Theistic Evolution vs Creationism

[This Baron of Mora]

Theistic evolution seems like a compromise to try to "garner support" against evolution "gaining ground". As a type of evolution theory it also uses the same evidence as scientific evolution which I find exceedingly faulty (ex. Lucy the pathetic excuse for a skeleton reconstruction).

I read that one of the arguments for this belief is that the creation in Genesis was allegorical. Allegory is a largely medieval invention that really has no place being presented as being in a book by Moses (who never had any other allegory in his works).

Slightly off topic: Though Theistic evolutionists don't necessarily agree with them I find such arguments rather akin to the theory of Intelligent Design. I think it a different sort of compromise to try to calm down angry Christians who don't think evolution should be in the school system. I find both theories aught not be there. And on that I say that many people have Evolution as the basis of their religion, yet that is why they don't have Christianity in schools.
In the end

Theistic evolotion is a logicall fallacy.

[cerddaf]

One writer said

“And just because someone asks you a question such as this does not mean they are not being Christian-like. It means they're asking you to evaluate your reference point. It's wise thing to do to figure out from where you are basing your foundation on theories pertaining to creation. I would take no offense at a question like this.”

It wasn’t the question as such that grieved me. It was that it attributed to me views I do not hold, and never have held.

As I understand the views of the Young Earth Creationists, they are based on the following (please correct me if I am wrong):

1, There is no other reasonable way to understand Scripture in General, and Genesis in particular other than 6 * 24 hours about 6K years ago.
2, The scientific evidence points strongly towards a young earth.

Therefore it must follow that anyone who tends to any form of evolution or non-literal understanding of Genesis does so as an attempt to reconcile the “clear teaching” of Genesis with an incorrect scientific position promoted by atheists.

Sorry I don’t accept those presuppositions.

Firstly, I do not believe that the literal understanding of Genesis is the only reasonable one.

Historically Augustine wrote that “What kind of days these were [in Genesis] it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say.” John Calvin believed that Moses used ordinary language, not scientific language, and that we should not look for science lessons in the Bible.

Clearly the question of Evolution was irrelevant to Augustine.

You do not have the right to say that because I do not share your view on how the writer of Genesis intended it to be taken, therefore I don’t accept it as God’s word.

You may think I am wrong in my view, that’s ok, I think you’re wrong. But I do not think anyone, including me, has the right to say theirs is the only possible reading of Genesis.

To ask where I base my views on theories pertaining to Creation is to beg the question. I could equally ask a creationist whether their views are based on Scripture or on Morris and Whitcomb, and it would be equally wrong to do so.

Secondly, I have attended Creationist meetings. The assumption is that there is a split between scientists who are Christians and believe in Creationism and godless scientists who are forced to evolution because nothing else will allow them to deny the God who made them.

That is not true. There are many scientists with deep evangelical faith who hold to an old earth and evolution. You may think they are wrong, but it is dishonest to deny they exist.

It is not an issue of accepting the authority of Scripture, or of science. It is a question of the correct understanding of Scripture and of science.

When I want guidance on the meaning of Scripture, I look to godly men who have studied Scripture.
When I want guidance on the meaning of science, and how it links to my faith I look to godly men who have studied the science concerned, and there are large number of faithful godfearing men of science who hold to some form of evolution.



Oh and by the way, it was Constantine who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire in the fourth century. Paganism was outlawed decades later. Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire was 742 - 814, by which time the battle was between Christianity and Islam.

[This Baron of Mora]

To begin I shall again use my favorite quote of the moment by C.S. Lewis “…the mere fact of putting something in words of itself involve an exaggeration…” For I assure you that my opinions surely seem larger than they are (and partially brought on by my annoyance with the public school’s conduct on the matter), here though is a far better work, for I have put “Not facts first, truth first” (a quote of Chesterton’s).

It does not matter which side is right or if Genesis is allegorical or even if “Theistic Evolution” is real for even an allegorical reading of Genesis coveys truth whereas I have yet see any “truth” in evolution. Truth, of course, meaning universal truth and applicability. It’s only true if it coveys universal truth. Its not whether that story ever happened in history, it’s whether or not it’s true. The prodigal son parable is an excellent example made by Jesus himself, for though the story is not a part of history (other than the telling), it is still true, those that read it see the truth of it in themselves. As such I find that reading Genesis as it is, even if it is not history (though is shall be said even if it was proven it wasn’t I will still wish it, and therefore act like it is), is the “truth.”

This can also be attached to your arguments on myths. First of all I know not where you got these “examples” however there are certainly others that I am more aware of. All myths contain splintered fragments of the one true light that comes from God. Pagans forgot how to “read” so God sent them pictures. So in pagan myths God is speaking to them with their imagination. Genesis and the whole of Christianity can be called the one true myth. The others are distorted and written by man with words, ours is true, it was written as history, and it was written by God. As C.S. Lewis would say, we want myths and stories (they are breathed through silver!) to be real, and God’s story is.

Perhaps most of all it should be said, it matters naught what time it took, for whatever way, it was the way God wanted it, the right way. I say read Genesis for what it is, I choose to read Genesis as a story, that is what it is after all, and a lovely one at that.

[This Baron of Mora]

I felt this was rather different the the rest of the "post" so I took it out to make another. I assure my intention is merely to weirdly promote my favorite Bible version and to show that verses can indeed be quite different between the versions.

When Moses says “This is the account of…” it need naught be from older “book sources” by any means, after all the only source one could truly get such information from is God himself, the keeper of the story. Also don’t rely to much on the NIV, take a look at the King James 1611 (my favorite, though I have an NIV that I regularly use).

“4 ¶ These are the generations of the heauens, & of the earth, when they were created; in the day that the LORD God made the earth, and the heauens,5 And euery plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and euery herbe of the field, before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to raine vpon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.6 But there went vp a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a liuing soule.”

By this we see nothing of the sort of “This is the account of…” and more importantly this section I take more as a partial, more detailed retelling (without the six days). It does say there are no plants because it had not rained, but it does not rain until after the flood. It says instead that a mist came up from the earth and it watered the earth, which I would think grows plants, and then man is made from the dust of the ground.

[brianc]

Jun 25, 2012 10:20:48 GMT -5 cerddaf said:

One writer said
As I understand the views of the Young Earth Creationists, they are based on the following (please correct me if I am wrong):

1, There is no other reasonable way to understand Scripture in General, and Genesis in particular other than 6 * 24 hours about 6K years ago.
2, The scientific evidence points strongly towards a young earth.

Therefore it must follow that anyone who tends to any form of evolution or non-literal understanding of Genesis does so as an attempt to reconcile the “clear teaching” of Genesis with an incorrect scientific position promoted by atheists.

Sorry I don’t accept those presuppositions.

Firstly, I do not believe that the literal understanding of Genesis is the only reasonable one.

Historically Augustine wrote that “What kind of days these were [in Genesis] it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say.” John Calvin believed that Moses used ordinary language, not scientific language, and that we should not look for science lessons in the Bible.

You get far too much of your reason from church fathers and past Christians. You would do well to research things for yourself rather than trusting the wisdom of mankind for your answers. Mankind is often wrong.

Calvin believed that we have no free will in regard to salvation and that we should torture and kill Christians who have different beliefs than him. Many Anabaptists and non-Christians were tortured and killed at the order of John Calvin. Do you trust such a man to dole out truth to you? John Calvin is one of those I classify as a person who greatly complicated his beliefs to the point of folly, which sent him into apostasy on certain beliefs such as predestination and torturing and killing those he deemed "not predestined" or "not elected". That's just sick. It's psychopathic if you ask me. And yet many people follow this man even today, completely unaware of his 500 page book that tells, in graphic detail, tons of ways to torture and kill the non-elect. You base arguments off of his statements? That doesn't sound like a wise thing to do if you ask me.

I go with the Bible and God when I'm learning things. That makes the most sense. I'm not going to man to get my answers. I'm going to God and trusting Him to teach me if it is His will to do so. Sometimes, He doesn't give me answers. Sometimes the answers might come years later. Either way, I trust He knows best, not some dead guy from hundreds or thousands of years ago. The dead guys in the Bible would be the only ones I would learn from, and strictly because it's God's word.

The Bible itself gives the definition of the days in Genesis. First of all, the Hebrew word Yom in the Genesis account is used for "day", and it means strictly a 24 hour day. If that wasn't enough, the passages say "the morning, the evening, the first day". A day starts with morning and ends in the evening. Very simple. Later when the Law is being given, the Law references the six literal days of creation and links them to the six literal days of the week and the seventh day of rest. Absolutely nowhere does it allude to this being figurative. It speaks of them historically. You seriously should consider doing research on this on one of the Creation websites. They map the scriptures out very well and show all of the problems with every belief that is not a Young Earth Creationist belief on this matter. They have an air-tight case. If you'll read the article posted here about this subject, you'd learn a great deal on the subject. It's irrefutable. Anything other than the YEC theory causes major theological problems with the Bible, and makes Jesus a liar.

Clearly the question of Evolution was irrelevant to Augustine.

You do not have the right to say that because I do not share your view on how the writer of Genesis intended it to be taken, therefore I don’t accept it as God’s word.

I never said such a thing. If you took it that way, you took me completely out of context. What I always say in this case is that if a person doesn't take Genesis as literal, then it screws up doctrine in the Bible and makes Jesus a liar. Jesus said "Did you not read that He made them male and female in the beginning?" If the beginning was thousands or even billions of years before the sixth day of creation, then when male and female were made was not the beginning. That means Jesus is a liar. There's no way around that. Jesus is referencing Genesis historically, not figuratively. If figuratively, then the point He's trying to make in that verse is pointless.

Again, just do some research on and you'll find that there's a lot you're misunderstanding or simply ignorant of on this topic. Please don't take ignorant as an insult. I simply mean that you do not know some of the facts on the issue--nothing more.

You may think I am wrong in my view, that’s ok, I think you’re wrong. But I do not think anyone, including me, has the right to say theirs is the only possible reading of Genesis.

Of course I have the right.

I bet if I asked you if the account of Jesus was figurative or literal, you'd tell me it's literal. And if I asked you if there were any other possibility of what it means, like, if it's figurative or not, you'd tell me no. I guarantee you'd say the story of Jesus is 100% historical and there's no other way to view it. By your logic that no one has the right to say that, you'd be infringing upon your own rule. Yes, people have the right to say that there is only one way to read something, and you, I'm sure, do this with the Gospels. And if you do this with the Gospels, then you are agreeing that Jesus is correct when He says "Did you not read that in the beginning, God made them male and female" which validates that the six days of creation happened just as Genesis and Jesus said they did...in six literal days.

I can do this all day, but we're hitting the same point over and over again. The only reason is because you are missing some of the facts. Do some research.

To ask where I base my views on theories pertaining to Creation is to beg the question. I could equally ask a creationist whether their views are based on Scripture or on Morris and Whitcomb, and it would be equally wrong to do so.

I have no problem with that question. I base my views of Creation on scripture first and foremost. However, it just so happens that scientific evidence supports it 100%, as well. What's wrong with asking this question? You take things out of context quite a bit, and take offense to thinks far too easily, especially when things are not meant offensively.

Secondly, I have attended Creationist meetings. The assumption is that there is a split between scientists who are Christians and believe in Creationism and godless scientists who are forced to evolution because nothing else will allow them to deny the God who made them.

That is not true. There are many scientists with deep evangelical faith who hold to an old earth and evolution. You may think they are wrong, but it is dishonest to deny they exist.

I never said I don't believe these people exist. I simply think they're compromising their faith with the theories of men. And if you've been to Creationist meetings, you need to go to some more and some better ones that actually lay out the foundations behind why they believe what they believe. You research it enough with the actual intent of learning it, not disproving it, you'll start to see the proofs for it and the disproofs against other views.

It is not an issue of accepting the authority of Scripture, or of science. It is a question of the correct understanding of Scripture and of science.

We can go round and round on this all day, but the fact remains that for you to be correct, you must call Jesus' a liar when He says "They were made male and female in the beginning." It's that simple. Like I said, you complicate things far too much which causes much confusion with you and your beliefs.

When I want guidance on the meaning of Scripture, I look to godly men who have studied Scripture.
When I want guidance on the meaning of science, and how it links to my faith I look to godly men who have studied the science concerned, and there are large number of faithful godfearing men of science who hold to some form of evolution.

You just pointed out your own problem there: you trust in men.

I could point you to several godly men whom are also scientists and believe in Creation. Why trust them over others?

Sir Frances Bacon was one of the most important scientists in history and he believed in a young earth creation. In fact, most of the fathers of science were Christians and believed in young earth creation and believed the Bible taught that.

It was only at the invent of the theory of evolution, based on absolutely no facts or evidences whatsoever, did mankind start to shift their views of a young earth creation. If you'd done your research more thoroughly, you'd know this.

It doesn't matter how many "godly" scientists you quote who believe in evolution, I can throw just as many "godly" scientists who believe in young earth creation. It proves absolutely nothing, which is why I don't quote them here or bother with that. The facts speak for themselves, and you would do well to stick to the facts since nothing else can prove your case. I've stuck with the facts and that is why my case is air-tight. And notice that I simplified it to it's core: Either Jesus is a liar or Jesus is right. It's that simple. If you'd stop trying to complicate it or bring the wisdom of men into the argument, it would make it much easier for you.

Oh and by the way, it was Constantine who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire in the fourth century. Paganism was outlawed decades later. Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire was 742 - 814, by which time the battle was between Christianity and Islam.

Yes, I know it was Constantine. It's a common thing for me to type Charlemagne instead of Constantine. That's not the first time it's happened. It's a slip of the brain and fingers I have periodically. Thanks for the correction.

- Brian

[brianc]

Jun 25, 2012 14:30:53 GMT -5 This Baron of Mora said:

To begin I shall again use my favorite quote of the moment by C.S. Lewis “…the mere fact of putting something in words of itself involve an exaggeration…” For I assure you that my opinions surely seem larger than they are (and partially brought on by my annoyance with the public school’s conduct on the matter), here though is a far better work, for I have put “Not facts first, truth first” (a quote of Chesterton’s).

It does not matter which side is right or if Genesis is allegorical or even if “Theistic Evolution” is real for even an allegorical reading of Genesis coveys truth whereas I have yet see any “truth” in evolution. Truth, of course, meaning universal truth and applicability. It’s only true if it coveys universal truth. Its not whether that story ever happened in history, it’s whether or not it’s true. The prodigal son parable is an excellent example made by Jesus himself, for though the story is not a part of history (other than the telling), it is still true, those that read it see the truth of it in themselves. As such I find that reading Genesis as it is, even if it is not history (though is shall be said even if it was proven it wasn’t I will still wish it, and therefore act like it is), is the “truth.”

This can also be attached to your arguments on myths. First of all I know not where you got these “examples” however there are certainly others that I am more aware of. All myths contain splintered fragments of the one true light that comes from God. Pagans forgot how to “read” so God sent them pictures. So in pagan myths God is speaking to them with their imagination. Genesis and the whole of Christianity can be called the one true myth. The others are distorted and written by man with words, ours is true, it was written as history, and it was written by God. As C.S. Lewis would say, we want myths and stories (they are breathed through silver!) to be real, and God’s story is.

Perhaps most of all it should be said, it matters naught what time it took, for whatever way, it was the way God wanted it, the right way. I say read Genesis for what it is, I choose to read Genesis as a story, that is what it is after all, and a lovely one at that.

Absolutely none of what you said matters since it is based strictly off of the sayings of others and wisdom of man and your own flawed logic and wisdom.

And absolutely everything you just said is completely disproved by the simple verse, "Did you not read that in the beginning He created them male and female?" Again, at its simplest core, either Jesus is a liar, or Jesus is telling the truth. Either Jesus is referencing an untrue story or He is referencing actual history. Jesus always references historically. Never did He say, "The myth" or "The story" of Genesis. No, He referenced it as history, always. For your theory to be true, you must necessarily turn a blind eye to that fact or you're proven wrong immediately.

- Brian

[brianc]

Jun 25, 2012 14:35:01 GMT -5 This Baron of Mora said:

I felt this was rather different the the rest of the "post" so I took it out to make another. I assure my intention is merely to weirdly promote my favorite Bible version and to show that verses can indeed be quite different between the versions.

When Moses says “This is the account of…” it need naught be from older “book sources” by any means, after all the only source one could truly get such information from is God himself, the keeper of the story. Also don’t rely to much on the NIV, take a look at the King James 1611 (my favorite, though I have an NIV that I regularly use).

“4 ¶ These are the generations of the heauens, & of the earth, when they were created; in the day that the LORD God made the earth, and the heauens,5 And euery plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and euery herbe of the field, before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to raine vpon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.6 But there went vp a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a liuing soule.”

By this we see nothing of the sort of “This is the account of…” and more importantly this section I take more as a partial, more detailed retelling (without the six days). It does say there are no plants because it had not rained, but it does not rain until after the flood. It says instead that a mist came up from the earth and it watered the earth, which I would think grows plants, and then man is made from the dust of the ground.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Moses never says this is the account of. I'm not sure who posted that. Doesn't really matter anyway. Moses is giving the account of the creation and God's people coming up to the Promised Land. Whether it says "this is the account of" or not, doesn't matter. Later, in the Law, the six day creation is referenced to be a template for the six day work week and the seventh day of rest--and exact template. And later, Jesus references Genesis as historical fact proving man and woman were created in the beginning on the sixth day, not thousands or billions of years later. Therefore, any other interpretation renders Jesus a liar and Moses a liar. It's very clear when the Hebrews were writing figurative things or poetry. Never once does Genesis give any indication that it's figurative. And it's quite common for the Hebrews to write out of chronological order. The Gospels are written this way. Genesis 2 is written this way. The books of the Old and New Testament are placed completely out of chronological order. That's something one must derive from their culture and much study.

- Brian