Evolution and God Aren't Mutually Exclusive

beliefnet.com ^ | Larry Witham

[Brilliant]

I don't think God has clearly spelled this out. If you do, then perhaps you can explain to me how God made man, according to the clear explanation in the Bible.

[sfimom]

Perhaps what was meant was that 'death of the soul' did not begin until Adam sinned. Much of the bible and Jesus' teachings were done in parables. Is it not possible that the story of Adam and Eve was a parable to simplify the whole of evolution so that men could understand it??

[SoothingDave]

Moses wasn't an idiot. He had the best education that the world could give. He was raised in the house of one of the most powerful men on the planet at that time. So yes, I believe Moses would have understood perfectly well if God had described evolution to Him if that was what He had used to Create.

Forest and trees, again, my friend. Maybe Moses could have been tutored by God himself in the finer points of the development of the cosmos, but the worker in the field had no use for this knowledge. It would have been as counter-productive to reveal advanced scientific information as it would be to try to attempt to explain to my 4 year old how an internal combustion engine works when she asks how a car can go. "I step on this pedal" is a truthful and appropriate answer for her developmental level.

That question presupposes that God did use Darwin's method and assumes there is some theological point to Darwin's method. I don't think there is any theological point to evolution......well, except to resist God.

Don't be ridiculous. Does it really destroy God if He put forth a plan to make the earth what it is by having all of existence explode out of nothingness in a Big Bang? It's actually more complex and majestic how order comes from this giant seemingly-random cosmos and results in human beings who are then invited to commune with God.

SD

[Stark_GOP]

My question to all 'Christians' who believe in evolution is:
At what point along the evolutionary line did man acquire a soul?

[SoothingDave]

My question to all 'Christians' who believe in evolution is: At what point along the evolutionary line did man acquire a soul?

When God gave the first man one. His name was Adam.

SD

[sheltonmac]

He makes use of the creation tale to make the point that a once-weekly rest is part of God's design. You read into this what you want to see.

How do you know that a "once-weekly rest is part of God's design"? Does it really say that, or are you reading into it what you want to see? Maybe God didn't mean a literal week.

I'm certainly no expert, but I always thought context was important. I am simply amazed that you are accusing someone else of reading into scripture something that isn't there when you are the one suggesting that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

Don't be ridiculous. Does it really destroy God if He put forth a plan to make the earth what it is by having all of existence explode out of nothingness in a Big Bang? It's actually more complex and majestic how order comes from this giant seemingly-random cosmos and results in human beings who are then invited to commune with God.

You can't get "more complex and majestic" than the creation of an entire universe ex nihilo. Any "evolutionary" change beyond that would pale by comparison.

Theistic evolution makes God out to be a fool who didn't have a distinct plan or purpose for His creation. He just guided things along as they naturally changed. That, of course, isn't the case. He knew what He was doing long before time began.

By the way, we aren't too worried. Theistic evolution doesn't destroy God; it merely reveals the profundity of human ignorance.

[SoothingDave]

How do you know that a "once-weekly rest is part of God's design"? Does it really say that, or are you reading into it what you want to see? Maybe God didn't mean a literal week.

Good question. We have quite a tradition, even older than Christianity which establishes the Sabbath rest as good for us humans. And of course, Jesus says it was made for man, not for God.

But you do point out, I think unintentionally, that understanding a text is often guided by the tradition we are familiar with. There is no such thing as the text outside of tradition.

You can't get "more complex and majestic" than the creation of an entire universe ex nihilo. Any "evolutionary" change beyond that would pale by comparison.

By that measure, the entire creation of existence, the Fall of Adam, the lessons learned in the various Jewish exiles, the coming of Christ and the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the subsequent spreading of the Gospel of Salvation to the entire world is kind of a lot of trouble for God as well.

He seems to like having this entire history played out in our lives. He could have simply willed from the beginning that we all live with Him in Eternal Bliss forever. Those of us who believe believe that that is our destination, right? So why did He bother with these intermediate steps? Isn't He ultimately the cause of our Salvation?

Why this whole complex and majestic storyline? Does it diminish Him that we are not now in Heaven?

Theistic evolution makes God out to be a fool who didn't have a distinct plan or purpose for His creation. He just guided things along as they naturally changed.

LOL. The fact that a plan takes time to unfold is not evidence that God did not plan it and is instead reacting to events in "realtime." LOL.

Before Jesus came to earth to redeem us, was God just sitting around twiddling His Thumbs and wondering what to do next?

SD

[rwfromkansas]

Soothing is a bit off....The rest is not just plain rest, but rest IN CHRIST, and not just on the Lord's Day, but every single day.

[Sam the Sham]

Animals died. Adam knew what death was.

[sheltonmac]

By that measure, the entire creation of existence, the Fall of Adam, the lessons learned in the various Jewish exiles, the coming of Christ and the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the subsequent spreading of the Gospel of Salvation to the entire world is kind of a lot of trouble for God as well.

No. All of that was part of His ultimate plan in creation. "Evolution" suggests randomness, things changing as a means of adaptation. There is nothing random about the eternal plan of redemption.

Why this whole complex and majestic storyline? Does it diminish Him that we are not now in Heaven?

Absolutely not. Everything points to the ultimate glory of God, namely His triumph over evil.

[rwfromkansas]

Death did not enter the world until the Fall.

[rwfromkansas]

Do you think animals died before the fall? My thinking is that since death was part of the curse of the fall, which impacted all of creation negatively, not only did people start to die at that point, but so did animals.

Before that, I don't think they did.

But, I may be wrong here....

[SoothingDave]

No. All of that was part of His ultimate plan in creation. "Evolution" suggests randomness, things changing as a means of adaptation. There is nothing random about the eternal plan of redemption.

So God is allowed to have an "ultimate plan in creation" and allow it to unfold in time, but He's not allowed to use "evolution" in order to do any of this? Is that your position?

"Evolution," at least as understood by some as "Intelligent Design" does not imply randomness at all. At best, there may be "seemingly-random" things, but we lack the infinite understanding of God.

You treat the word "Evolution" as a bogeyman.

Absolutely not. Everything points to the ultimate glory of God, namely His triumph over evil.

Everything, that is, except seemingly-random adaptation of species as a part of God's plan of creation. I am not bothered by the fact that God's method of creation is too complex for a human to understand. I am also not bothered by things like light behaving sometimes like a wave and sometimes like a particle. I don't need my understanding of God's creation to be tied up neatly in an easy-to-grasp package.

SD

[sheltonmac]

I don't need my understanding of God's creation to be tied up neatly in an easy-to-grasp package.

That explains your disregard for scripture. You'd much rather wander off on your own little tangent. I, on the other hand, need things explained to me in simple terms. And while the Bible can be difficult to understand at times, it is about as "easy-to-grasp" as it gets.

[D-fendr]

If I may add my couple of cents:

The fact that a plan takes time to unfold…

The word "evolution" comes from the latin for unfold or unroll.

Whether we see events - how it unfolds - as part of a plan or unplanned is a difference in worldview. And worldviews cannot be "objectively proven" in the narrow sense.

However, that the universe has a beginning, unfolds in unique events and has an end is historically a distinctly Judeo-Christian teaching.

Aristotle (Greek) teaching was that the universe was infinite and static. This was denounced at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. History, and the cosmos, has a beginning, middle and end - a story.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Eastern in general, universes are either infinite in time as well, or (for example hindu/buddhist) very long, yet cyclical and repeating (as Pythagorus and Plato also believed).

We can see a congruence with the Christian "natural order" of creation, the Great Chain of Being as it was termed in later centuries, in it's unfolding in time in Genesis and its hierarchical framework of increasing complexity mirrored both in living beings and in the emergence of chemical elements in the universe – as the salvation history of mankind, and each man, part of one Whole: complete and continuous yet with gradation - in steps and stages – transcending yet including in a planned fullness of time.

Teleology is consistent with Christian theology, cosmogony and biology.

[flevit]

just remember, both stalin and hilter had @ 140 IQ. look what being a mental giant did for them.

[Preachin']

"Get up to speed. See my profile page."

I think that providing a direct link to what you specifically want me to read is in order.

Don't ask me to dig through all of that.

Thanks... I'll get to it when I can, because I'm terribly busy.

[SoothingDave]

I really must try for shorter sentences

Well, this:

Teleology is consistent with Christian theology, cosmogony and biology.

is a pretty short sentence, but I suspect you've started just making up words. ;-)

SD

[frgoff]

The traditional teaching is that there was both a physical and spiritual death and that is why Christ provides two aspects to His sacrifice: The resurrection, which overcomes physical death, and the atonement, which overcomes spiritual death.

The reality is that in order to reconcile evolution with Christianity, you need to move away from the traditional Christian understanding of the fall as involving both physical and spiritual death. You also need to modify the relationship of man to God. The evolutionary paradigm requires that hominids progress to a certain point where God finally considers them to be in His image. At this point, God then declares them in need of redemption.

Adam and Eve are seen as metaphors for these evolved hominids.

And, of course, this leaves open the door that at some future point, the descendents of chimps will also evolve to the point where God considers them made in His image as well. Will He then send another Christ for them?

As I said in my original post, that is why there is a conflict. You have to take some pretty non-conventional positions on Christian theology in order to make it work with evolution.

[Matchett-PI]

"I think that providing a direct link to what you specifically want me to read is in order."

Sure.

Star Light & the Age of the Universe

Astrophysicist writes Dr.James Kennedy. (Response below his letter)

What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?

"..In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles..."