Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I hold an old earth literalist view, so...none of it is analogy or symbolic in my view as such. My view leans towards John Sailhamer's Historical Creationist view (slightly modified) which teaches that the universe, including the earth, were created at some undefined point in time in the merism (figure of speech) "heavens and earth" in Gen. 1:1. And that the subsequent creative acts refer specifically to the preparation of the promised land. Sailhamer says his view does not accept evolution, but I see no reason why Historical Creationism cannot be modified to allow it for it with Adam and Eve as special creations imbued with the image of God.

    Tim Keller (via Derek Kidner), and Alvin Plantinga offer other possible scenarios for a historical Adam and Eve which I think are noteworthy.

    I also think that John Walton's Cosmic Temple Inauguration view is interesting, and intersects well with John Sailhamer's Historical Creationism.
    From what I've read of his writings, Walton argues that concerns about the material origins of the world is a relatively recent preoccupation and that Genesis 1 is falsely being brought into judgment for something it was never written or designed to do. According to Walton God used the cosmological understanding of the ancient world to describe how the functions of that world were called into being and operated, leaving open the precise details of how the material nature of the world originated.

    According to Walton the discussion of creation is meant to be viewed from a functional[1] rather than material ontological perspective. Functional ontology is actually interested in somethings role and purpose rather than its material status meaning that when you talk about something being brought into existence (i.e., to create something) you're talking about giving it a function and a role.

    While the Bible declares that God created the heaven and earth, but if this is an account of functional origins rather than material origins, these six days do not mark the material beginning of the cosmos but its functional beginning. Consequently, the age of the material earth and surrounding universe has no relationship to these six days, meaning that the material cosmos could well have been in existence for endless ages before this creation of functions.

    Aside from presenting a strong case for this really being the way that many ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed things, and thus how the Jews at the time of Moses likely would have understood Genesis (this is not just something he concocted out of thin air to explain away differences between the biblical and scientific accounts), Walton points out that if Genesis 1 were an account of material origins, we would logically expect it to start when no material existed. Yet, in Genesis 1:2, the situation described is not absent of matter ["darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters" Gen 1:2] but absent of function.











    1. It really needs to be emphasized that the ancient idea of functions was not the same as our scientific descriptions of functions (e.g., the sun as a burning ball of gas that holds planets in orbit due to its gravitational pull) but rather their understanding of function centered wholly upon the role played in human existence.


    Walton shows how during the six "days" God set up a cosmos to function for human beings, with the function described in ways that were pertinent to them (this is especially evident in the description of the fourth day).

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #32
      That is a huge amount for me to digest, rogue-y. Thanks for the time you took to post it.

      There is one point I would like to make about the scientific viability of Genesis 1. I learned yesterday about Herbert Spencer. Yes, I likely learned about him in school, but who remembers stuff like that.

      Any way, you will know that Spencer announced to the scientific world that everything that exists in the universe falls into 5 categories:

      In this order, time, force, action, space and matter. So just look at Genesis 1:1 --

      "In the beginning" -- time

      "God" -- force

      "created -- action

      "the heavens" -- space

      "and the earth" -- matter



      I don't think Genesis is completely devoid of scientific truths.



      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
        That is a huge amount for me to digest, rogue-y. Thanks for the time you took to post it.

        There is one point I would like to make about the scientific viability of Genesis 1. I learned yesterday about Herbert Spencer. Yes, I likely learned about him in school, but who remembers stuff like that.

        Any way, you will know that Spencer announced to the scientific world that everything that exists in the universe falls into 5 categories:

        In this order, time, force, action, space and matter. So just look at Genesis 1:1 --

        "In the beginning" -- time

        "God" -- force

        "created -- action

        "the heavens" -- space

        "and the earth" -- matter



        I don't think Genesis is completely devoid of scientific truths.

        Neither do I. But I think the problem has been that some wish to reduce it to being a science textbook which I don't think it was ever meant to be.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Neither do I. But I think the problem has been that some wish to reduce it to being a science textbook which I don't think it was ever meant to be.
          I can agree with you there, although I am one of those YEC's who take the entire thing literally.


          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
            What do you mean, it doesn't fit in the traditional Christian world view? Are you saying that Christians don't believe Adam and Eve were the first created humans?
            I nor the Baha'i Faith believes that Adam and Eve were the first created humans. They were the first humans to know God.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Ok. I am going to throw my last question out.

              If you don't take Genesis literally, then what do you do with Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4-5?

              4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

              5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
              Is Jesus here not confirming the creation account in Genesis? Is He not saying that God made them, He made them at the beginning, and He made them male and female?

              Jesus here is indicating His belief in the creation account as recorded in Genesis and is substantiating it with His words in Matthew.


              Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                Ok. I am going to throw my last question out.

                If you don't take Genesis literally, then what do you do with Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4-5?



                Is Jesus here not confirming the creation account in Genesis? Is He not saying that God made them, He made them at the beginning, and He made them male and female?

                Jesus here is indicating His belief in the creation account as recorded in Genesis and is substantiating it with His words in Matthew.
                As I noted, by seeing it as being a polemic is still taking it literally. Just not reading it as a science textbook.

                Further, that's also the view of TEs. That they were created male and female.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                  And I would like only those to respond here, please.

                  And, mods, if this is not the best place for this thread, please feel free to move it.

                  My question is, where do Adam and Eve fit in your belief that God used evolution to create?

                  Do they fit at all? If not, why?

                  Sorry, I guess that's 3 questions.

                  I hope a Catholic answer is okay as well? :)

                  According to the current magisterium, Catholics may hold various opinions regarding the science of biological evolution, however we're still to hold that all humans descend from one woman and one man, namely Adam and Eve. That all can ultimately trace their lineage back them, and that they were therefore historical people, and that the Fall was a real historical event. This was declared by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical letter Humani Generis.

                  Beyond that we're free to believe what we want and you can find creationist Catholics like those of the Kolbe Center (http://kolbecenter.org/), or those who think that science has gotten it mostly right, but defer to the Church's opinion regarding Adam and Eve.

                  I'm more of the latter group, and I think that Adam and Eve were taken from a tribe of hominids, and then given the gift of being bearers of the image of God, and being able to recognise and commune with Him, as well as that ability to understand abstract concepts that only humans have. This would explain the biological facts that our chromosomes are so similar in various ways to the apes, while being harmonious with the understanding of the Church regarding the Fall and sin entering into the world.

                  I would say that death existed before humans came to be, and was not an evil part of the world. Animals don't have eternal life, or souls that go on after they die. So when an animal dies, nothing evil has happened, its simple part of the natural order of things. Moral evil, and natural forces that could go against human ends, that's what entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    From what I've read of his writings, Walton argues that concerns about the material origins of the world is a relatively recent preoccupation and that Genesis 1 is falsely being brought into judgment for something it was never written or designed to do. According to Walton God used the cosmological understanding of the ancient world to describe how the functions of that world were called into being and operated, leaving open the precise details of how the material nature of the world originated.

                    According to Walton the discussion of creation is meant to be viewed from a functional[1] rather than material ontological perspective. Functional ontology is actually interested in somethings role and purpose rather than its material status meaning that when you talk about something being brought into existence (i.e., to create something) you're talking about giving it a function and a role.

                    While the Bible declares that God created the heaven and earth, but if this is an account of functional origins rather than material origins, these six days do not mark the material beginning of the cosmos but its functional beginning. Consequently, the age of the material earth and surrounding universe has no relationship to these six days, meaning that the material cosmos could well have been in existence for endless ages before this creation of functions.

                    Aside from presenting a strong case for this really being the way that many ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed things, and thus how the Jews at the time of Moses likely would have understood Genesis (this is not just something he concocted out of thin air to explain away differences between the biblical and scientific accounts), Walton points out that if Genesis 1 were an account of material origins, we would logically expect it to start when no material existed. Yet, in Genesis 1:2, the situation described is not absent of matter ["darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters" Gen 1:2] but absent of function.











                    1. It really needs to be emphasized that the ancient idea of functions was not the same as our scientific descriptions of functions (e.g., the sun as a burning ball of gas that holds planets in orbit due to its gravitational pull) but rather their understanding of function centered wholly upon the role played in human existence.


                    Walton shows how during the six "days" God set up a cosmos to function for human beings, with the function described in ways that were pertinent to them (this is especially evident in the description of the fourth day).
                    Yep.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      T
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      I hope a Catholic answer is okay as well? :)

                      According to the current magisterium, Catholics may hold various opinions regarding the science of biological evolution, however we're still to hold that all humans descend from one woman and one man, namely Adam and Eve. That all can ultimately trace their lineage back them, and that they were therefore historical people, and that the Fall was a real historical event. This was declared by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical letter Humani Generis.

                      Beyond that we're free to believe what we want and you can find creationist Catholics like those of the Kolbe Center (http://kolbecenter.org/), or those who think that science has gotten it mostly right, but defer to the Church's opinion regarding Adam and Eve.

                      I'm more of the latter group, and I think that Adam and Eve were taken from a tribe of hominids, and then given the gift of being bearers of the image of God, and being able to recognise and commune with Him, as well as that ability to understand abstract concepts that only humans have. This would explain the biological facts that our chromosomes are so similar in various ways to the apes, while being harmonious with the understanding of the Church regarding the Fall and sin entering into the world.

                      I would say that death existed before humans came to be, and was not an evil part of the world. Animals don't have eternal life, or souls that go on after they die. So when an animal dies, nothing evil has happened, its simple part of the natural order of things. Moral evil, and natural forces that could go against human ends, that's what entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned.
                      Of course you can reply! And thank you.


                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I really don't have anything to add other then to also thank all of you for taking the time and explaining your views. It gives me also a lot to read and digest.
                        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          If no one objects, I'd like to piggy-back on this thread and ask another question for theistic evolutionists. If there is a God that created us by way of evolution / natural selection then it seems to me that this has resulted in certain uncivilized instincts/traits being passed down to us due to the nature of the survival process. To name a couple: male aggressiveness, selfishness, lust, overactive sex drives, rage, etc. I wonder if the blame for these instincts could be placed on the process of evolution. For example, males having to compete to become the alpha male and thereby winning the most chances of passing on their genes or the selfish hording of resources to strengthen offspring, etc. If this is the case then how does this affect your belief that there is a God who wants us to love everyone and be kind to everyone? Doesn't natural selection seem like a backwards way of achieving this goal? We could also take this one step further and ask, who would be to blame for these inherited behaviors?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Dave View Post
                            If no one objects, I'd like to piggy-back on this thread and ask another question for theistic evolutionists. If there is a God that created us by way of evolution / natural selection then it seems to me that this has resulted in certain uncivilized instincts/traits being passed down to us due to the nature of the survival process. To name a couple: male aggressiveness, selfishness, lust, overactive sex drives, rage, etc. I wonder if the blame for these instincts could be placed on the process of evolution. For example, males having to compete to become the alpha male and thereby winning the most chances of passing on their genes or the selfish hording of resources to strengthen offspring, etc. If this is the case then how does this affect your belief that there is a God who wants us to love everyone and be kind to everyone? Doesn't natural selection seem like a backwards way of achieving this goal? We could also take this one step further and ask, who would be to blame for these inherited behaviors?
                            One word:

                            Sin.
                            "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
                            -Unknown

                            "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


                            I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
                            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            I support the :
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Dave View Post
                              If no one objects, I'd like to piggy-back on this thread and ask another question for theistic evolutionists. If there is a God that created us by way of evolution / natural selection then it seems to me that this has resulted in certain uncivilized instincts/traits being passed down to us due to the nature of the survival process. To name a couple: male aggressiveness, selfishness, lust, overactive sex drives, rage, etc. I wonder if the blame for these instincts could be placed on the process of evolution. For example, males having to compete to become the alpha male and thereby winning the most chances of passing on their genes or the selfish hording of resources to strengthen offspring, etc. If this is the case then how does this affect your belief that there is a God who wants us to love everyone and be kind to everyone? Doesn't natural selection seem like a backwards way of achieving this goal? We could also take this one step further and ask, who would be to blame for these inherited behaviors?
                              These are some good questions and I think deserving of more than a one word answer. To be clear, I do think sin has a part in it: the orthodox Christian position is that one can be tempted, even extensively (even Jesus), but that giving in to any given temptation is not inevitable and that people are still responsible for what they do with said temptation. If one posits this, the specific source of the temptations seems immaterial to whether there is a sense of responsibility. I believe Christians already accept this to an extent even without considering evolutionary mechanisms with the example of alcoholism, which of course has a genetic component. People in general (not just Christians) do not accept that just because somebody has this predilection that we should just encourage them to drink to their heart's content.

                              As for how evolution fits into this (as a potentially messy way to create), theistic evolutionists (I am one) have differing approaches on this. Some like the notion that God created life with the freedom to evolve. While this is attractive from a theodicy standpoint, I think this runs into the issue of the creation of humans in particular. One could posit that there was freedom but the emergence of homo sapiens was an exception, but this seems rather ad hoc to me.
                              Last edited by KingsGambit; 07-29-2015, 07:50 AM.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Thank you for your replies.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:15 PM
                                0 responses
                                12 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Catholicity, 11-28-2023, 11:14 AM
                                57 responses
                                421 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 11-17-2023, 10:35 PM
                                92 responses
                                546 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Diogenes  
                                Working...
                                X