As only man has free will, could other evolving life forms also attain this distinction of freewill? And if so, will their Christ have to die for them also or will the sacrifice of Jesus be enough?
Not saying that man is any more superior to other creatures other than being able to comprehend right and wrong, and to then always choose to sin and fall short of the glory of God, it comes to what makes man unique in accepting his sinful nature, which animals do not, and to accept the need for salvation.
Turning to science, all systems in the universe seek to return to an equilibrium state, not rise to a more complex one. A complex system will always revert to a more stable or less complex system, rather than rising to a more complex state or system. This is also based on the fact that energy or heat must be added to become something else, and where did that energy come from? And if the energy was removed from said system, it would revert back to its simpler form.
Taking the evolution point of view for a second, then God was a respecter of species when he instilled in man the essence that made him a living-soul with eternal life, and capable of sin. This statement would then mean that if God was a respecter of species, then He could be a respecter of persons and that would mean that He created some worthy of salvation and some unworthy. But it is written that He died once for ALL men, the just and the unjust. Does that mean that the Christ also died for the sins of animals and plants?
If God did create all creation for His pleasure, irrespective of time, whether over 7x10(to the 17,000,000 power) years, or in seven seconds or less does not matter, then His ultimate goal was to create a system that would allow man and God to commune together forever; at least until man chose to sin and break covenant with Him.
But where does science allow for man's redemption in evolving to a state where he no longer sins, needs salvation, or eventually becomes god himself. Christ is said to have been slain BEFORE the foundations of the earth, for what purpose, except to allow the eventually to be created man to fall and to then have an already established way back to God.
Taking evolution further, if the entire universe has the capability of reproducing life in very similar circumstances as happened here on earth, then that life is evolving into ever-increasing complex life forms until they too must reach the state of man here on earth that can choose to sin against God. That will mean that they will choose sin because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Then these life forms must require that the Christ must be born on that planet in order to eventually climb up on another cross and to die eternally over and over again for eternity for an endlessly increasing number of developing lifeforms. But, we are told that Christ died once and that His work was finished.
The laws of thermodynamics mitigate against evolution ever taking hold, rather than breaking down into simpler less complex systems, or to at least a less complex system that is homogeneous rather than as diverse as life here on earth.
Even in mathematics there is an explanation where science and faith can never meet in evolution, and that is X=1/Y, an exponential curve where "X" and "Y" can never meet. If "X" is the evolution of man and "Y" is time, then man would devolve over time rather than evolve. This is so because the inverse cannot be true of "Y" cannot equal the inverse of "X" of: Y=1/X, which is a linear line of 45 degrees.
The above equation of X=1/Y would allow for the diversification of the various species being unique among themselves and other species along the Y=1/X scale, with each species having different positions on the latter scale, and to also allow for an infinite diversity within species, but never allowing for two distinct species having similar qualities; like a rose having scales or feathers, or a man or woman having offspring by splitting in two without procreation.
Simply put, science can never explain faith, and faith needs no science but it does not disallow it. And, I needed salvation through Christ's shed blood as I was the chief of sinners in my own life.
Old Patriot
>> Simply put, science can never explain faith, and faith needs no science but it does not disallow it. And, I needed salvation through Christ’s shed blood as I was the chief of sinners in my own life.
Old Patriot <<
I wasn’t setting my sights that high - just a hypothetical.
There have been instances where strongly established Christian beliefs had to confront new evidence.
For example the church took the position that the sun revolved around the earth. New evidence clearly contradicted geo-centrism.
My question is “what if new evidence showed man developed rather than was created intact.” Could creationists keep their core faith?