Evolution

[Jocund]

I disagree; if you remove creation, you undermine God’s authority over creation and you are left with no sound explanation for the origin of anything.

Interpreting the creation accounts as figurative doesn't remove creation, nor does it undermine God's authority (as far as I can tell?). The processes, mechanisms and timeframes would be figurative, but not the concept that we are literally God's creation. If we look at the book of Job, we see that Job was created by God and also naturally born. A God-guided evolution would be exactly that: each individual was created by God through the means of natural processes. We see God working miracles through Paul in the NT: despite the appearance to bystanders that Paul was performing great miracles on his own whims, we see that God can work through things to make things happen. The concept of evolution would be no different. It wouldn't be a random process as whenever the dice fall God determines the outcome. We see this concept in scripture with the casting of lots to determine God's will.

I don't see how a God-guided evolution interpretation would undermine God's authority. But I am curious why you think that is the case?

 

[Dino246]

Interpreting the creation accounts as figurative doesn't remove creation, nor does it undermine God's authority (as far as I can tell?). The processes, mechanisms and timeframes would be figurative, but not the concept that we are literally God's creation. If we look at the book of Job, we see that Job was created by God and also naturally born. A God-guided evolution would be exactly that: each individual was created by God through the means of natural processes. We see God working miracles through Paul in the NT: despite the appearance to bystanders that Paul was performing great miracles on his own whims, we see that God can work through things to make things happen. The concept of evolution would be no different. It wouldn't be a random process as whenever the dice fall God determines the outcome. We see this concept in scripture with the casting of lots to determine God's will.

I don't see how a God-guided evolution interpretation would undermine God's authority. But I am curious why you think that is the case?

It undermines God's authority in the sense that evolution is not a guided process (as it is taught in secular culture). However, the Bible states that God created, not that He caused to evolve. The "science" that supports evolutionary hypotheses is not actually scientifically sound.

 

[Jocund]

Actually the creation account impacts directly on the Gospel. The Bible says that all land creatures and mankind were created on the same day -- the 6th day of creation -- and that mankind was created in the image of God. Evolutionary theory reject that altogether. Furthermore the Fall occurred shortly after creation, but the millions of years postulated by evolution to move from amoeba to man contradicts that also.

Yes, we see a reference to timeframes. A day might be a literal day by our frame of reference. A day might also be a figurative reference to a very long period of time ("a day in the eyes of the Lord...").

Is a day in the Genesis creation story literal or figurative? I don't see any reason why it would necessarily be one over the other. From dust on the ground Adam was made. When the form of man was perfected, God breathed in life. We can see this as an explanation of the creation of one literal person named Adam. Or we can see Adam as a representation of mankind, and the process of dust from the earth to the form of man describes an evolution process at work guided by God.

The more we take a step back from assumptions we have made about scripture, the more energy we have to focus on the important parts such as loving God and loving our neighbours as ourselves.

Evolution rejects this

I agree that there are bad models of evolution theory out there. But evolution does not inherently mean "no creation / no God"

 

[Jocund]

It undermines God's authority in the sense that evolution is not a guided process (as it is taught in secular culture). However, the Bible states that God created, not that He caused to evolve. The "science" that supports evolutionary hypotheses is not actually scientifically sound.

"As taught in secular culture"

I agree with your point there.

The "science" that supports evolutionary hypotheses is not actually scientifically sound.

The concept of macroevolution is speculative and inductive like string theory. It takes the concept of observable adaptation and speciation and projects it backwards in time. The models of evolutionary theory certainly don't have the same kind of clout as chemistry, etc. And they stand as something different than most R&D type science.

It is completely reasonable to be uncompelled by models of evolution, but so long as the theory remains consistent with the empirical observations and scripture, it establishes itself as a valid theory. If a model stated "everything appeared out of nothing and God had nothing to do with it" that would be an example of an invalid theory. And I think you're right when you say that this might be the dominant secular model that gets idolized. When we peel away the atheistic concepts that have been injected into the theory we are left with the concept that a hypothetical process exists where inanimate substances can gradually transmute generation by generation into any form of creature including mankind. We see that scripture advertises the idea with dust of the ground being formed into Adam or stones being raised into descendants of Abraham.

I agree that there are well deserved criticisms for how evolution is taught, I just think that when the bad secular teachings are removed that evolutionary theory isn't inherently incompatible with scripture (provided we are exploring a figurative interpretation for the creation accounts).

 

[Dino246]

The concept of macroevolution is speculative and inductive like string theory. It takes the concept of observable adaptation and speciation and projects it backwards in time. The models of evolutionary theory certainly don't have the same kind of clout as chemistry, etc. And they stand as something different than most R&D type science.

It is completely reasonable to be uncompelled by models of evolution, but so long as the theory remains consistent with the empirical observations and scripture, it establishes itself as a valid theory. If a model stated "everything appeared out of nothing and God had nothing to do with it" that would be an example of an invalid theory. And I think you're right when you say that this might be the dominant secular model that gets idolized. When we peel away the atheistic concepts that have been injected into the theory we are left with the concept that a hypothetical process exists where inanimate substances can gradually transmute generation by generation into any form of creature including mankind. We see that scripture advertises the idea with dust of the ground being formed into Adam or stones being raised into descendants of Abraham.

I agree that there are well deserved criticisms for how evolution is taught, I just think that when the bad secular teachings are removed that evolutionary theory isn't inherently incompatible with scripture (provided we are exploring a figurative interpretation for the creation accounts).

I can agree at least to the point of continuing the discussion.

 

[jegblg144]

This blog does not specifically refer to the soul but discusses consciousness in a manner that might be of interest to you"

ruentangled.blogspot.com