Evolution

[Saul Mine]

I used to think that the bible did not contradict evolution. Yesterday I was brought to realize that it does.

Imagine a test tube with water and a sample of single-cell life. That single cell contains all the necessary substances to sustain life. Any competent biologist could determine their natures and list them, but no biologist can take those substances and produce a living cell from them.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 King James Version (KJV)​

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

All life is spirit. (Maybe not everlasting life spirit.) The scientist can not give spirit, only God can. Biology is forever an example of stamp collecting. By definition.

 

[Lanolin]

I used to collect stamps (actually, my dad did, I just put them in a book) but it wasn't the collecting them that made them, it was the artists who created them to be collected. I think scientists observe things as they are but many really don't gain any insight as to why things are the way they are, maybe they can see patterns, and they can sort them, but they don't really see the design. For that they need to ask the author, the creator, the designer.

All the categorisation, classification etc is to make things easier to find so it's not all a mess. I do the same with books. I don't write the books. The authors do. I read the books. Some librarians don't read the books at all. They are just objects to be categorised. Evolution, then is just history...but only archivists will put books in order of publication. A working librarian will put books by subject and genre. Imagine if all your books were just ordered strictly by publication date, the way scientists who are evolutionists try and classify animals and to a certain extent plants. You would get a very odd library!! Actually scientists can't even explain plants evolution.

A tadpole can go from a swimming animal underwater to a land dwelling one with two legs in one lifecycle yet they don't call that evolution. But then they try and say whales used to live on land and that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Um. whatever!

 

[Major]

I used to think that the bible did not contradict evolution. Yesterday I was brought to realize that it does.

Imagine a test tube with water and a sample of single-cell life. That single cell contains all the necessary substances to sustain life. Any competent biologist could determine their natures and list them, but no biologist can take those substances and produce a living cell from them.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 King James Version (KJV)​

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

All life is spirit. (Maybe not everlasting life spirit.) The scientist can not give spirit, only God can. Biology is forever an example of stamp collecting. By definition.

The entire account of Creation in Genesis 1-2 stands opposed to Evolution. God created everything as it is, out of nothing.

Something to think about is that death was not a part of God's creation. Death is the result of God's curse on the Earth as a result of man's sin. God's future plan for the Earth removes this curse and eliminates death altogether. Evolution declares the opposite, that death is normal, natural and essential to advancing species. According to Evolution theory, death will always exist.

 

[Siloam]

Hi Major!
We have discussed this before and I remain a believer in Old Earth Creationism. I am satisfied to disagree without diminishing my respect for you. I am not attempting here to debate our approaches, but I don't really think you meant exactly and strictly what you said.

God created everything as it is, out of nothing.

The cosmos was not created just as one sees it today (however one approaches Old Earth vs Young Earth).

On the first day, it was created dark and formless [Gen 1:2].

At the word of God, the universe became filled with light, even though the stars did not yet exist [Gen 1:3] (By the way, this matches well with the Big Bang Theory).

On the second day. an expanse separated creation into the part above and the part below. The expanse explicitly is what we call the heavens. The waters below became our world. There is no explicit designation of the waters above the expanse.

On the third day our biosphere was created.

The process continues thru the rest of the week. Only the beginning of the first day was ex nihilo (out of nothing).

 

[Saul Mine]

Well, this went off topic quickly!

 

[Siloam]

Well, this went off topic quickly!

I assume you are referring to my post.

I don't see it as being off topic. The issue of biologic evolution is so tightly bound with that of physical evolution of the universe even among believers that one cannot talk about one without impinging on the other.

As I indicated, I find the old earth understanding to be quite compatible with the both the scriptures and the witness of God's creation (which was spoke into existence and thus is quite literally the word of God).

But, many believers that I respect greatly take the short-day no biologic evolution view. So, I am continually trying to understand their view and re-examining my view.

One fundamental point of contention besides arguments over the meaning of YOM seems (to me) to be that many believers are uncomfortable with change after creation. My post was to show that change after initial out_of_nothing creation is as much a part of young earth view as it is in old earth view.

I meant its tone to be non contentious but maybe I can't properly evaluate how my statements sound to others.

 

[Major]

Hi Major!
We have discussed this before and I remain a believer in Old Earth Creationism. I am satisfied to disagree without diminishing my respect for you. I am not attempting here to debate our approaches, but I don't really think you meant exactly and strictly what you said.



The cosmos was not created just as one sees it today (however one approaches Old Earth vs Young Earth).

On the first day, it was created dark and formless [Gen 1:2].

At the word of God, the universe became filled with light, even though the stars did not yet exist [Gen 1:3] (By the way, this matches well with the Big Bang Theory).

On the second day. an expanse separated creation into the part above and the part below. The expanse explicitly is what we call the heavens. The waters below became our world. There is no explicit designation of the waters above the expanse.

On the third day our biosphere was created.

The process continues thru the rest of the week. Only the beginning of the first day was ex nihilo (out of nothing).

My dear brother. You have misunderstood me or I probably I did not say it correctly. I too am an OLD Earth Creation believer. There is NO disagreement between us.

My point was that God created everything from nothing by His spoken Word and I agree that there was time involved for each area in view of creation.
I did not mean it to be thought that in ONE day everything was created. I agree that it was a "Process" over a period of time.

Thanks for the observation.

 

[Major]

Well, this went off topic quickly!

Now I admit that I am not the smartest french fry in a happy meal, but when I look at your original post YOU said.............
"I used to think that the bible did not contradict evolution. Yesterday I was brought to realize that it does."

Now, apparently my good friend Siloam as well as myself took that to mean you were commenting on Creation as explained in the Bible as it does not teach Evolution.

It seems to me that comment #3 (Mine) and #4 (Siloam's) addressed exactly what you brought up.

 

[Major]

I assume you are referring to my post.

I don't see it as being off topic. The issue of biologic evolution is so tightly bound with that of physical evolution of the universe even among believers that one cannot talk about one without impinging on the other.

As I indicated, I find the old earth understanding to be quite compatible with the both the scriptures and the witness of God's creation (which was spoke into existence and thus is quite literally the word of God).

But, many believers that I respect greatly take the short-day no biologic evolution view. So, I am continually trying to understand their view and re-examining my view.

One fundamental point of contention besides arguments over the meaning of YOM seems (to me) to be that many believers are uncomfortable with change after creation. My post was to show that change after initial out_of_nothing creation is as much a part of young earth view as it is in old earth view.

I meant its tone to be non contentious but maybe I can't properly evaluate how my statements sound to others.

It was not off topic! It was right on topic.

IMO..........our posts responded to exactly what the originator posted....."The Bible opposes Evolution".

Tell me, what is your view of "Adaptation" of species as opposed to Evolution of species.

 

[Siloam]

Tell me, what is your view of "Adaptation" of species as opposed to Evolution of species.

I am aware of an alternate Old Earth Creation advanced by Hugh Ross that holds that each yom (often translated as day) is a creative epoch.

Non Darwinian evolution has occurred with each new species being a creative miracle. We are now in a ‘rest’ in those creative efforts ( Gen 2:2, Heb 4:4 ).

If I remember correctly (and it appears that my memory is not as good as it used to be), it is conjectured that the sixth yom of creation will resume. Allowing the New Heaven and new Earth.

I Hope I have not done too much damage in representing Dr Ross's views.

From my viewpoint as interesting as it is, I find much evidence for Darwinian evolution around us. One problem in discussions is that the definitions keep changing. If one were to adopt the definition of species and speciation that I was taught in High School in the late 1960s, speciation had already been observed in non-sexually reproduction in microbiology. In more complex organisms is potentially observable and only requires ‘noticing’ it.

Evolution is such an organizing principle that it has become a way of approaching things that change over time. Thus we talk about such varied things as the evolution of stars and the evolution of society without intending anything Darwinian.

By the way, when Darwin wrote the Origin of Species the rest of the scientific world was trying to explain an eternal universe when more and more observations as well as philosophical reflection did not fit, Einstein inserted the cosmological constant into his equations so that calculations could show a static universe. So, many in the religious community hailed Origin of Species as a vindication of scripture since it was the first time a serious scientific theory pointed to a beginning (creation point).

 

[Saul Mine]

 

[Major]

I am aware of an alternate Old Earth Creation advanced by Hugh Ross that holds that each yom (often translated as day) is a creative epoch.

Dr. Ross wrote the book.........."Matter of Days".

I would suggest it be read as it pretty much explains what you are saying.

In it he says the word ......"YOM" can mean several different things and one of those things is===
6 peroids of non-consecutive time.

That also plays somewhat into the "Gap" theory where it is believed that there are long periods of time between the 1st several chapters of Genesis.

Ross says that is probably the best way to understand how old the Earth is and how the dinosaurs fit in.

 

[Siloam]

Dr. Ross wrote the book.........."Matter of Days".

I would suggest it be read as it pretty much explains what you are saying.

In it he says the word ......"YOM" can mean several different things and one of those things is===
6 peroids of non-consecutive time.

That also plays somewhat into the "Gap" theory where it is believed that there are long periods of time between the 1st several chapters of Genesis.

Ross says that is probably the best way to understand how old the Earth is and how the dinosaurs fit in.

Yes I have (in Kindle form and a few physical volumes) a variety of volumes around the intersection of scientific studies and faith based studies.

Among them:

Navigating Genesis and A Mater of Days by Hugh Ross

In my college years, I had Dr Barnhouse's book putting forward the Gap theory that my failing memory remembers as "The Invisible War", but searching Amazon for that title/author combination does not turn the up the correct book. Gap referred to was supposed to be between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. He said that the word translated as "was" in Gen 1:2 implied that this was not the original state, but could be translated as "became". He said that any amount of time could be stuffed into the period between initial creation and Gen 1:2. The warfare implied by the title is the warfare between God and the fallen angels. The universe we see exhibits the post war battlefield. Please rememner that my memory is failing and this is my rememberance of the book,

I have also read several titles in the battle by book between Michael Behe and Kennith Miller, not to exclude Francis Collins.

One book that I find interesting but do not have the background to evaluate qualitatively is Reading Genesis One by Rodney Whitefield which provides a detailed analysis of the Biblical Hebrew. I get lost in his discussion of lack of tenses in the original, Wa-Consecutive verb form, Tohu and Bohu, etc. He sums up with a list (his view) of Genesis says and what it doesn't say. The book ends with Mr Whitefield's own 'Good English' translation.

There are a wide variety of books in this area, some Authors have proven better than others. It is good to know the viewpoint of the author. Once when I was in an airport awaiting a flight for work reasons, I bought a anthology on the subject of the compatibility of science and faith written by prominent scientists. On the flight I was confused by the one-sided views (there is little conflict because faith views are philosophical an can be adjusted to fit the scientists view) until I noticed that the editor was the president of a society for humanistic studies. That put the whole volume in a different (less persuasive) light.

 

[Major]

Yes I have (in Kindle form and a few physical volumes) a variety of volumes around the intersection of scientific studies and faith based studies.

Among them:

Navigating Genesis and A Mater of Days by Hugh Ross

In my college years, I had Dr Barnhouse's book putting forward the Gap theory that my failing memory remembers as "The Invisible War", but searching Amazon for that title/author combination does not turn the up the correct book. Gap referred to was supposed to be between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. He said that the word translated as "was" in Gen 1:2 implied that this was not the original state, but could be translated as "became". He said that any amount of time could be stuffed into the period between initial creation and Gen 1:2. The warfare implied by the title is the warfare between God and the fallen angels. The universe we see exhibits the post war battlefield. Please rememner that my memory is failing and this is my rememberance of the book,

I have also read several titles in the battle by book between Michael Behe and Kennith Miller, not to exclude Francis Collins.

One book that I find interesting but do not have the background to evaluate qualitatively is Reading Genesis One by Rodney Whitefield which provides a detailed analysis of the Biblical Hebrew. I get lost in his discussion of lack of tenses in the original, Wa-Consecutive verb form, Tohu and Bohu, etc. He sums up with a list (his view) of Genesis says and what it doesn't say. The book ends with Mr Whitefield's own 'Good English' translation.

There are a wide variety of books in this area, some Authors have proven better than others. It is good to know the viewpoint of the author. Once when I was in an airport awaiting a flight for work reasons, I bought a anthology on the subject of the compatibility of science and faith written by prominent scientists. On the flight I was confused by the one-sided views (there is little conflict because faith views are philosophical an can be adjusted to fit the scientists view) until I noticed that the editor was the president of a society for humanistic studies. That put the whole volume in a different (less persuasive) light.

You are well versed on this subject and I hope you have answered the OP"s question.

 

[Lanolin]

I confess I'm not really a science type person.
A lot of people are just in love with the process HOW A gets to B. And they demand an explanation.

I know B comes after A, but in no way do I think A changes into B.. That's just not the way the alphabet works! I mean you can then speculate and make up all sorts of reasons, instead of just accepting that it's there and it's God given.

 

[Siloam]

I confess I'm not really a science type person.
A lot of people are just in love with the process HOW A gets to B. And they demand an explanation.

I know B comes after A, but in no way do I think A changes into B.. That's just not the way the alphabet works! I mean you can then speculate and make up all sorts of reasons, instead of just accepting that it's there and it's God given.

The Lord calls us to the same Truth from differing backgrounds. I would not deny an others path just because it differs from my own.

For myself, as the son of a physicist and as one that has always been interested in the sciences, I was called to Him through the sciences and have found that the sciences augment my faith. Just as a farmer may grow to understand and see the love of God through his experiences and point of view, so the thoughtful believing person working in the sciences begins to see God's footprints in the world that God made.

As Paul wrote in Romans, the God expects us to learn about Him through the things He made (Romans 1:19-20). The sciences are the study of the things He made.

 

[Major]

The Lord calls us to the same Truth from differing backgrounds. I would not deny an others path just because it differs from my own.

For myself, as the son of a physicist and as one that has always been interested in the sciences, I was called to Him through the sciences and have found that the sciences augment my faith. Just as a farmer may grow to understand and see the love of God through his experiences and point of view, so the thoughtful believing person working in the sciences begins to see God's footprints in the world that God made.

As Paul wrote in Romans, the God expects us to learn about Him through the things He made (Romans 1:19-20). The sciences are the study of the things He made.

Well said my brother!!!!

 

[Siloam]

Having the opinion that evolution is a spiritually justifiable view as well as being consistent with natural observations should not be the end of the subject.

My 'gut' feeling is that since one purpose of the universe is to teach us about God, we should be able to learn something new, or augment our previous understanding based on those observations. Evolution, if true, should shed light on His nature.

In my opinion this is where believers who work in the sciences have fallen a little short. One reason I have collected a number of books relating to this is to go beyond "which is true or correct?" and get to "what does it mean to the Christian?" I have found some information in this area however meager.

There is some thought to a "theology of becoming" where the unchanging God is using change itself as a creative force. It is closely related some of teachings of life as a journey that teaches one to love and rely on God. Here I give Bunyan's The Pilgrims Progress as an example.

Much work remains to be done, but many of the tenants of modern Christian theology were developed over many years of prayer and reflection. Not being complete or well defined and integrated into theology in general does not mean that there is no theology there.

 

[Lanolin]

Well if I was using my analogy of A and B that's where typography comes in as theres many different variations (or fonts) of the letters A and B as there are stars in the sky but the letters never changed into one another, they were all distinct.

I don't think it's hard for a scientist to believe in God. It's much harder sustaining a non-belief as a scientist I would think given that God's creation is so varied and interesting. You have to be a very reductionist kind of person to ignore everything else if you were only focusing on atoms and molecules.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I used to think that the bible did not contradict evolution. Yesterday I was brought to realize that it does.

Imagine a test tube with water and a sample of single-cell life. That single cell contains all the necessary substances to sustain life. Any competent biologist could determine their natures and list them, but no biologist can take those substances and produce a living cell from them.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 King James Version (KJV)​

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

All life is spirit. (Maybe not everlasting life spirit.) The scientist can not give spirit, only God can. Biology is forever an example of stamp collecting. By definition.

Evolution directly against special creation of Adam and Eve!