A Perspective on Evolution

[DJB2034]

"But the problem I have is that whilst Jesus was a spiritual teacher, He also was the Son of God as you seem to admit to and came down from heaven. Jesus admitted that Himself that He was with the Father and came down from heaven. That makes Him different from any other spiritual teacher. The bible says Jesus was actually there when the world was created and it was Jesus who created it (see Col 1:16 ), so Jesus knew exactly how the world and even the universe came about."

This is getting into some theology that I would be a fool to even begin to talk about like I know it. What follows is my opinion based on my limited knowledge of religious philosophy.

I do know that in the trinity, there is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. And Jesus, as one with God, but being a separate person, etc., would have been one of these three singular yet triune beings. So of course he was a part of creation. Now, the problem with creation stories (when taken literally) is that they are pure mythology. And oftentimes, this mythology is based off of another mythology before it. Hence, all the thematic and literary similarities between different religions. Now, I need to talk about modern thought vs. their thought. When Christianity was beginning, people understood the world differently. They did not think in our current enlightened manner. They were superstitious and looked to myths for truth. We have since changed and now view things with a Western scientific mindset, equating "fact" with "what is written." Not so back then. If Jesus were to tell them, "Lo! I created the world and this is how I did it" I am sure he would lose them. Their concernns (and Jesus' concerns) were spiritual, not scientific. The importance of the bible is not in its historicity; it is in its message. Why didn't Jesus just tell them everything? He is the son of god and apparently created the world; he could have modernized their society in a matter of days (seven, perhaps?). But no. Jesus addressed the important issues of the time, which happen to be the important issues of pretty much every time; it's the human condition. I will reiterate that the Bible is not a science book and Jesus was not here to give us that information.

"And yet Jesus never denied the creation account of Genesis, ever. He even referred to it at times as if it were literal fact (Mark 10:6, Matt 19:5, ) I would have thought that Jesus would have corrected His disciples understanding of creation, if it were ever wrong in the first place.

How can you explain that? "

Jesus was talking to them in their language. In my Bible, Mark 10:6 says "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made there male and female.'" Jesus said this. Now, I am not a translator, but in the context of the story (about divorce), Jesus seems to be making the point that man is meant for woman in God's eyes and it is meant to be a lasting union. What if Jesus said this? "But from the beginning, mankind eventually became what he is today through a process of gradual change over time, and it is spiritually and emotionally healthy for you to find a life partner whom you love." What!? Of course Jesus is going to explain things in terms they understand.

Also, I know atheists who quote scripture in order to make a point. They may not believe in God, but they understand the metaphor of the scripture and its helpfulness in getting an idea across. Jesus always quoted the old testament. It was the peoples' way of understanding the world, and for Jesus to really get through to them, of course he drew on the current mythological basis for understanding.

 

[DJB2034]

"I know atheists who quote scripture in order to make a point. They may not believe in God, but they understand the metaphor of the scripture and its helpfulness in getting an idea across."

I realized my mistake. I'm waiting for the first person to say, "DJB, I think you may have been hanging out with them too much. Their loose attitude has rubbed off on you."

I would respond that anyone can use scripture to shed light on a topic, not just atheists. I was pointing out the universality of it. Jesus used it, preachers use it, atheists use it....

 

[EconGrad]

If the theory of evolution is correct, I don't see how we can say:

"Evolution did it, not God".

If the theory of evolution is correct than it suggests God had a tremendously complex plan when he spoke our Universe into existence and formed its natural laws. He didn't need to do things simply but could watch as his laws upheld by his word gradually fulfilled his divine plan.

I think Adam and Eve were actual people. If evolution is accurate than Adam and Eve were the first people to have God's image imprinted upon (obviously) animal bodies. That's why Cain didn't have trouble finding a wife there were plenty of other people out there who were not sons of God (bearers of God's image).

We're not just bodies (like fish) or bodies with minds (like chimps) but we're a union of body, mind and spirit.

I'm not scared of evolution. It appears to be a beautiful theory. However I'm not going to make evolution a dogma. It's just science not dogma.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Jesus was talking to them in their language. In my Bible, Mark 10:6 says "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made there male and female.'" Jesus said this. Now, I am not a translator, but in the context of the story (about divorce), Jesus seems to be making the point that man is meant for woman in God's eyes and it is meant to be a lasting union. What if Jesus said this? "But from the beginning, mankind eventually became what he is today through a process of gradual change over time, and it is spiritually and emotionally healthy for you to find a life partner whom you love." What!? Of course Jesus is going to explain things in terms they understand.

Because of this, don't you think Jesus would want all His followers to believe in the Genesis account in the same way that the apostles did? Despite any evidence on how the world really came about?
Remember that evolutionary thinking existed at the time, with the Greeks and the Romans, even since 500 BC. I don't think it was beyond their intellectual ability to understand, if Jesus chose to teach them about evolution. What do you think?

 

[DJB2034]

Well, mahoganysnail, I don't know if Jesus would have wanted to tell them anything that they didn't already know that was within his knowledge. Remember, evolution is the theory with the most controversy surrounding it today, but it is not the only theory in existence that was unknown to the people back then, or even the only one that contradicts scripture. Remember Galileo? I really doubt that Jesus was concerned with reforming their scientific knowledge.

 

[DJB2034]

I mean, keep in mind that Jesus' powers extended far beyond knowledge and intellect. Had he wanted to, he could control the physical universe any way he pleased. Make rocks float, control water, do literally anything. Jesus' way was restraint and fear of God, not showiness. The devil tempted him and he denied him (as the story goes).

Jesus knew more about the universe than we know today. He knew more than the people who he appeared to, who by our standards were primitive. But by Jesus' standards, our modern society really knows about as much as their society. If Jesus came again, I imagine he would teach the same message of love and devotion, and would probably do so by drawing on ideas that are commonplace to us in order to make his point. I can't say for sure, but I doubt he would reveal the mysteries of, say, time and space, or inter-dimensional travel, which is currently the cutting edge. Heck, if our current theories are wrong, he could still use them as analogies to convey his spiritual message... Which could then be misinterpreted by future generations as scientific revelation, and not perfect spiritual teaching based on flawed understanding.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Well, mahoganysnail, I don't know if Jesus would have wanted to tell them anything that they didn't already know that was within his knowledge. Remember, evolution is the theory with the most controversy surrounding it today, but it is not the only theory in existence that was unknown to the people back then, or even the only one that contradicts scripture. Remember Galileo? I really doubt that Jesus was concerned with reforming their scientific knowledge.

Jesus knew more about the universe than we know today. He knew more than the people who he appeared to, who by our standards were primitive. But by Jesus' standards, our modern society really knows about as much as their society. If Jesus came again, I imagine he would teach the same message of love and devotion, and would probably do so by drawing on ideas that are commonplace to us in order to make his point. I can't say for sure, but I doubt he would reveal the mysteries of, say, time and space, or inter-dimensional travel, which is currently the cutting edge. Heck, if our current theories are wrong, he could still use them as analogies to convey his spiritual message... Which could then be misinterpreted by future generations as scientific revelation, and not perfect spiritual teaching based on flawed understanding.

But you are forgetting that Jesus did teach his disciples many things beyond their understanding, and he basically turned their world upside down with his teachings. I don't think their lack of understanding would have stopped Jesus from telling them the truth anyway. And yet you say Jesus would have not taught them about evolution because they wouldn't have understood it. But I would think that teaching them about evolution would only be a small step compared with teaching them that He was God in the flesh.

I mean, they teach evolution to primary school children these days , I was taught about it at age 8 at school.

So I don't buy your idea that the reason Jesus didn't tell them about evolution was because they wouldn't have been able to undertand it. Remember that evolutionary thinking did exist at the time of Jesus and even 500 years prior. And if Jesus and his disciples did not encounter it during Jesus's time on earth, I suggest that Paul in his travels and contacts with Greece and Rome certainly would have known about it.

The only reason in my mind that Jesus didn't teach evolution, was because it was wrong. And if Jesus taught something which He knew was wrong , then that is basically saying Jesus was lying everytime He told them about creation. Which we know is impossible for the Son of God cannot lie.

 

[lifetime]

Just a few observations while reading through this thread ....

How does a person deny the process of evolution without denying their own process of reason?

Love didn't start anywhere. God is love and God is eternal, therefore no start and no end.

With God anything is possible. Whatever probability we assign to this or that theory, to deny the possibilities is to challenge God and in my own experience He's happy to step up for it.

 

[DJB2034]

Well then it looks like you've solved the problem of evolution. I suggest putting all your findings into a scientific journal, peer-reviewing it, and getting it published. It would rock the world. It's so simple! Just look at the facts:

1. Jesus cannot lie
2. Jesus implied to his disciples that the creation story was the true one
3. Jesus said nothing about evolution

The logical conclusion, then, is that evolution is false and the world was created as the Bible said. If only we had known this a century ago, we wouldn't have wasted all our time and effort for nothing!

In all seriousness, I don't know what more I can say in this discussion. You are not in the right mindset to understand scientific truths. You have presupposed a conclusion, and it is one that you attach to for emotional reasons, not logical ones. I don't want to speculate on what Jesus did or did not say and his reasons for doing or not doing so. So, I really can't debate this with you because you're on a different page.

 

[MahogonySnail]

1. Jesus cannot lie
2. Jesus implied to his disciples that the creation story was the true one
3. Jesus said nothing about evolution

Considering that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the bible says the world was Created by Him... surely this outweighs any scientific "evidence"
I thought you believed Jesus was the Son of God?

The logical conclusion, then, is that evolution is false and the world was created as the Bible said. If only we had known this a century ago, we wouldn't have wasted all our time and effort for nothing!

Or, another logical conclusion is that if evolution is true, Jesus wants His followers to believe in the creation account of Genesis anyway, just like He did with his dsiciples, because a lot of the bible (eg Jesus's teaching on marriage) wouldn't make sense without it). And if so, it would make your arguments pointless in trying to convince Christians of the truth of evolution.

 

[thefightinglamb]

I didn't mean to say you are a robot.

I was trying to show how frameworks or horizons are drawn in the mind...

If the mind uses the emperical to form what is reason, then whatever one sees becomes what reason is...this is what you base your definition of "reason" on, but perhaps you also see your 'reason' as evolving which is an interesting concept as well...

But I was also trying to show that things are not rational and that the rational basis of 'evolution' is flawed as a human concept for many reasons...

When we come up with a theory we often try to see all the things that fit into the theory, with evolution it is really impossible...Science is stepping outside human experience to suggest a theory or law that controls or governs 'advencement' or 'enlightenment' as one age would call it...but what did enlightenment lead to? Existentialism... The advancement of following things that show without following "God' (I don't know what secular term to use here 'the good' maybe) led to people being divorced from themselves, each other , and this world...aka. a lot of the chaos we have now.

Evolution is a philosophy as every other thing is...and as such it is troublesome. What does the world evolve mean? When Darwin wrote this term you can almost see the cold world scientificly disected without God or even human experience. God doesn't do anything, things themselves evolve, this theory says...Human will does little they evolve as organisms...You can almost see the cold world crowding around a naked and alien human in a far and far more alien world.

I wasn't saying you are a robot, once more, but focusing on the physical causes you to miss the spiritual. It is the same with my brother, Jesus is different then you imagine him to be, he is near to you, "in whom you live, and breathe, and have your being" as Paul says.

They are worldviews, but the spiritual penetrates the physical...as scripture says..."but he who is spiritual knows the value of all things and his value is known to none."

 

[Truth4All]

DJB said:

Macroevolution is a practically undisputed theory in the scientific community.

Excerpt from talkorigins.org

"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution."

Now if I were going to resort to your juvenile tactics, I would call you a liar or an unwitting victim of the evolution propaganda machine. Instead, I will simply say you are mistaken. Please don't disappoint me now by saying something lame like "well the scientists that dispute it are advocates of ID so they don't count".


DJB said:

However, I do know that things evolve step-by-step and that a part which functions one way can and does evolve into a part that does something completely different. This is where my knowledge of evolution begins to get cloudy; like I said, I am an amateur.

A brilliant case of "I don't know if or why it's true but the experts I trust tell me it is so I believe it ."

DBJ said:

I will start off by saying that I do not know exactly how the circulatory system and the heart and other organs evolved, because I am not a walking encyclopedia.

And yet you are quite certain that all the organs MUST have evolved side-by-side because ID is false due to the fact that scientists you don't understand say it is. Very compelling.

DJB said:

From your perspective, the only people to not find ID as the best answer are conspiracy-mongerers and uneducated folk.

Let me try to make an appeal to your common sense. Would it not seem appropriate for a home builder to first draw up plans before putting hammer to nail? Would it not make sense for a computer programmer to first construct a high level architectural diagram and a systems integration diagram prior to writing a single line of code? Would it not make sense for an author to put together a table of contents and chapter notes before writing a book? I'm quite certain you'd say yes to all of these (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So why then when it comes to the creation of life on planet earth that it makes perfect sense to you that God would just wing it? "Hey maybe I'll try mixing these genes with some chromosomes over here and see what happens. Oh, well that didn't work, well let me flip a few bits on this chromosome and see what I get. Oh dear, that didn't work either, let me try something else." Billions of years later God creates man. You don't find that idea absurd? You don' think that would be offensive to the God who gave you life?

Speaking of God, I see in your profile under "spirituality" you specified "unsure". Now in this forum you've been talkin' the talk about believing in "God", but I notice it is always in very nebulous terms. I'm going to ask you a few questions that are personal but which are probably key for everyone on this thread to understanding where the heck you're coming from. I know other people have tried to nail you down but you've been very cagey about it. If you'd like, I'd be happy to publicly answer the same questions I'm asking you.

1) Is your god a personal or impersonal god?

2) Is your god the god followed by the Judeo-Christian faith?

3) Are you a Christian?

4) Do you believe the Bible contains the word of God?

5) Do you believe the expression "all paths lead to heaven"?

6) Do you believe there is a heaven?

7) Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God that died for our sins?

8) Do you believe there is a hell?

9) Do you believe that a loving God would send people to hell?

 

[thefightinglamb]

It is also what maybe caused the crowds to want to see miracles, becuase if you saw them; maybe scientifically they too were changed in their thinking...As you said we are spiritually in the same situations in this world without the Spirit.

 

[DJB2034]

"And if so, it would make your arguments pointless in trying to convince Christians of the truth of evolution."

Bingo.

 

[lifetime]

Ok, how can you have microevolution without macroevolution? That just doesn't make sense.

I think this debate is so often made into something way more complex than it actually is. Evolution is happening right now as we speak. Therefore evolution is real. The only question is where did it begin?

That's one of the beauties of life is its mysteries and I believe God fully intends for it to be so for yes what He created is good. How we answer the question has alot to do with whether we use the gifts God has given us or ignore them, whether there's awareness or repression, light or darkness. It's up to God really for He IS in control of everything.

 

[thefightinglamb]

I was praying and thinking over this last night...and I think the Bible teaches 'evolution' from the beginning to a certain extant...

God created the earth and the waters, and instead of just creating animals, he says "let the earth bring forth living creatures" while adding "and God made the beasts of the earth."

The same with the sea "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures" and "so God created the great sea creatures."

In these passages Godf could have just said let their be living creatures and there were, but he doesn't; I think the Lord speakes to God in that inexplicable dialogue with the Father and says let them bring forth or swarm...So animals and plants both come from the earth or the sea, and it seems 'they evolved in this sense".

But the premices that Christianity can't support that 'the theory of evolution" supports are three that I can think of

1-Man came from 'other' animals--I do not think what it means to be human makes us an animal whatsoever.
2-Survival of the fittest
3-Competition is how life survives, aka denying others life

1-I have tried to show how this cannot be true, don't know if I have succeeded...
2-As Eccliasiastes and life itself testifies, the fittest don't survive, 'chance and circumstance happen to us all' both man and beast...or if you want to look at it through Christianity's lens, it is all God's grace. Meaning that the fittest organisms often starve or die, while less 'evolved' organisms survive...Just because you are the fastest/smartest leapard doesn't mean you are going to find a deer.
3-Human experience also shows us that we survive not really by competing with each other for the mightiest, but buy working together to achieve advancement...Meaning I do not get ahead by striving to preserve my genes but by becoming a part of a society that preserves genes together...

Sorry, but it does seem Christianity at least suggests evolution...so when anyone denies it just look at how God formed animals, by letting them come from the earth, what possibly could that mean but evolution?

God bless
tony

 

[Truth4All]

I was praying and thinking over this last night...and I think the Bible teaches 'evolution' from the beginning to a certain extant...

God created the earth and the waters, and instead of just creating animals, he says "let the earth bring forth living creatures" while adding "and God made the beasts of the earth."

The same with the sea "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures" and "so God created the great sea creatures."

That's an interesting point. But by definition evolution is a change in the gene pool. Creation would be the establishment of the gene pool, don't you think? For what ever reason whenever I try to imagine the initial creation I see an image of God molding pieces of clay into various shapes and then "blowing life" into their nostrils (as described in Genesis 2:7). Perhaps the breath of life is synonymous with the introduction of the gene pool.

 

[mommygrace]

The entire theory of Evolution wipes out the truth of the Gospel if it were in any way true...There was all kinds of death in the process of evolution and the Bible clearly teaches that death is the result of sin...the original sin of Adam in the garden.
The wages of sin is death....there was no death before sin.....
If there was death before the original sin then God lied and our faith is baseless...

I study the theory of evolution ....the problems that Darwin admitted to facing with his theory are still the same problems with the theory today.
1. No transitional forms
2. amazing complexity..for example the human eye....
3.the instinct of animals
4. and the sterility in crossbreeding species.

DNA would need new information to evolve. DNA when it changes with in the species loses...not gains information...
The whole creation is in a state of losing complexity not gaining it. The 2ond law of thermodynamics clearly states that.....how can they refuse to follow the very firm stated laws of nature.
Evolution goes against these laws/.
The Theory of evolution is so foreign to logic that only an intense desire to deny a Designer can force the acceptance of such illogical logic.
It is a theory...yet our schools insist on teaching it as a fact.
The fossil record is more in tune with the Worldwide flood...Billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
It has been shown in labs...by scientists who do not believe the Bible even. that a fossil can be formed in HOURS!!!!!

Both Evolution and Creation have to be accepted by faith...both are faith based....I prefer to put my faith in a loving God who gave us a remedy for the sin problem that has cured the earth He created.True Science must be
1.Observable
2. Testable
3. Repeatable.
Neither Evolution nor Creation are Science...
What we need to do is take the evidence..the fossil record and look at it through the eyes of Truth...The Word of God.
Different scientists take the same information and look at it through different glasses.
The come up with opposing viewpoints. Man's reasoning will never line up with the truth of The Word of God..
"The heart is deceitful and desperatly wicked who can know it."
and "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh"

 

[Truth4All]

I prefer to put my faith in a loving God who gave us a remedy for the sin problem that has cured the earth He created.

Amen sister.

 

[DJB2034]

Excerpt from talkorigins.org

"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution."

A quote from the same site:

"Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences."

And another...

"This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."

Please don't disappoint me now by saying something lame like "well the scientists that dispute it are advocates of ID so they don't count".

All scientists are trying their hardest to dispute it, but the reason that it remains the accepted scientific theory is that it is the one that is supported by the most evidence. This is unlike creationism or Intelligent Design, which neither have nor can have scientific evidence in favor of them. This is because ID is un-testable. All it says is "the complexity of the natural world indicates an intelligent designer." That's it. Asking for scientific testing and analysis of that is like asking a scientist to determine the moral worth of an individual. So, yes, the only scientists who continue to seriously dispute evolution in favor of creationism or Intelligent Design are biased, because neither of the other two have any scientific value.

Let me try to make an appeal to your common sense. Would it not seem appropriate for a home builder to first draw up plans before putting hammer to nail? Would it not make sense for a computer programmer to first construct a high level architectural diagram and a systems integration diagram prior to writing a single line of code? Would it not make sense for an author to put together a table of contents and chapter notes before writing a book? I'm quite certain you'd say yes to all of these (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So why then when it comes to the creation of life on planet earth that it makes perfect sense to you that God would just wing it? "Hey maybe I'll try mixing these genes with some chromosomes over here and see what happens. Oh, well that didn't work, well let me flip a few bits on this chromosome and see what I get. Oh dear, that didn't work either, let me try something else." Billions of years later God creates man. You don't find that idea absurd? You don' think that would be offensive to the God who gave you life?

What I hear you saying is that if evolution was in God's plan, that God would not have the ability to see into the future and know exactly how his creation would turn out..... Rrrrriiiiiggghhht......