Evolution

[Zipster]

[quote=Zipster;244777]Moderator Note

Questions for all: To what extent is the Origins of Life/The Universe/Creation important? Will God damn an individual to hell for believing in theistic-evolution? Can you provide Biblical support either way?

On a scale of 1-10, I would personally put the topic of Origins at a 6 or 7 on the scale of importance. Not because of the theological significance, per se - theologically, I think it's just a small detail in the overall story - but because of the witness of the church. Despite what some websites like Creation.com may try to say, the scientific for evolution is not something that can be easily dismissed.

Now, I'm not saying that evolutionary theory alone satisfactorily answers all the questions or all the problems - which, is one reason why I don't believe in evolution alone - but, I think that the cohesive picture that can be painted, utilizing a good bit of the evidence to support things, is telling. In 10 years, our information on origins will be completely different, I'm sure.

As Christians, I think our goal should be focused on truth - no matter what that may be - opposed to our tradition. The current image of the church is that we are out-dated, and that our Bible is out-dated. There are a lot of reasons for this - a lot of it directly linked to the Enlightenment that was mentioned in previous posts. No one wants to be out-dated, and I'm forced to wonder if that a lot of this discussion is a fight to make the Bible seem relevant. For centuries the church has mistakenly used the Bible as a scientific textbook - a source of scientific modern information about a wide variety of subjects - despite the distinctly un-modern writing style and culture that produced the Bible.

The Church, I personally feel, has been fighting the wrong fight. We've been trying to make the world fit our understanding of the Bible instead of reading the Bible for what it is.

In discussions with unbelievers, the topic of origins always comes up. In my experience, defending a 7 day creation week is nearly impossible when it comes to using evidence. Even the 15 questions provide no evidence: they rely on gaps in knowledge apart from actual evidence; it's hard to use lack of evidence to prove something scientifically. Since the church has largely erred - in my opinion - in how to read the Bible, the unbelievers have gotten a certain image of Christianity which is immediately discredited by evolutionary theory and "modern science."

In and of itself, I don't think the topic is all that important. But, since focus from unbelievers has gone there, I think it has made the topic very relevant to our culture.

I think it goes without saying that I don't believe that God will damn anyone based upon their views of origins, as long as Jesus is acknowledged in word and deed as Lord.

If the Young-Earth Creationist view of Creation is correct, then what does that tell us about God?

I'm going to do my best to be fair with this. I, obviously, do not believe the literal creation week, so it would be easy for me to use it to draw absurd theological points from it. So, I will try to be fair with it along with where I find it lacking.

A literal understanding of the creation narratives really seem to emphasize God's omnipotence; He is shown to be one who can create the whole universe, in all of it's intricate complexity and details in the blink of the eye. Ex nihilo is often said in conjunction to emphasize God's power. But, it's not just that - as, no one really cares if God can or did all of that if there is no practical relevance. This relevance usually manifests in talk of instantaneous "miracles."

If not quite like that, it paints the picture of a God who is immensely powerful - almost as if putting that power on display for the world to see, and as an invitation to come and experience it.

Likewise, talk of God's timelessness seems relevant with this, along with an emphasis on God as the distinct un-caused Cause, and as one who is is separate and outside of the bounds of tiime and this universe.

On the flipside, the literal understanding of the creation narrative says some suspect things about God. By over-emphasizing God's timelessness and his separation from the universe, a platonic dualism is easily read into the picture. God looses some of his wonder - in my opinion - from a literal creation understanding, because things turn very simple into "God means what he says and says what he means, and he cannot lie so that's that." type of thing. It makes things seem flat and one-dimensional.

I think it also puts a heavy expectation on God's "supernatural intervention" and "signs and wonders."

Finally, the bit about God "resting" at the end also lends itself to a diestic understanding. It also begs the question as to why God would need to rest, and I find the idea that God rested to show us to rest as well is an unsatisfactory answer. So, in a way, the literal understanding of creation kind of gives me a... fire-and-forget view of God. He created things on a whim, and then just took a break.

On a scientific note, I've also found a literal understanding of the creation narratives unable to provide an answer as to why the Universe is still, constantly, expanding - especially since God "finished" his creation.

If the Old-Earth Creationist view of Creation is correct, then what does that tell us about God?

Frankly, I don't know enough about the perspective to say much here. If anything, I would think it may be a healthy compromise - one that takes seriously scientific evidence along with traditional views of creation. It may very well may contain the best of both-worlds. But, again, I haven't looked too much into this perspective, as I personally think that it's still trying too hard to take the narrative literally. So, it may also have the worst of both worlds. But, it's hard for me to say.

If the Theistic-Evolutionary view of Creation is correct, then what does that tell us about God?

What it tells me is that God has worked very hard, and very long tweaking and designing the earth and the universe; that things weren't just a whim, but more of a project which God had intended - from the very beginning - to invest a lot of time and energy into. It tells me that God uses time - and he uses it wisely; but not just that, but that he also, often, takes his time.

While he certainly could have done everything in a millisecond, he didn't. Just like he could have sent Jesus to die the very moment Adam and Eve ate of the tree - but, he didn't. He let his plan unfold, through a lot of strange twists and turns that not a single one of us would have thought, to eventually bring about salvation.

I think he did the same with creation: directing things in strange and mysterious ways which we are quick to think he wouldn't do - such as using death as part of his plan (Salvation required death as well, keep in mind).

And, if there's one thing that really strikes me out of all of this, is that it makes everything seem... beautiful. It makes everything seem like it has been intricately crafted and that God put serious effort into creating a place for us to steward. It makes things feel... grand, and majestic to me; like, huge in scope, and unimaginable in complexity. It shows that God can do the most wonderful of transformations: taking a lifeless rock that hurled through space, and taming the primordial fires upon it, and transforming it into this earth that we all call home.

And, perhaps the invitation extends to us: come as we are, and be transformed from lifeless rocks into Temples of the Living God.

[peterout]

QUESTION 4.
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: creation.com/defining-terms.

[Taserah]

Originally Posted by peterout

QUESTION 4.
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: creation.com/defining-terms.

Peter, this question should not even be included within the 15 questions addressing evolution because it does not address evolution. Not once did Darwin try to account for the origin of life within his book. He entitled his book, On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life. Darwin was not an atheist, nor did he reject the concept of a creator God. As I said before Darwin was an agnostic, he believed he could neither confirm nor deny the existence of a higher power. Darwin himself never addressed where the first life came from and if people have tried to say evolution attempts to explain where the first life came from then that's there problem. Christians don't appreciate when the Bible is taken out of context to say things that aren't really there and I'm sure evolutionists don't appreciate when mistruths are spoken about what they believe.

Also, most evolutionists do not believe "goo" is the source of life. Evolutionary theory teaches that a simple single celled microbiotic organism would have divided and multiplied as cells do and that each individual cell would naturally adapt to its circumstances. Over billions and billions of years the organisms would grow more and more adapted and would eventually be all the species which are known today. That is a very abreviated series of events on my part and if you would like to know more there is a vast wealth of literature on the subject.

One common misconception about evolution is that plants and animals already developed change into other things. However, evolution as it's meant to be understood is a continual process which never stops developing and producing different adaptations of life.

[peterout]

Peter, this question should not even be included within the 15 questions addressing evolution because it does not address evolution.

You will need to tell Creation Ministries about this, not me. It is their campaign and they framed the questions.

[Taserah]

Very true but you are the one promoting them and you said you were open to discussing those questions. I just thought you should be aware that the campaign is not perfect.