the logical connections to avoid committing the fallacious form of the slippery slope, and I don't think this article has done that, and one is always free to disagree as to truth of the connection you've drawn but it's still a serviceable way to argue.

[Number Six]

Theistic Evolution, which many hold dear

That's a cute projection. If darwinian evolution were to be somehow proven to be false tomorrow, I would not feel the slightest bit of discomfort.

When I was still interested in the subject, what always amazed me about a lot of YEC writers was the inability to understand, or even learn about TE/OEC arguments. Which, of course, is a result of the whole barricaded mentality that constitutes so much of the YEC movement (though there are notable exceptions).

[Kelp]

I'm kind of disappointed this thread did not garner more comments. It took me a while to write the OP. Oh well....

[MooseOnTheLoose]

No one is saying that evolution somehow happened without God

Evolutionary biologists?

He is still behind it all and He caused the entire universe to come to be and designed it all.

Not according to evolutionary biology.

[Kelp]

Evolutionary biologists?

When some do, they're making a philosophical statement; not any kind of biological one. I was referring to TE advocates though when I said "no one".

Not according to evolutionary biology.

What causes the planets to move, gravity or God?

What cause wood to burn, chemical reactions or God?

What turns a tadpole into a frog, its physiology or God?

You're setting up a false dichotomy (and so is Eugenie Scott or whoever else you might quote on the issue; scientists overextend themselves when they start playing philosopher).

[FreezBee]

It is God who works through the laws of nature

[Kelp]

Here is another I've been sent. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...fore-Adam.aspx

Some preliminary thoughts:

Implications of man’s universal dominion over all Creation are devastating to evolutionary doctrine and all attempts to accommodate Scripture to fit it. Evolution says man was a late-comer on earth with eons of time rolling by before the first creature possibly considered to be man appeared. Millions of creatures lived and died, myriads were already fossilized. Even the soulless brutes who supposedly gave rise to Adam’s race met their deaths. For eons before Adam, death struck everywhere, from lower forms to remarkably humanlike creatures!

I would assume the reason they don't have an issue with the two days of life before Adam is there was no death then.

This article is rather interesting. Does anyone know any TE options on the issues here?



Anyway, one possibility I've been kicking around for reconciling death before Adam with long ages, is this: just as God forgave the sins of OT people because of the sacrifice of Christ, so God cursed creation in response to Adam's future sin. So in that case "very good" (assuming it really has to mean "perfect") would be more a statement of original design or how creation was intended by God. That is, "perfect other than the whole man-caused, sin issue".

Is that a workable possibility?

[technomage]

Anyway, one possibility I've been kicking around for reconciling death before Adam with long ages, is this: just as God forgave the sins of OT people because of the sacrifice of Christ, so God cursed creation in response to Adam's future sin. So in that case "very good" (assuming it really has to mean "perfect") would be more a statement of original design or how creation was intended by God. That is, "perfect other than the whole man-caused, sin issue".

When I was a Christian, I viewed "thou shat surely die" as spiritual death--obviously, Adam and Eve did not physically die on that day, so evidently something else is intended than physical death. And since physical death was not intended, then it doesn't look like there was any specific prohibition against animals dying, even before Adam and Eve.

[Kelp]

When I was a Christian, I viewed "thou shat surely die" as spiritual death--obviously, Adam and Eve did not physically die on that day, so evidently something else is intended than physical death. And since physical death was not intended, then it doesn't look like there was any specific prohibition against animals dying, even before Adam and Eve.

Either that or their physical death began that day via disease, oxidation, aging etc.

I'm not sure how "spiritual death only" can be reconciled to the argument in Romans 8.

[technomage]

Either that or their physical death began that day via disease, oxidation, aging etc.

I'm not sure how "spiritual death only" can be reconciled to the argument in Romans 8.

I'm not certain Paul is using death in Rom 8 in the same manner as death is used in Genesis, but let's assume for a moment that it is. When Paul speaks of death and life, he is speaking of spiritual death and life: when he is speaking of "flesh," he is not speaking primarily of the physical body, but of the carnal "sin" nature. This is how he can say "They that are in the flesh cannot please God"--obviously, this does not mean that we cannot please God while we are physically alive, it means we cannot please God while being held captive to our carnal, sinful nature.

[KBertsche]

Here is another I've been sent. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...fore-Adam.aspx

Some preliminary thoughts:

Implications of man’s universal dominion over all Creation are devastating to evolutionary doctrine and all attempts to accommodate Scripture to fit it. Evolution says man was a late-comer on earth with eons of time rolling by before the first creature possibly considered to be man appeared. Millions of creatures lived and died, myriads were already fossilized. Even the soulless brutes who supposedly gave rise to Adam’s race met their deaths. For eons before Adam, death struck everywhere, from lower forms to remarkably humanlike creatures!

I would assume the reason they don't have an issue with the two days of life before Adam is there was no death then.

This article is rather interesting. Does anyone know any TE options on the issues here?

I don't find their logic very compelling. Since man was given dominion over all creation, they claim that none of creation could have gone extinct before man. I think they are trying to stretch "all" too far. By their logic, man would also have been given dominion over the primordial creation before it was finished and man was created.

Anyway, one possibility I've been kicking around for reconciling death before Adam with long ages, is this: just as God forgave the sins of OT people because of the sacrifice of Christ, so God cursed creation in response to Adam's future sin. So in that case "very good" (assuming it really has to mean "perfect") would be more a statement of original design or how creation was intended by God. That is, "perfect other than the whole man-caused, sin issue".

Is that a workable possibility?

Yes, it is workable. The recent book The End of Christianity by William Dembski makes a theological case for this view.