Illegal Border Crossings: Evolution and Intelligent Design

The Cornel Daily Sun ^ | Nov. 7, 2006 | Richard A. Baer

[Don Corleone]

If you believe in God then you must believe that God can create anyway he wants to create including letting an evolutionary process procede. Why does there seem to be a contradiction here?

[curiosity]

Why does there seem to be a contradiction here?

Because certain people, like IDists and creationists, want to place limits on God.

[GarySpFc]

These scientists are not engaging in illegal border crossings, but teaching theology, when they make many of their proclamations.

[Redgirl]

This author expects scientists to give speeches without interjecting any personal philosophy?!

[caffe]

no, because as a christian I know that God gave a literal account of His creation..........he created everythin g on this earth with maturity - thus Adam and Eve were not children but in their prime..Yeah!!!!!!!! The trees were mature and producing fruit and so were all the animals. To say God chose to evolve man over , what's the latest, billions of years, then I would also have to eliminate most of Genesis and original sin.(Not to mention the NT citations of Adam and Eve and the Noah and the Universal Flood) I know the answer to what came first - the chicken or the egg? The chicken.
No, true science is not at War with God as God gave us order and the ability to study it. We also have a big-time fallen angel, Satan, who likes to deceive us...Theistic evolution is an invention to accomodate God to what people thought was proven science. Darwin even knew he had lost his case before he died and all the evolutionary scientists and philosophers simply continue to deny all the design that is self-evident . The Lord himself proclaimed this........and the more that is studied and discovered in astronomy, physics, micro-biology proclaim it true.

[curiosity]

In science classes, that's a pretty reasonable expectation.

[Wilhelm Tell]

Why does there seem to be a contradiction here?

Because some people have their view of religion controlled by numerology. They believe that God must follow a certain numerical pattern and you can use numerology to determine what God will do next. For example, the number 7 is believed by some to be the perfect number, and this means that God will destroy the universe when it is 7,000 years old and create a new heaven and earth. That is why the "young earth" creationists believe that the earth can only be several thousand years old. I know I am being terribly simplistic and unfair but it comes down to the idea that some system of numerology can explain everything.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

A scientists should be able to speak on a topic and not interject his opinion into it. This is the entire idea behind a rational scientific investigation. Another impartial observer should be able to follow his argument and agree with his conclusion.

[curiosity]

no, because as a christian I know that God gave a literal account of His creation..........

And how exactly do you know it is supposed to be taken strictly literally?

[TXnMA]

Thanks for the post, Curiosity!

Ladies, I was going to ping you to what promised to be a good, balanced discussion thread. but I see the dogmatic YECers have already poked their simplistic oar in...

[Rurudyne]

While I'm not ready to post the whole idea yet, I too am a Christian and I have been recently looking closely at Genesis for a number of reasons, one of which I'll briefly deal with here:

There are those who say Genesis has two stories about the creation of man and thus it can't be true because these are contradictory. These will often maintain that the overview followed by a closeup concept is an "excuse."

But look closely at the text and you may see what I see: there are not two stories about the creation of man but rather two stories about the creation of animals.

The first story about the creation of animals cumulates in Genesis 1:24-25 with the calling forth of:

living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beast of the earth after their kind;

Please notice that all of these, like those earlier creations are called forth from the Earth as a result of God's commandment.

The second story about the creation of animals takes place in Genesis 2:19:

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Now, one might suggest that I'm picking at nits: two stories for this vs. two stories for that; however, there is an important distinction between these two alternatives and why what I'm suggesting SOLVES a lot of problems that radical naturalist presume creationist to have.

The reason is this: the second story about the creation of animals takes place within a very specific context that is itself distinct from the earlier story.

This context is given, from first to last, in Genesis 2:18-25:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; the He took one of his ribs, an closed up the flesh at that place.

And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

And the man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Now, on the surface of it, it would seem an odd inclusion for God to start making critters at the moment He decides that it isn't good for the man to be alone. But there are a few things to make not of about this text.

First, among the animals created in this story only what we would consider more substantial land creatures are included. There is no mention of "creeping things" or any of the creatures of the sea. So Adam wasn't presented with worms, insects, fish or even the precursors of the whales.

Second, these animals are created in a different way than those in the other story. Whereas before they were called forth from the Earth and its seas, this time God forms them from out of the ground. So the animals Adam was presented with were different that all the other animals round about.

Logically, they were representative of their breeds so that the proto-feline called forth from the earth and the proto-feline formed from the ground would have been the same sort of creature with identical genetics and so-forth.

But the latter creature is distinct in the time, place and effort of its creation.

Time: later in the same day or the next day (for birds).

Place: near Adam rather than everywhere on the Earth.

Effort: formed from the ground rather than called forth from the Earth.

Again, with that last bit you might well accuse me of picking nits; however, please observe that the description of HOW these latter animals were made coincides with the description of HOW Adam was made.

I would suggest that their formation in Genesis 2:19 is NOT some random inclusion but it occurs at that time and in that fashion for a purpose related to Genesis 2:18.

God presented him with them as a object lesson of sorts.

Please notice that none of the creatures presented had a nature which Adam could recognize as being "a helper suitable for him." Thus a proto-feline was what he called it as he recognized its nature. Likewise, when he met her, he immediately recognized her nature and responded to it.

She was a suitable helper and just as before he gives her a name, "Woman," but he also goes a step further and takes her as his wife (with no apologies: if she's his wife, in OT economy they've had sex ... right there in the garden with God standing by ... "not ashamed" indeed!).

There is no indication that Adam knew he needed anything before these events, as the only commands He had yet to give him necessarily reflected his responsibility (to cultivate the garden), his provision and the one restriction.

It is only after she is around, does Genesis 1:28 happen (which may mean that He (God) didn't actually personally command her about eating ... but that's a whole different can'o'worms).

But there is something to notice here too. If the animals in Genesis 2:19 could be said to have a similar creation to that of the man, the same IS NOT true of the woman. She is "fashioned" from something taken from the man and is not called from the Earth nor formed from the ground. She is distinct, even from the man.

But so too may the animals formed in 2:19 be distinct from their earlier counterparts. They are in comparison special creations created for this process that I've termed an object lesson.

The lesson?

Maybe that the man (and us by extension) should to not look to the created world, or at least the world of animals, to find or fulfill his needs for meaningful fellowship besides his relationship to his God.

Maybe so the man would understand the difference between the woman and everything else.

In any case, and it must be stated, God was hardly surprised that the man didn't have a thing for any of these animals––even if they were specially created. He knew what He was doing and what He was doing was a process that led up to her creation.

So in a sense, the object lesson was a kind of election where innumerable candidates "lost" and was chosen––the correct one.

Think about it: even if the man didn't know WHY God was parading these animals in front of him, he did know that He wanted them to be named according to their nature. None of them had a nature that spoke of "helper" until he met her.

So here's where Genesis may actually demand something be true that the radical naturalist seem to deem a falsification of the creation story: the similarity of genotypes among the animals of all kinds.

Why? Well, even though God knew exactly what was going to happen when He presented Adam with this "choice," that doesn't mean that the offer to select a helper––suitable or not––wasn't genuine (kind of like the way God gives men the choice of what to do with Him ... to be in a right relationship on His terms or not). That's what makes it an object lesson: technically Adam may have had the ability tip make a choice that would have determined the final form for himself and his offspring.

For that choice to be legitimate, so that when he chooses the Woman later it has enhanced meaning, it would be necessary that the animals were at least somewhat like the man. Likewise, as representatives these would be the same as others like them. So when the man passes on every furry's dream, those animals would have still––by necessity––has considerable amounts of their genotype in common with the man (whose final form is now fixed ... a weak, hairless, defenseless biped with soft muscle tone, dull teeth and infantile features ... you know, us).

Of course, none of the above should be deemed anything theological to hang a hat upon ... It's just my analysis based on the text and what I know from science ... and I'm no one special.

[Theo]

We place limits on God by believing what He said? That's a strange thing to think.

No, I'd argue that those who say God fumbled about for millions of years (or are you up to "billions" at this point in your little frog-to-prince fairy tale?) before he "got it right" are the ones placing limits on god.

[Rurudyne]

Pity you didn't wait around for me.

YEC shouldn't be seen as inherently in conflict with evolution as observed.

What Darwin SHOULD HAVE been contrasted to was not Genesis but rather a doctrine about creation that demanded––for example––that the lions on London's Zoo were the exact same as the lions Adam and Eve knew. This idea––all things in their current form––is scripturally unsupportable BUT it was and is an accepted idea (its persistence due to folks circling their proverbial wagons) ... one that can be said to be scientifically disproved. Simply, we can observe adaptation (i.e. "evolution") with certain fast-living "kinds" (to use a Bible term) that amounts to species differentiation.

But that doesn't mean we can demonstrate evolution outside of a "kind" ... a term that is actually not precisely defined except for the one instance of mankind and everything else. Even then, I would maintain the Genesis tale should be reasonably said to demand of nature what some now deem a falsification of YEC.

As for evolution within a "kind"––what some have called micro-evolution––the rise of ideas like punctuated equilibrium have systematically rendered the need for long eras to pass before species may differentiate. All that is needed is opportunity and /or hardship to spur animals to enter into new ecological niches. In Genesis the periods after the fall and (especially) the flood would have been prime candidates for two epochs of the differentiation of species.

Care to rumble?

[caffe]

Genesis contradictions?
In Genesis chapter 2 the order of creation seems to be different to that in chapter 1 with the animals being created (2:19) after Adam (2:7). Doesn’t the Bible contradict itself here?
by Don Batten

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ‘documentary (JEDP) hypothesis’ still taught in many Bible colleges. [Ed. note: for a refutation of this fallacious and anti-Christian theory, see Did Moses really write Genesis?.]

The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heaven’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:la).

Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female created he them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.

[caffe]

try reading my last previous post. To somehow make an exception to the clear meaning of the text of Genesis is to rip original sin and its consequences out of the scripture. All Biblical references to the literal meaning of the text both in the O.T. and the N. T. must then be ripped from there foundation.

The geography and history of both the OT and NT are factually correct. I could go on and on about archeological discoveries that prove many of the "stories" . Another example would be the history of Israel. We are seeing what Scripture foretold becoming clearer and clearer. Also, all prophecy that was foretold, especialy those concerning Christ's death and resurrection ( I think more than 300 of them) all were literally fulfilled.
I release that liberation (liberal) theology likes to pick and choose what to take literally and what to intrepret as symbolic but if one actually studies this approach to scripture, it is a literary nightmare - let alone satanic in it's very nature. Satan said to Eve "doth God say.."
and then restated God's words so that Eve could humanly justify her actions. We experience this today with theologians who appeal to "itchy ears" (People who want to create a God that fits their personal lifestyle )
Obvioiusly,in God's Word there are various uses of symbols, etc. yet generally these symbolic expressions have a literal meaning if one does a correct exegesis of scripture. Revelation is rich with what might appear as mythological..yet using the OT references as well as NT, we can see that the symbolic language has specific literal meaning.

[Rurudyne]

I think that you may have not read what I posted.

I am not maintaining that there is a conflict or contradiction in Genesis ... only proposing that the animal referenced in Genesis 2:19 are not all the animals but could have been merely representatives on three accounts.

First, the process used to describe their creation would seem to be different.

Second, only some animals are indicated ... there are whole classes of animals NOT represented. If it is understood that Adam was not presented with every possible kind of animal to name––that zoology is not the oldest profession after all––then it is not really necessary that the animals which he was presented with were part of an earlier creation of their respective kinds in general.

Third, just as it would be a logical fallacy to assert that "since all Standup Philosophers are BS Artist therefore all BS Artist are Standup Philosophers" (arguing an absolute from a petite case) it would also be a logical fallacy to demand that "since all of the kinds of animals were created before the man therefore all animals were created before the man."

All that is necessary is that all animals of all kinds were created before the woman. It is not a scriptural necessity that they all predated (prehoured?) the man, proper.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping, dear brother in Christ! betty boop will have an article shortly I'm very sure you'll enjoy discussing...

[betty boop]

Modern science is “naturalistic”: it deliberately ignores moral, religious and aesthetic aspects of reality and studies the world as if nothing exists but physical phenomena. However, this is a methodological, not a metaphysical naturalism; it is adopted for the limited objectives of science, not as a total world view. Science may provide evidence that makes it easier or more difficult for a person to believe in God; but strictly speaking, the question of God’s existence or nonexistence, or how God relates to nature and human beings, is outside the domain of legitimate scientific inquiry.... Science gives us one very valuable and powerful kind of knowledge. But when scientists or others claim that it is the only valid or publicly appropriate kind of knowledge, this is scientism, not science... .Most conflicts we face today are not between science and theology (or religion) but between divergent moral, religious, philosophical, and political visions of what it means to flourish as human beings.

Halleluja! Spot-on post, curiosity! I especially loved what Baer had to say about the logical positivists:

"At one time, the school of philosophers called logical positivists attempted to give such unique validity to scientific knowledge. They promoted the so-called “verification principle”: the claim that only knowledge resting on empirical data or sense experience constitutes valid knowledge. Of course, these philosophers overlooked the fact that the verification principle itself could not meet its own criteria for legitimacy. It is well understood today that this philosophical project failed."

Drive a silver stake through their vampire hearts, I say. (:^) [just kidding....]

Thank you so very much for this great post!

[jonesboheim]

The geography and history of both the OT and NT are factually correct. I could go on and on about archeological discoveries that prove many of the "stories"

Have any discoveries shown that there were 2 of each dinosaurs on Noah's ark?

Since many of the stories in the Pentateuch were cobbled together from other, older mythologies (mainly Sumerian and Mesopotamian) can we assume those mythologies are "proven" as well? Creating man out of clay, the serpent/devil, God flooding the land because he is displeased with his creation - these are hardly unique ideas to Judeo Christian mythology.