A Theological Argument For Evolution (Darwinism is Theologically Superior to Creationism)

The debate between biological evolution and creationism is perhaps the major conflict brought about by the interaction between modern science and Christian theology. (By "creationism" I mean here the theory of separate divine creation of each biological "kind," with no subsequent development from one "kind" to another. Creationisrn rejects "macroevolution.") The debate has gone on for well over a century. Moore’s book’¹ considers the early phase of post-Darwinian discussions. The total volume of theological response has, of course, been quite large, and would be impossible to survey here. But it will be of some value to have an idea of the variety of responses before proceeding to the body of this paper.

As already mentioned, creationism rejects evolution. Much recent creationist literature is not explicitly theological, for it is assumed there that creationism is theologically superior to evolution, and theconcentration is upon scientific aspects of the question. A very brief statement of this theological position is Maatman’s contribution to the dialogue (with Bube) "Inerrancy, Revelation and Evolution" in this journal.²

Theistic evolution is a rather general term. Often it is used for relatively conservative theories in which evolution is seen as God's way of creating, and considerable attention may be given to problems of reconciling the early chapters of Genesis with evolutionary theory. Bube's part of the previously cited dialogue³ and the books of Ramm⁴ and Messenger⁵ may be consulted in this connection. Recent articles by Hyers in this journal⁶ deal with the biblical creation texts.

The liberal theology of the nineteenth century found evolution itself quite harmonious with liberalism's belief in progress, but had trouble with the "natural selection" aspect of Darwin's theory. Abbott's book⁷ provides a good example of this genre.

Process theology is a theological approach which is attuned to evolution from the start. Birch's book⁸ gives a good introduction to this way of considering evolution. The work of Teilhard de Chardin, upon which I will comment later, has some similarities to this approach. Process theology certainly does justice to evolution, but it is not so clear that it can do justice to the Christian theological tradition.

There are many other works which might be cited. Benz's very helpful Evolution and Christian Hope⁹ and the recent collection of essays edited by Frye¹⁰ are two which may be mentioned in bringing this brief survey to a close.

It is the assumption of the present paper that evolution is to be dealt with both conservatively and positively. Christian theology based on scripture is to guide the discussion. Evolution is not merely to be "reconciled" with Christian faith, as if it could only maintain an uneasy truce with theology.¹¹ I shall argue, from fundamental Christian ideas, that evolution provides a more correct view of God's creative work than does creationism. I shall also argue that a Darwinian understanding of the evolutionary process is closer to the biblical picture of God's activity than is the understanding of Lamarck.

In order to set the stage for our discussion, some fundamental theological principles need to be set out. I make no suggestion that anything like a complete survey of Christian doctrine is given here.

(1) God's activity toward the world displays a unity. Creation, redemption and sanctification are not three separate and unrelated works, but are all aspects of the one work of the One Triune God, in which all three persons participate. The "external" works of the Trinity are undivided.¹²

In particular, the Redeemer is the Creator. This finds clear expression in the Gospel of John, in which the One through whom all things were made (Jn. 1:3) is the One who draws all people to himself (Jn. 12:32). Athanasius states the point clearly near the beginning of On the Incarnation of the Word of God:¹³

It is, then, proper for us to begin the treatment of this subject by speaking of the creation of the universe, and of God its Artificer, so that it may be duly perceived that the renewal of creation has been the work of the self-same Word that made it at the beginning. For it will appear not inconsonant for the Father to have wrought its salvation in Him by Whose means He made it.

This unity of Redeemer and Creator is necessary, for otherwise we would be called to place our trust in a savior separate from God, and there would be a fundamental violation of the First Commandment. (Cf. also, e.g., Is. 43.)

(2) God's characteristic "external" activity is creation out of nothing, what I have called "The Trademark of God. "¹⁴God creates ex nihilo, in spite of the lack of any human possibility.¹⁵ When there is no natural possibility of existence or life, God brings things into being and calls forth life. Creation "in the beginning," the Exodus and return from Babylonian exile, the Resurrection of Christ and the justification of the ungodly are the chief examples of this work. The linkage is shown nicely in Romans 4, where the God "who justifies the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) is also the God "who gives life to the dead .and calls into existence the things that do not exist" (Rom. 4:17). Belief in God as the One who does what is impossible from the human standpoint is a fundamental element of prophetic faith.¹⁶

For our purposes, it is most important to note the unity of God's actions in the creation of the universe and in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This has been expressed beautifully by Dietrich Bonhoeffer:"

(3) In view of the fundamental unity of Creator and Redeemer, it is not surprising that the object of God's redemptive work is the entire creation. This is expressed very clearly in, for example, Romans 8: 1 8-25 and Colossians 1:17-20. God's final salvation is not a matter of snatching a few human souls out of an otherwise doomed world, a view reminiscent of Gnostic redeemer myths. God's work is to culminate in a new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1,5).

The idea of cosmic redemption is not to be confused with a simple-minded universalism. It is possible for human beings to turn away from God for eternity, and the biblical witness is very hard to reconcile with any teaching that every human being will escape such an end, though Christ has died for all. However, cosmic redemption does mean that all created natures, and not only the human, will share in the new creation. Somehow saber-toothed tigers and dogs and oak trees participate together with men and women. It may be bard to picture bow that is going to work, and we need not exercise ourselves unduly in trying to imagine "Dog Heaven." C. S. Lewis's chapter on "Animal Pain" provides some useful thoughts on the matter.¹⁸

(4) God's redemptive work is accomplished entirely through the Incarnation of the Word. The christological controversies of the early centuries established not only the full divinity of Christ ("The Redeemer- is the Creator"), but also Christ's full humanity. There is no proper aspect of humanity, body, soul or mind, which is "left out" of the Incarnation. The classic statement of this, which can be regarded simply as a paraphrase of Hebrews 2:17, is "That which is not taken is not healed."¹⁹ The salvation of any aspect of humanity occurs through its being taken up into personal union with the Word of God in the total action that includes the conception, birth, life, passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth.

The classical development of the doctrine of the Incarnation stated that far more was involved than the union of the Word with a single human being. God and humanity are united in Jesus. In classical terminology, Christ exists in two natures, divine and human, united in one person, the divine Second Person of the Trinity²⁰ There is no separate human person in Christ, since the human nature which the Word took on never exists apart from God (God did not "adopt" a human Jesus at some stage of his life). It is in the divine Son of God that the assumed humanity has its personal "centering. "²¹ Newman's way of putting this, with the generic use of the word a man," makes it clear: "Though Man, He is not, strictly speaking, a Man.²² (We may say that un-personal human nature is en-personed [enhypostasized] in the person of the Word. However, to say that the assumed human nature was "un-personal" in the technical sense of classical theology does not mean that Jesus lacked human "personality" in the modern sense of the word.)

The idea of a general human nature seems odd to modern Westerners, accustomed to nominalism and individualism. It is not so strange within the biblical world view. The Hebrew idea of "corporate personality," in which each Israelite is united with all his/her contemporaries and with those of past and future, gives an Old Testament background for such a concept.²³ St.Paul's picture of Christians as members of the Body of Christ is also significant here.

The related theme of recapitulation, an interesting biblical undercurrent, was used by Irenaeus near the end of the second century^.24 Christ recapitulates or "sums up" the previous history of Israel and humanity, doing over again - but correctly this time - the things in which humanity had failed before. We get a fresh start in Christ. Matthew 4:1-11, for example, can be understood as Jesus’ successful passage of the wilderness testing in which Israel had failed.²⁵

Irenaeus also thought that Christ recapitulated the different stages of life of an individual human being. He said that Christ passed through all those stages from infancy through death and resurrection, "that in all things He might have the pre-eminence" (Col 1:18).²⁶Through the Word's personal experiencing of infancy, infancy was sanctified, and similarly for other stages.

"All of Scripture everywhere deals only with Christ," said Luther.²⁷We have not fully understood a part of scripture if we have not seen its relationship with the person and work of Christ (e.g., Lk. 24:44). This does not mean that we are to torture Old Testament passages to find prophecies of Christ. It does mean, however, that Genesis I and 2, for instance, are misused if treated primarily as a scientist's notebook recording details of the creation process, with no christological content. The passage from Bonhoeffer quoted earlier is an example of an appropriate christological approach to these chapters.

Von Rad has pointed out that, within the Old Testament itself, the tradition of the saving event of the Exodus precedes reflection on the creation of the universe.²⁸Experience of salvation comes before construction of cosmogonies.

We now move to our central topic of creation and its relationship with evolution. The evolutionary view can take seriously the biblical picture of humanity being formed from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7), in common with other living creatures (Ps. 104:20-30). It is their relationship with God which distinguishes human beings from other animals (Ps. 8). According to evolutionary theory, we bear in our bodies the history of our organic relationship with the rest of the bio- sphere. Evidence for this is supplied by embryology, by the commonality of the genetic code, the similarity of protein structures and the homological features of gross anatomy. From the standpoint of history and physical constitution, there is no sharp distinction between human beings and other animals.

With this in mind, we proceed to the argument for the theological superiority of evolution over creationism. Of course we must realize that arguments and proofs are always contingent upon certain presuppositions, so that it is important to make these as explicit as possible. The following form of the argument will be helpful:

Creationism appears to allow no way for our conclusion to be satisfied. In that theory, humans are of a nature totally different and isolated from the natures of other creatures, so that the Incarnation "can't touch" non-humans. Evolution, however, says that humans are related to other creatures, sharing not only the same chemical elements and related structures, but also a common history. Thus evolution appears to provide the theologically superior understanding of creation.

In other words, only evolution fulfills the joint requirements that Christ be the Redeemer of the world (as the litany says29) and that salvation comes via the Incarnation, It is not easy to see how one could maintain creationism without compromising the cosmic scope of the Incarnation, and thus of salvation.

It is helpful to think of this argument in terms of the idea of recapitulation. This biblical theme emphasized irenaeus has also been a significant evolutionary theme. It has been recognized for some time that relationships between embryos and adults of different species may reveal evolutionary connections. (This was stressed especially by Haeckel, a very vocal opponent of Christianity.³⁰ I wonder if he was ever aware that he was pursuing an ancient theme of Christian theology.) We know now that the rather simple-minded view of this relationship, according to which "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or "the embryo climbs its family tree" is inaccurate. It would be closer to the truth to say that the embryo recapitulates the evolutionary history of its ancestral embryos.³¹ The basic point remains, that the early developmental stages of humans manifest a 11 participation" by our pre-human ancestors.

(I need to emphasize that this apparent agreement ,between theological and biological ideas of recapitula- tion is only one expression of the fundamental idea of the participation of non-humans in humanity. While this one piece of evidence is striking, the main argument does not stand or fall with it. The other evidence mentioned at the end of the first paragraph of this section is equally significant.)

... Genesis I and 2, for instance, are misused if treated primarily as a scientist's notebook recording details of the creation process,.with no christological content.

If what is said here is true of humans in general, it is true of Christ. From the first instant of conception in the womb of Mary, the child that the Virgin bore was God Incarnate. The Word thus assumed, in a vividly real sense, our ancestral history. C. S. Lewis saw this as showing the depth to which God descends into creation to save and remake it:³²

The argument in this section may be offensive to some Christians. It is precisely the idea that humans are descended from sub-human animals that motivates much of the emotional and intellectual opposition to evolution, and the idea that Jesus would share such a relationship makes the idea even more difficult to accept. We may note two examples of such opposition from creationists of yesterday and today.

Now a Christian should avoid giving unnecessary offense, but we must be clear about what is involved here. The Bible states clearly that humanity did come up from slime."³⁵ And the idea that Jesus was a specially made-over ape," far from contradicting the doctrine of the Incarnation, is a magnificent expression of it. The scandal that is involved here cannot be avoided, for it is the very scandal of the cross (I Cor. 1:18-31). God Incarnate as a "made-over ape" is of a piece with the "folly" of God Incarnate born in a stable and dying the death of a slave on a cross.

So it is evolution, and not creationism, with which Christian theology should deal. But what type of evolution? Is there any sound theological guide to help us make the decision between the two choices (to oversimplify somewhat) of Lamarckian or Darwinian evolution? The former type of theory would argue that evolutionary progress occurs because acquired characters are transmitted, so that "striving for "improvement" (whether or not this is pictured in terms of any kind of consciousness) on the part of a species is rewarded. Darwin's view, on the other hand, is that some organisms are better suited to survive in a given environment than are others, and that they are more likely to leave viable offspring. Species will change because of the transmission of variations which aid in survival. It is misleading to talk about "improvement" in any absolute sense with this view. In this type of theory, competition and extinction play major roles in evolution.

A glance back at our theological themes, especially 11(2), will convince us that, theologically, Darwin is more likely to be right than Lamarck. For the biblical picture is precisely that God brings life out of death, being out of chaos, and hope in hopeless situations. This is resurrection faith, faith in the God who justifies the ungodly. The idea that life arises and develops through competition and extinction is part of the same picture. This is not to say that competition and extinction are good or have some potential for good, any more than bondage in Egypt or the murder of Jesus were, in themselves, good. But God, in defiance of humanly reckoned possibilities, brings good out of evil. God creates out of nothing.

Most human philosophy and theology is more congenial with the Lamarekian view. The liberal theology of the nineteenth century had no great problem with evolution itself, but tended to gag on its specifically Darwinian aspects which did not fit in with the somewhat naive idea of progress entertained by liberalism.³⁶ Lamarck's approach also fits comfortably into the Marxist understanding of human development, and has done considerable damage to Soviet biology. ³⁷ In this connection it may be helpful to comment on the contributions of Teilhard de Chardin to our theological understanding of evolution. Much of Teilhard's thought is of value. For him Christology was central to understanding evolution, and be developed the concept of the "super-personalization" of the Body of Christ as the current stage of human evolution.³⁸The communal character of Christianity is emphasized, as speculations about individual super humans are done away with in favor of the Pauline picture of the organic church. And Teilhard's work is the more attractive because he brings science into contact with a mature Christian spirituality. ³⁹

But there are also problems with Teilhard's approach to evolution. He is not very comfortable with Darwinian natural selection, and it is fairly clear that he would prefer the Lamarekian concept if that were feasible.⁴⁰The reasons for this are not far to seek. The period during which Teilhard received his scientific training was one in which the idea of transmission of acquired characteristics was scientifically respectable. But it is just as significant that the Lamarekian theory fits in well with a classical Roman Catholic "grace perfects nature" theology.

Teilhard makes a good point, that cultural evolution depends on education, which has the nature of a Lamarckian mechanism.⁴¹ But even this seems too similar to the liberal trust in the transforming power of education. And when he says, for instance, that "there can be no place for the poor in spirit,"⁴² he is definitely off the biblical trajectory. Teilhard's work requires correction through more emphasis on the biblical picture of God's creative activity.

Many people would prefer a God who either maintains the status quo or rewards effort with progress. The idea that God might let species become extinct-might even work through extinction-was difficult for humanity to accept: Eiseley tells the story in his essay "How Death Became Natural."⁴³ Such acceptance was a necessary prelude to serious scientific thinking about evolution, Now we see it also as a key to understanding evolution theologically, a key provided by the prophetic faith which Sanders describes:⁴⁴

Our discussion to this point has been based on biblical themes, but we have not looked with any care at the creation accounts of Genesis. Detailed exegesis is not in order here, but it will be helpful to note a few points.

(1) In Genesis 1:1-2:4a, creation is through God's Word. In the context of the whole Bible, and especially with John 1:1-18 in mind, we can see this as creation through Christ. "The Redeemer is the Creator."

(2) At three points in this first creation account, 1:11-12, 1:20 and 1:24, mediated creation is clearly taught. God says, "Let the earth bring forth. . .. " and "Let the waters bring forth.. .." These verses are certainly concerned with divine creation. For example, verse twenty, in which the waters are told to bring forth life, is followed by a statement of the carrying out of this command using the verb br', which expresses the divine prerogative of creation.

Thus the "literal interpretation" of Genesis I is that the creation of plants and animals is mediated, the elements having been given the power to "bring forth" these creatures when God so commands. Messenger has shown in his very useful book that this was the general understanding of Christian theologians up to the thirteenth century.⁴⁵ The opinion that God created each "kind" in an act of direct and unmediated creation is unbiblical.

It is important for us to be aware of the direction of thought of the theologians of the early church, and to see that there is a good deal of difficulty in reconciling some patristic thought with creationism. Especially interesting are the ideas of Gregory of Nyssa, one of the fourth century theologians who gave definitive form to the classical doctrine of the Trinity. He saw that Genesis I teaches mediated creation, matter from the first instant of its creation having the potential to develop in accordance with God's will. In his treatise "On the Making of Man,"⁴⁶Gregory argues that vegetative souls had to come first, then animal souls, and finally the rational soul and full humanity. A careful study of his writings suggests that this means that humanity passed through these preliminary stages before becoming fully human.⁴⁶if Gregory does not unambiguously teach human evolution, he is not far from it.

(3) God says, "Let us make humanity ['adham] in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion …" (Gen. 1:26). One cannot press the plurals "us" and "our" here to find a teaching of the Trinity. But as Moltmann⁴⁸ has pointed out, there is - again, in the context of all of scripture - profound significance in the fact that humanity is created in the image of the triune God. For the Trinity is a community, and this is reflected in the image of God. It is the whole human community which is, as a community, created in the divine image and likeness.

(4) We have noted the importance of the fact that, in the second creation account (Gen. 2:4b-25), God makes the first human "of dust from the ground" (Gen. 2:7). This expresses strongly the truth that the human race shares in the physical substance of the rest of the universe. It is this sharing which makes possible the taking up by God of physical reality in the Incarnation. To some extent, Genesis 2:7 corresponds to the statements of mediated creation of other creatures in the first creation account.

I do not want to suggest that evolution presents no theological difficulties. The interlocked problems of the origins of evil, sin and death in particular, require hard thinking if we are to take evolution seriously in a Christian context. In traditional western theology these matters have been dealt with in terms of a historical Fall of humanity, but how is a Fall to be understood if humanity appeared through evolution in the middle of cosmic history? I do not claim any definitive treatment in this section, but only survey approaches to the issue and make some suggestions.

A straightforward procedure is to say that when humanity emerged from the pre-human and was able to respond to God's Word, the first man and woman chose to disobey God. While it leaves much of traditional theology intact, this approach by itself displays no causal connection between the first Sin and the suffering and death that took place in the world before there were human beings.

The views of original sin in Eastern Christianity seem more amenable to an evolutionary understanding.⁴⁹ For example, the picture sketched by Athanasius seems

to be one of humanity at first on the road to perfection with God but not yet having such perfection.⁵⁰ Sin was then a turning away from God more than a fall. Humanity took the wrong road, a road to death; for in turning from the Word, it turned from being.⁵¹ While this is open to an evolutionary understanding, it again does not deal with pre-human suffering and death.

The idea of the seduction of humanity by fallen angelic powers can help to convey some sense of the cosmic scope of the problem of evil. But it must he used with care, lest it foster a feeling of lack of human responsibility for sin. ("The devil made me do it.")

For some theologians, evil is present from the first instant of creation, apart from any choice on the part of creatures. It is, as Teithard puts it, the "shadow" of creation.⁵² We have to guard against any kind of absolute dualism in the doctrine of creation, and it would perhaps be well to look for a solution to the problem of evil that is theologically more conservative.

A major difficulty is the existence of suffering and death for many millions of years before there were human beings. The' Christian tradition, supported by, for instance, Romans 5:12, has generally considered suffering and death to be consequences of human disobedience to God. Can these ideas be reconciled? Perhaps not, if we insist upon common-sense ideas of causality, but we need not do- that.- Even in classical physics there can be "advanced potentials" which depend on future values of a charge and current distribution, and Feynman's "backward in time" idea for anti-matter may be used in particle theory.⁵³

When we deal with the meanings of phenomena, the idea that events can affect things before they happen seems even more plausible. To illustrate from American history, one can argue that the Civil War is the most important thing that has happened in the United States. Its effects since 1865 have been immense, and are still with us. But phenomena before 1861-e.g., the slave trade or Missouri Compromise-also can be understood fully only in light of the Civil War. It did not cause previous events, but helps to give them meaning.

Similar ideas have been used in theology by Cullmann and Pannenberg.⁵⁴ Cullmann argues that Christ, at the center of history, gives meaning to all of history. Old Testament passages that refer to Christ do so because of Christ rather than because of an intrinsic predictive power which they possess.

What about the effects of sin? Physical pain and death were in the world before humanity but there was no sin, no willful turning from God (Rom. 1:18-32). That changed when the first humans chose to disobey God, The introduction of sin into the creation put a new and terrible meaning on the death that had gone before. It was no longer a purely physical process, the. stopping of bodily machinery, but part of the dissolution consequent upon creation's turning from its Creator. The effects of the sin of the first humans radiated forward and backward in time.

It is interesting to compare this picture with that of Athanasius. He allowed that the first human, even on the right road and in a state of innocence, might have been subject to physical death. But he understood the penalty for eating of the forbidden tree in Genesis 2:17 to be more than this kind of death. The Hebrew moth tamuth is emphatic - "Thou shalt surely die" (KJV). But Athanasius, working with a Greek translation, saw here a two-fold death: "But by 'dying ye shalt die,' what else could be meant than not dying merely, but also abiding ever in the corruption of death?"⁵⁵

Finally, it may help to make two general comments about original sin. First, whatever else original sin is, it is an empirical and existential fact. Romans I and 7 need to be read in addition to Romans 5. Lack of a satisfactory explanation for the origin or transmission of original sin does not mean that the reality of it can be ignored.

Second, we should remember that, besides the Pelagian heresy which does not take original sin seriously, there is the heresy of Flacius which can be said to take it too seriously⁵⁶ Flacius, wanting to insist as strongly as possible on the total depravity of unredeemed humanity, asserted that original sin is the substance of unredeemed humanity. This would mean that fallen humanity is really no longer God's creation, introducing a Manichean dualism. The Formula of Concord rejected the positions of both Pelagius and Flacius.⁵⁷ As with most theological issues, one must stay in the middle of the road. There are "Out of Bounds" signs on both sides

Acceptance of evolution by theologians does not mean that all questions of creation, anthropology, redemption, or other issues involved in creation-evolution discussions are easily resolved. (Acceptance of biological evolution does not, of course, mean acceptance of anti-Christian conclusions that have sometimes been incorrectly drawn from evolution. The whole argument of this paper is that evolution and Christianity are profoundly compatible.) But it can keep us from wasting our time on non-problems, and allows us to focus energy on serious theological concerns. I believe that what is presented here, centering on Section 111, is a strong theological argument for accepting evolution.

Much of the work which resulted in this essay was done in connection with my 1983 M.Div. thesis at Wartburg Seminary, and I would like to thank my thesis advisers, Professors Norma Everist and Duane Priebe, for their encouragement and advice. I would also like to thank those who responded to my presentation on this theme at the 1983 Annual Meeting of the A.S.A. and the anonymous reviewers of a first draft of this article.

¹Moore, James R., The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

⁴Ramm, Bernard, The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954, especially pp. 280-293.

⁷Abbott, Lyman, The Theology of an Evolutionist. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1897.

⁹Benz, Ernst, Evolution and Christian Hope. Tr. Heinz C. Frank. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1966.

¹⁰Frye, Roland Mushat, ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983.

¹¹In a wider setting, a note in the 28 February 1985 Akron Beacon journal on the award of the Templeton Prize to Sir Alistair Hardy quotes him as saying, "The whole point of my life has been to reconcile Darwin's theory of evolution with the religious side of man."

¹²Schmid, Heinrich, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. 3rd ed. revised. Trans. by Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961, pp. 129-149.

¹³Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word. Trans. nd ed. by Archibald Robertson. In vol. IV of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980 (reprint), p. 36.

¹⁴Murphy, George L., The Trademark of God". Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow, 1986.

¹⁵For a discussion of the doctrine of ex nihilo creation and modern cosmology see, e.g., Murphy, George L., Journal A.S.A. 32,230,1980.

¹⁶Sanders, James A., Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972, pp. 54-90.

¹⁷Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Creation and Fall/Temptation. Trans. by John C. Fletcher and Kathleen Downham. New York: Macmillan, 1959, p. 19.

¹⁹Grilimeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 2nd. ed. Trans. by John Bowden. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975, pp, 321, 531.

²⁰Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, pp. 293-337, terminology being defined on p. 297. The Definition of Chalcedon is given in Bettenson, Henry, ed., Documents of the Christian Church. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford, 1963, pp. 51-52.

²¹For a modern treatment see Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Jesus Christ: God and Man. 2nd ed. Trans. by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977, pp. 337-344.

²²Newman is quoted in Baillie, D. M., God was in Christ. 2nd revised ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955, p. 15. Baillie also includes criticism of the idea of anhypostasia in this first chapter of his book.

²³Robinson, H. Wheeler, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel. Revised ed. Intro. by Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

²⁴Irenaeus, Against Heresies. Trans. by Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaubaune Fatheys. Ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979 (reprint). See, e.g., Book 11, chap. XXII, par. 4, Book 111, chap. XVIII, par. 7 and Book V, chap. XXI, par. 1. These passages are also in Betteson, Documents of the Christian Church, pp. 29-30..

²⁵Gundry, Robert H., Matthew. Grand Rapids, Nil: Eerdmans, 1982, pp, 53-58.

²⁷Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther. Trans. by Robert C. Schultz,. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966, p. 74.

²⁸Yon Had, Gerhard, Old Testament Theology, Vol. I. Trans. by D. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. See especially pp. 136-139 ,175-179.

³⁰Haeckel, Ernst, The Riddle of the Universe. Trans. by Jose McCabe. London: Watts & Co. 1929, ch. IV.

³²Lewis, C. S., Miracles, New York: Macmillan, 1947, pp. 115-116. 1 have corrected what appears to me to be a typographical error here.

³⁴ Kofabi, Robert E., Handy, Dandy Evolution Refuter. San Diego: Beta Books, 38i 1980'p. 17.

³⁵ I mean this loosely: Gen. 2-7 says "of dust." Yet it is interesting to note that western Christians for centuries understood this verse in terms of the Vulgate's "de lirno terrae'" translated , "of the slime of the earth" in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner. See Messenger, Evolution and Theology, pp. 107-116.

³⁷Gardner, Martin, Fads & Fallacies. Revised ed. New York: Dover, 1957, ch. 12.

³⁸Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre Christianity and Evolution, Trans, by Rene’ Hague. New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1969.

³⁹Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre Hymn of the Universe. Trans. by Gerald Vann. New York: Harper & How, 1969.

⁴⁰ For Teilhard's explicit comment on this feeling which one gets from much of his writing see, e.g., the note on pp. 149-150 of Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man. Trans. by Bernard Wall. New York:

⁴⁶Gegory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man. Trans. by H. A. Wilson. in Vol. V of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1979 (reprint).

⁴⁸ Moltrnann, Jurgen, The Trinity and the Kingdom. Trans. by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & How 1981, PP. 198-199. See also Bracken Joseph, A., What Are They Saying About the Trinity?. New York: Paulist, 1979, pp. 67-71.

⁴⁹Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church. Baltimore: Penguin, 1964, pp. 223-230.

⁵⁰Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, p. 38. See also the "Prolegomena" to that volume (IV) of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, especially p. lxxi.

⁵³Panofsky, Wolfgang K. H. and Phillips, Melba: Classical Electricity and Magnetism. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1955 pp. 212-215. Feynman, R. P., Theory of Fundamental Processes. New York: W. A. Benjamin, 1962, ch. 5.

⁵⁴Culimann, Oscar, Christ and Time. Trans. by Floyd V. Filson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950. Pannenberg, Jesus - God and Man.

⁵⁵Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, p. 38. See also "Prolegomena" to Vol. IV of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. lxxi.

⁵⁶Bente, F., "Historical introductions to the Symbolical Books Of the Evangelical Lutheran Church." pp. 144-151, in Concordia Trigiotta. St. Louis: Concordia, 1921.

⁵⁷The Formula of Concord, Thorough Declaration, Article 1, in Concordia Triglotta.

Where does the Bible say there were no predators before the Fall?

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so."(Genesis 1:30)

What was given for meat? Vegetation. This was to every beast of the earth.

So? Where is it written that animal death is evil? If animal death is evil, why is it that hunting is not a sin?

Because after the flood, God gave this new commandment:

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Genesis 9:3)

It's also wrong from a botanistic standpoint, a cosmological standpoint, a meteorological standpoint, as in addition to contradicting basic astronomy.

Then you have to choose whether you believe God or man's account. Given how man's knowledge is limitted and God's isn't, and how God was there and we were not, I'm going to rely on His account. Now, if you don't believe that scripture is true, then why are you bothering defending your view of evolution from a scriptural standpoint?

Plus, if taken literally, the sequence in Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2.

In what way? There is nothing I've seen people offer as contradictions which are truly so.

No, but it's more compatible with evolution than it is with special creation.

By what twisted logic do you come up with the idea that evolutionary speciation are more compatible with Biblical kinds than Biblical kinds?

Please show me where God says he was not talking figuratively.

You think that the 10 commandments are figurative? That's a very odd interpretation indeed.

No, and yet you still choose to believe in a worldwide catastrophe, despite the fact there is no evidence for it.

Only (quoting Ken Ham) billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth. Plus the fact that there is evidence of continental-wide waterflows on each of the continents, and secularly well-published geologists who have developed a model to show how it happened and how it better explains modern geology than other theories. Plus there is the ubiquitous presence of C14 in all rock layers of the earth.

Please show me where in the Bible it says the catastrophe was world-wide.

I don't see why you want Biblical proof as you've mentioned previously that it doesn't matter to you what the Bible says if modern science thinks differently (despite the fact that modern science -- quite apart from the Bible -- rejected the heliocentric model of planetary motions because of the evidence at the time -- just to show that man's ideas are limitted and easily shown to be false by later evidence). But, anyway, here it is - Genesis 7:19-24.

Tell me, if it were a local flood, why load up the animals? How did the boat stay afloat for a whole year before finding land? How did it cover all known mountains, but only for a local region? How did all land animals die out? Why the need for an ark at all? Why not just tell Noah -- hey, go move over here where there won't be a flood? Anyway, Genesis 7:19-24 clearly say several times and in several ways that it is worldwide, including "and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.", "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark."

Thanks. Another interesting twist on evolution is my favorite book by Thomas Sowell which shows step by step how conservatives see how society grows by evolution, not by central deliberate planning as liberals do. It's a bit off the path of the scientific argument but maybe it's my conservative vision getting in the way. More:

Dr. Thomas Sowells book, "A Conflict of Visions" is an attempt to explore the primary, if unarticulated, philosophy of historical conservatism and liberalism. His thesis is that conservatism has a tradition of operating by a vision of humans that sees them as constrained. Some characteristics of this view are: lt;br /> lt;br />(1) Humans have generally selfish natures. lt;br />(2) Human reason, while valuable, is quite limited. lt;br />(3) Because of this, society grows by evolution, not central deliberate planning. lt;br />(4) Social decisions generally involve not solutions but trade-offs (how much good for how much downside?) lt;br />(5) Procedural fairness, rather than results-based fairness, is the key to a just society. lt;br /> lt;br />Conversely, Sowell writes that the liberal tradition operates on a vision of humankind that is unconstrained. Features include: lt;br /> lt;br />(1)Human selfishness is a quality that can be overcome by reason and education. lt;br />(2) Human reason, when used properly, can trump human impulses, emotions, and feelings. lt;br />(3)The planned society is best. Non-planned societies = chaos. lt;br />(4) While policy trade-offs might be a good short term solution, reason can discover true solutions that are equitable to all. lt;br />(5)Procedural fairness is not fair so long as disperate outcomes result. lt;br /> lt;br />Sowell backs up his thesis with impressive research, citations, and quotes. This is refreshing becuase it makes sure he is not simply creating strawmen. From the conservative side, his quites tend to come from Edmunde Burke, Adam Smith, Freidrich Hayek, and Oliver Wendell Holmes

http://www.history-us.com/A_Conflict_of_Visions_Ideological_Origins_of_Political_Struggles_0465081428.html

A man rising from the dead after three days contradicts what I see with my eyes?

No, because I never saw Jesus' dead body.

Same goes for all the other mircales. They don't contradict observation. They are at variance with what ordinarily happens, but no observation rules out the possibility that God can from time to time do something supernatural and out of the ordinary.

Science can explain none of these miracles, but I am sure you, as a Christian, have no problem with that, so what makes the miracle of creation so special that a scientific explanation is required?

I do not need a scientific explanation to beleive a miracle. A miracle is by definition something that has no possible scientific explanation.

I also do not reject creation. I do believe God is the ultimate creator of the universe.

I reject creationism (as defined in this article) because I can observe things in God's creation that directly contradict it. That is, I see direct evidence that things happened another way.

In contrast, there is no physical evidence contradicting my belief that Jesus rose from the dead, that the Red Sea parted, etc, etc, etc.

What was given for meat? Vegetation. This was to every beast of the earth.

Nowhere does God prohibit any animal from carnivorous activity. Allowing the eating of vegetation is not the same thing as disallowing the eating of other animals.

Because after the flood, God gave this new commandment

I see, so something that was evil suddenly becomes good.

Are you a nominalist?

Then you have to choose whether you believe God or man's account.

What about your own observations? What you see in God's creation? Surely to ignore that would be just as wrong as to ignore the Bible!

Now, if you don't believe that scripture is true

I do believe scripture is true! I just don't believe your interpretation is right.

then why are you bothering defending your view of evolution from a scriptural standpoint?

I believe God never lies, neither in scripture or in his Creation. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, it is necessary for a believer to resolve it.

In what way? There is nothing I've seen people offer as contradictions which are truly so.

The contradiction is only there if you accept a strictly literalist interpretation, which I don't.

The literalist contradiction is that plants come before man in Genesis 1, but man comes first in Genesis 2. This is a clear indication that the author was not concerned about the details of ordering.

By what twisted logic do you come up with the idea that evolutionary speciation are more compatible with Biblical kinds than Biblical kinds?

No, I was talking about mediation. The earth and the seas brought forth life. God did not create them directly. Evolution is one way in which this could have happened.

And what exactly rules out speciation? Where does it say a "kind" cannot change over time?

BTW, speciation is one of those things we can observe directly with our own eyes.

You think that the 10 commandments are figurative?

Uh, I was talking about the 7 days of creation, not the 10 commandments.

I see, so something that was evil suddenly becomes good.

If I live in the city, I will command my child not to play in the frontyard without an adult. If I move to the country I would probably remove that rule. God, being the rule-maker, can also change the rules. What makes something sin is that you are going against the Lord's rules. What was evil is still evil -- disobedience.

Are you a nominalist?

On some issues. I think choosing only one side is more problematic than being one or the other. What about your own observations? What you see in God's creation?

You're own observations are very useful. However, as God pointed out to Job, you weren't there but He was. We do not have a complete understanding of the world. Therefore, when reconstructing history, we do not know all of the possibilities or even what to make of them, so we must make a choice whether or not we trust the sources. If we do trust the sources, then it is not unreasonable to think that something contradictory to our current understanding of the world could take place, since we do not know everything. Using our own observations would have made you a geocentrist for many, many years after it became the main theory. As for biblical theories, creationists were long derided for believing in a single supercontinent based on then-current geology, but now it turns out the creationists were right all along.

We don't know everything, but God does. Assuming that our limitted knowledge is better than God's unlimited knowledge and first-hand experience with the event is highly presumptuous.

Surely to ignore that would be just as wrong as to ignore the Bible!

It would be wrong to _ignore_ your own observations. However, historical science is not the same as observational science -- it is one of interpretation. Likewise, we should not ignore our own thoughts and observations, but they should always be subservient to the authority of scripture. A Christian should always bow their physical and mental knee to the Lord. Being right in ones own eyes is the downfall of numerous people in the Bible. To say that our own observations should be placed on equal weight of the Bible is self-idolatry.

I do believe scripture is true! I just don't believe your interpretation is right.

Can you name anyone before 1700 that believed the way you do? If not, are you saying that God led everyone before the 1700's in a lie? There were evolutionary theologies and creation stories during the time of Moses (Enuma Elish for one), and the Egyptians had expressions for long-age concepts. These types of concepts were fully available for use in Genesis, if that is what God was trying to convey. It was not beyond the mental grasp of the Israelites. But the Biblical creation story is specifically against that.

On what basis, except that you are aware of the theory of evolution, would you interpret Genesis as being evolution?

I believe God never lies, neither in scripture or in his Creation. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, it is necessary for a believer to resolve it.

It is foolish to believe that all apparent contradictions are resolvable, simply because we do not have all information available. To attempt this too rashly is to certainly come to incorrect conclusions and to teach them as fact based on our limitted understanding of the universe. However, in this case, it is fairly obvious that putting in evolution has created a huge number more contradictions than it supposedly solves (and I would say that it solves 0).

The contradiction is only there if you accept a strictly literalist interpretation, which I don't.

You still haven't pointed out the contradictions for the literalist. There are none.

No, I was talking about mediation. The earth and the seas brought forth life. God did not create them directly. Evolution is one way in which this could have happened.

The first part is true, the second is false. The second implies that from death came Adam, while scripture says that from Adam came death. Likewise, evolution is completely out-of-sequence with scripture, and there would be no concept of "after one's kind" with evolution, as everything would ultimately be of the same kind. Also, when you propose evolution as being the cause of the geologic column, you remove any room for the deluge to occur.

And what exactly rules out speciation? Where does it say a "kind" cannot change over time?

Kinds do change over time. No creationist disagrees. Speciation happens. No creationist disagrees. However, God specifically said that he produced multiple distinct kinds. These are fairly easy to spot using biology. In vertebrates, the created kinds generally occur at the family level (in which case these species are usually still breedable). Likewise, ANOPA and BDIST statistical methods can show the continuities and discontinuities between organsisms. Anyway, for a good introduction to this, you should read the book Understanding the Pattern of Life.

The literalist contradiction is that plants come before man in Genesis 1, but man comes first in Genesis 2.

I think you are thinking of animals, not plants. Anyway, this is because the language in chapter 2 does not necessarily indicate sequence, and in fact many translations leave out the sequence implications because they are not necessarily indicated by the Hebrew. vav-consecutives do not necessarily imply consecutiveness, and "had formed" is an accurate rendering.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513

Uh, I was talking about the 7 days of creation, not the 10 commandments.

From the 10 commandments:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(Exodus 20:11)

Lest you believe that I thought the article was total bunkum, I do think his incorporation of the vegetable-animal-rational soul was one of the article's strongest points.

Physical death is not terrible unless it is accompanied with spiritual death.

Then why weep at funerals, or upon hearing of the death of friends like Lazarus?

Why was there a need for a tree of life before the Fall if there was no physical death before?

I haven't read much exegesis on Genesis in some time, but the Tree of Life could more easily be interpreted to be a sacramental conduit for the supernatural grace of God, and indeed a foreshadowing of the Cross. Incorporating Darwinian cosmology into it seems like an ad hoc interpretation to me.

Regarding randomness and chaos, I think the big question here is the relationship between chance and Providence. Providential actions aren't always obvious. When I hear somebody saying how God has worked in their life, I'm usually pretty unconvinced. I suspect many others, even devout Christians, would find my own description of God's providential work in my life a bit hard to swallow. In Darwinian thought evolutionary change occurs entirely by chance. The fittest animal gets its great genes from its parents by chance, and any beneficial mutations are by chance, and even then this Great Specimen could trip and break its neck as a youth rather than pass on its genes.

Perhaps you could argue that because we are evolving. However, I don't think it is true. Our intelligence has allowed us to transcend evolution. Or at least has slowed it down to such a pace that we are never going to change into beings that have a fundamentally differet nature.

For one thing, in Darwinian theory the human species is itself a transitional species, as were all its predecessors. For another, Darwin himself held that our intelligence is not a qualitative but a quantitative difference.

But every one who admits the principle of evolution, must see that the mental powers of the higher animals, which are the same in kind with those of man, though so different in degree, are capable of advancement.
-Descent of Man, Chapter 21

Haven't you heard of the Transhumanist movement? They're all about redesigning human nature. And wouldn't it also be imaginable, biologically speaking, for reason to become a superfluous and even hindering faculty given the right environment, as legs became redundant and detrimental for the ancestors of snakes?

What about our souls? Don't they form the basis for human rights? You may object that Darwinism does not claim anything about souls, but it is equally true that Darwinism does not rule out a soul.

I don't think human rights are properly attached to human souls specifically, firstly because the human body is also a good thing to which we have duties, even after that body has died. Granting for the moment that rights are derived from duties, even a corpse has certain rights, though not as absolute as the complete human person does.

Also, certain human rights are supposed to be either "self-evident," as the Declaration of Independence holds, or a fact capable of universal recognition, a "science" capable of being worked out by every intelligent person. Unless we grant that the soul is also similarly philosophically provable, it might not be possible to come up with a coherent rights-theory based on the soul.

By the way, I think Darwin has sprinkled his own ideas of natural rights throughout his works. There are some passages justifying a "Manifest Destiny" for the "higher" civilized European races over the lower races of the rest of the world. And in that same Chapter 21 of the Descent of Man, he states: "There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring." That's a justification for the natural right to adultery, polygamy, Free Love, and so much other wackiness. Contemporary Darwinism has been domesticated because our World War II enemies' ideologies based much of their thought upon Darwin's epigones. Neo-Darwinism now scrupulosly makes a distinction between biology and ethics, between the descriptive and the prescriptive, and it completely shuns Darwin's talk of "higher" and "lower" organisms. But I think this school of thought will completely revert to its wild state shortly, especially with all the money pouring into the biotech industry.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is a welcome change from the usual posts I encounter on these threads.

Regarding physical death and the tree of life:

Genesis 3:22 makes pretty clear that the tree of life is the source of immortality. As someone else on this thread also posted, it appears to be the source of immortality for the elect after the second coming.

I believe this conclusively proves that immortality requires supernatural grace, and the tree of life symbolizes that grace. It follows, therefore, that naturally, life is mortal.

BTW, I don't necessarily think the tree of life is literally a tree. I agree with you that it is a symbol for the supernatural grace of immortality.

There is no indication anywhere in Genesis that animals had access to the tree of life before the Fall. It was only in the Garden, and most animals were not in the Garden. So I think it is pretty clear that animals were not given the supernatural grace of immortality before the Fall, or ever.

I don't think there's any reason to believe animal death is evil, or the presence of animal death negates the intrinsic goodness of creation. I stand by my statement that physical death without spiritual death is not evil. Humans cry when someone dies not for the sake of the dead, but for ours. We will miss the person who has passed on.

Regarding randomness and Providence:

I'm not sure what your point is about providence and chaos. If anything, what you say supports the notion that God could have created through evoluton. As you rightly point out, mutations would not be the only way God influences our lives through events that to us seem random.

Regarding the transitional nature of man:

I don't think the assertion that man is "transitional" is scientific, or supported by the evidence. We have, through our intelligence, eliminated nearly all selective pressure on our species. Technology ensures that nearly no one starves before childbearing years. Medical science ensures very few people die of disease before such time. And monogamous marriage virtually insures nearly everyone who reaches reproductive age gets to reproduce. Being good looking helps in getting a good looking mate, but even the ugly usually end up finding someone.

The result is that our species is not likely to change very much, if at all, for a very long time.

I think you're right that more than human rights are grounded in more than just our soul. Our rationality has much to do with it as well. I don't see how the fact that we are biologically related to other creatures negates any of this.

Thanks for pointing out the relevant chapter of Descent of Man. I actually haven't read this book. I am only familiar with the Origin. While it is disturbing that Darwin had some musings that eerily forshadow the ideas of the social Darwinists, it really isn't relevant to whether biological Darwinism is true or not.

Darwinism was a scientist, not a prophet, and his books are not sacred scripture. We are perfectly free to accept from them what is valid and throw out what is erroneous, just as we do with the works of other scientists like Newton, Einstein, and Oppenheimer.

I agree that there is a danger of biology "breaking down the barriers of descriptive and prescriptive." We're already starting to see it in the human cloning and stem cell debate.

However, I don't think that denying the findings of modern science is the best way of fighting those who would attempt to draw erroneous ethical conclusions from it. That just makes you look ignorant and backward.

Rather, the best way of fighting such things is by embracing the descriptive findings of science and then emphsizing that science cannot be prescriptive. There are plenty of principled scientists, like Stephen J. Gould, who strongly support this view and will fight for it as vigorously as any clergyman.

Science and religion need to be united in order to defeat the forces of nihilism.

Funny. England didn't fall when King Richard II fell. Poland did not fall when King Boleslaw fell. China did not Fall when the Quin dynasty, or any other dynasty for tha matter, fell. There are plenty more where that came from. You don't know your history very well, I see.

The rude remark aside, we are discussing biblical symbolism, not historical events.

The fall is a spiritual event with a temporal consequence.

The idea of a ruler's decisions affecting the spiritual status of what he rules is a pretty clear pattern in the Old Testament.

Since theistic evolution has the animals cursed already, I fail to see your objection to a Fall moving animals from a state that theistic evolution has them in from the beginning.

I think theistic evolution has to make too many compromises to scripture. You have to make too many things symbolic that are plainer to read as literal.

Like I said before, my biggest argument with theistic evolution is that it makes the learning of man the yardstick by which the Bible must be measured.

I think the fact that no one came up with a reading of the Bible that supports theistic evolution until after Darwin's theory gained acceptance pretty much proves that men who preach theistic evolution are actually worshipping science and modifying scripture to fit their new god's teachings.

Okay, so in your view, animal death is not intristically evil. Therefore there is no conflict between the existience of animal death and creation being "very good"

Therefore, when reconstructing history, we do not know all of the possibilities or even what to make of them, so we must make a choice whether or not we trust the sources.

Evolution is not based on "sources." It's based on physical evidence. And yes, given that God created the physical world, I can trust physical evidence.

Ignoring physical evidence and accepting a literalist interpretation is what led many Christians to accept geocentrism, contrary to what you posted earlier. It is true, Greek and medieval (not modern) astronomers also were geocentrists. But when new evidence was uncovered establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt, it was only the religious who resisted the change. And they based their obejctions solely on scripture.

Here's a good article on The Galileo Affair.

Can you name anyone before 1700 that believed the way you do?

Absolutley. As the article points out, before 1300, the universal view was that God did NOT directly create the "kinds" but rather His creation was mediated through nature.

The article mentions St. Athanasius, who believed that physical death existed prior to the Fall, which brought on spiritual death. St Gregory of Nyssa believed that man passed through lower states before becoming fully human.

And of course, St. Augustine has a figurative interpretation of Genesis and accepts an of evolution of sorts.

Regarding "Kinds", I don't see evolution contradicts the Biblical concept. God created kinds through evolution. What's the problem?

Where does the Bible say that one "Kind" cannot split into two or more "Kinds" over time?

Regarding a global flood, it could only have been local. That is a scientific fact that is true independent of evolution. The standard AiG scriptural objections to a local delluge are pretty well answered here

I see, so you interpret Genesis 1 literally but not Genesis 2 literally. That really makes a lot of sense.

Sorry about the rude comment.

That asside, even in the Bible, a rulers fall does not necessarily bring about a nation's fall. Israel did not fall with Saul, for example.

The nation falls only when the people follow the ruler in doing evil. And even then, the faithful remnant who remain loyal to God despite the corruption of their King are spared.

Thus the creationist hypothesis of creation being cursed by man's sin makes little sense, and is not consistent with the rest of the Bible. The ruled are NOT automatically cursed for the rulers actions if they themselves are innoncent.

And no, theistic evolutoin does not hold that creatoin was cursed before the fall. Animal death is not evil, and it is a not a curse.

The Fall curses creation by thwarting it's goal and purpose. Man is the pinnalce of creation. The whole purpose of creation is for it to bring for a being who is made in the image of God and who is capable of a relationship with God. By destroying his relationship with God, Adam destroyed the whole purpose of creation. That is why creation groans.

God is not punishing animals and plants for the sins of Adam.

I think your train of thought is reasonable. If death was not present, why the need for the tree of life?

But, we also have these passsages:
Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

Romans 5:14 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned. After the similitude of Adams transgression.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 Cor 15:21 - For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

James 1:14-15 - But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

We see here that death is the result of sin and physical death was not present prior to sin. And, more importantly, that death came through Adam.

1 Cor 15:26 - The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

Rev 20:14 - Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire This is the second death, the lake of fire.

Here death is protrayed as the enemy of God and something that needs to be punished. It is not a good thing.

Now lets go back to the Garden. So why the Tree of Life? Why the need for a Tree that gives life, if death has not come into the world? And why the need for the Tree of Life in eternity if death was thrown into the Lake of fire?

This tree gave life, but it gave a Divine Life. It gave life immortal, but Adam had no need of that because death had not yet entered into the world. What it truly gave was the Divine Life, the spiritual life that comes through knowing Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

Just as we need to be feeding on the Word of God on a regular basis to be filled with life abundantly, so did Adam need to feed from the Tree of Life. Our life in Christ will suffer if we do not spend time with Him and in His Word.

When Adam ate of the Tree of Good and Evil, his divine life died immediately, and I would say that his physical life would have died as well, had not God provided a sacrifice for him. Remember that God covered them with an animal skin, meaning an animal died as atonement for Adam's sin. This is also a picture of Christ's covering us.

Death entered into the world the day Adam ate of the fruit. It was not present prior to that moment.

JM

"Okay, so in your view, animal death is not intristically evil. Therefore there is no conflict between the existience of animal death and creation being "very good""

You are implying that not being very good means evil. There is no reason to think that. We get cancer. It's not evil, but it's not "very good" either. Likewise, when creation was very good, animals and man were commanded to eat a vegetarian diet. After it had degenerated, man was given everything to eat. Why would you postulate that man was not allowed to eat meat until after the flood?

"Evolution is not based on "sources." It's based on physical evidence. And yes, given that God created the physical world, I can trust physical evidence."

But can you trust your interpretation of that evidence? Bones don't come with dates listed. That has to be interpretted by circumstancial evidence. I should hope our court system would not put the same value on circumstantial evidence that you seem to. There is a reason why circumstantial evidence is of a secondary quality -- it requires interpretation, which can be faulty and is based on our preconceptions of what is possible or likely.

Sources is based on eyewitnesses. When given the choice between circumstantial evidence and the testimony of eyewitnesses, I usually go with the eyewitnesses.

"But when new evidence was uncovered establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt, it was only the religious who resisted the change."

That is simply incorrect, especially as the evidence establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt did not occur until Newton.

From your link:

"It is, moreover, undeniable, that the proofs which Galileo adduced in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus, as against the geocentric of Ptolemy and the ancients, were far from conclusive"

He did not prove it, as there was still considerable evidence against it.

"Absolutley. As the article points out, before 1300, the universal view was that God did NOT directly create the "kinds" but rather His creation was mediated through nature."

Mediation does not imply evolution. As I pointed out, there have always been evolutive theories, and that the one in Genesis is decidedly not of this nature.

"And of course, St. Augustine has a figurative interpretation of Genesis and accepts an of evolution of sorts."

Actually, Augustine believes quite firmly that the Genesis account is factual, though some words may have different meanings than normal. This would still preclude evolution as (a) the order of things is wrong, and (b) the distinct kinds are fairly explicit. Also, most of the people who attest to Augustine's "figurative interpretation" are greatly exaggerating the extent to which Augustine is allowing figurative language. Many of his quotes supporting this are taken out of their context in which he establishes the extent to which he thinks that their figurativeness can be believed.

"Regarding "Kinds", I don't see evolution contradicts the Biblical concept. God created kinds through evolution. What's the problem?"

Several problems:

1) if kinds are just species, then Adam would have had trouble naming them after millions of years of diversification. If they diversified afterwards, there would have been no problem.
2) if the kinds are just species, then Noah would have had trouble fitting them on the ark.

"Where does the Bible say that one "Kind" cannot split into two or more "Kinds" over time?"

If you are specifically talking about diversification -- all creationists believe in diversification. The difference is the additive component that makes something an individual creation -- information. Science has not given us any mechanism for adding information to cells. Yet that information is there.

Think of it this way: when we modify bacteria to make insulin-producing bacteria, what are we doing? We are taking existing bacteria, adding in information, and getting out a new organism. Is what we are doing mediated by nature? Yes. Is what we are doing evolution? No.

"Regarding a global flood, it could only have been local."

That link is humorous. For it's reason why birds were on the ark is that they don't fly well in the rain. Well guess what -- they didn't have to fly in the rain! God brought them to moses WEEKS before the flood. This is plenty of time even for poor flyers to have made it out.

Likewise, if you look at the carrying capacity of the ark, you can see that this is for much more than just one regions animals, especially if there are only two of most kinds.

Likewise, the flood lasted a whole year, and, as mentioned in the text, the flood was 8 meters about the mountains (or hills as your link wants to call them). If it were a local flood, would it really take Noah a whole year to find dry land? Would it really take a whole year for any amount of water to dissipate if it were only covering hills?

"I see, so you interpret Genesis 1 literally but not Genesis 2 literally. That really makes a lot of sense."

I do take it literally. That is part of the language. It's not something I'm making up -- it's actually a part of Hebrew. vav-consecutives can indicate consecutive action, but don't necessarily do so. If I say, "yesterday I ate lunch, and I also ate breakfast", am I indicating a definite sequence? Or am I organizing them by importance instead? Understanding the language as a whole, and not individual piecemeal statements, is _required_ for a literal reading of _anything_.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.