Finally Picked a creation stance.

[Silvertusk]

I don't mean this as offense to anyone, but I've seen a trend over the last two years on this forum with members almost wanting to embrace TE. And it seems to be motivated by neutralizing the "threat" of having their faith undermined. Well, Silver said it verbatum. I am saddened to hear these type of statements and I doubt my concerns will be rightly understood, as I feel like I am seeing this from a new perspective. After years of this, I find the whole issue a false dichotomy. A discussion that has made the Bible something it is not. Whether Ross or Ham or anywhere in between, I see Satan laughing in the corner at the whole debate. So, pardon me if I don't rejoice in your comfort.

Or you can see it as we do, from the perspective that theology and science are separate and distinct that just happen to harmonize rather than contradict. It is that which brings comfort, not the erroneous assumption that one drives the other.

Agreed.

[Silvertusk]

Byblos, I certainly understand that, as I've wrestled those positions for a good part of my Christian adult life. And the problem as I see it (and it's simply my opinion) is that what you state is actually the problem. It presumes to resolve contradictions, and harmonize the Bible to the natural world. (what I would call man's wisdom.) I understand that. Oddly this is exactly the same driving force behind Ham whether you want to admit it or not. Just two ends to the same stick. I could even say something very similar if ST had said, 'I've finally resolved to be a literal 6 day, 6,000 year creationist.' Either way, some authority outside the scripture is pressuring.

Again you are missing the point - I see it that a certain interpretation of the Bible harmonizes with science and a theory that has a massive amount of supporting evidence, like the same way I believe in Christ and God because of the massive amount of supporting evidence. I know longer see contradictions. There is nothing outside of scripture that is doing this - it is scripture itself that provides the harmony.

[PaulSacramento]

If we accept that mircoevolution exists ( and I think that the majority do), then I think the issue isn't so much evolution but the notion that evolution doesn't need a God to "get it going" ( at least).
It makes sense to me that God would create life with the ability to adapt and survive in our ever challenging environment.

[jlay]

This topic is always a contentious one so everyone please take a deep breath and think on what you're posting and the manner in which it is stated.

Of course there can be no contradictions between nature and nature's God. That isn't the issue. What ST is saying is that TE is important because it makes him feel safe. It begs the question, because it presumes evolution (Darwinism) is correct, and the Bible needs to be brought in line with such. I would contend that for some trying to reconcile these things has lead them away from the faith. TE is rejecting the special creation of man. It makes much of the OT an allegory.

I didn't read that (underlined) at all from Silver's post. What I took from it is exactly what I stated, which is that if TE is true it poses no threat whatsoever to our theology because we see no conflict between it and scripture. Can you say the same?

For the sake of this answer I am defining evolution as Darwinism, in that man shrares a common ancestor with apes. What other terms we put before 'evolution' really makes no difference to me. I absolutely see a conflict between Darwinism and reality. If the Bible is reality then Darwinism is in conflict, period. I've demononstrated the Darwinism is founded on question begging, conflating and equivocaiton. If someone is comforted by believing that Darwinism creates no controversy with their faith, then there is no way I can be honestly congratulate them.
I reject TE on it's face. I think it is a dangerous lie and compromise.

If we accept that mircoevolution exists ( and I think that the majority do), then I think the issue isn't so much evolution but the notion that evolution doesn't need a God to "get it going" ( at least).
It makes sense to me that God would create life with the ability to adapt and survive in our ever challenging environment.

I am with you Paul. The problem is that TE doesn't mean this. TE is basically Christians who believe Darwinism, and reject the special creation of man.

[Silvertusk]

Cool to hear Silvertusk. Maybe we could discuss aspects of theistic evolution sometime.

Jlay you almost make it sound like it's a virtue to stay inside of a bubble that rejects/ignores all knowledge/thoeries/otherwise outside of the Bible.

Certainly. I am still a novice in this areas - but it seems quite convincing to me. A couple of very brief points that were certainly interesting were:

1) Genesis as a theological truth that stamps God's sovereignty over all creation including the creation of the so called pagan deities such as the sun, moon, and sea monsters.

2) The way the days are separated in first filling the void 1-3, then the form 4-6 of earth - the Tohu and the Bohu (in hebrew) which follows nicely on with Genesis 1:2 - again emphasizing more theological truths - but not giving us a scientific discourse.

3) The age old debate about the way the days are interpreted.

4) The fact that the first mention of the creation of man is not about a single man but the whole human race. Adam is mentioned as a name belonging to an individual later in the creation story when mankind seems already established and it is him that is placed in Eden.

5) The way that God is imminent in creation through all time maintaining it and not just at the beginning. Why can't this be evolution?

6) The fact all through Genesis there is not one mention of the methods God used to create so why can't this be evolution?

These are some of the questions I have mulled over anyway. Not saying I have got any real concrete answers to them - but I am certainly becoming more convinced of the TE standpoint.

[Silvertusk]

jlay wrote:
It presumes to resolve contradictions, and harmonize the Bible to the natural world. (what I would call man's wisdom.)

I don't see why this is a bad thing. The bible is inspired by God, and creation was created by God. There can be no contradictions between nature and the bible. The only contradictions are with man's interpretations of scripture, and man's interpretations of the evidence of nature. Trying to reconcile the two can only further show that God is the author of both scripture, and nature.

Of course there can be no contradictions between nature and nature's God. That isn't the issue. What ST is saying is that TE is important because it makes him feel safe. It begs the question, because it presumes evolution (Darwinism) is correct, and the Bible needs to be brought in line with such. I would contend that for some trying to reconcile these things has lead them away from the faith. TE is rejecting the special creation of man. It makes much of the OT an allegory.

Jlay you almost make it sound like it's a virtue to stay inside of a bubble that rejects/ignores all knowledge/thoeries/otherwise outside of the Bible.

No sir. I had a feeling I'd be getting these kind of responses. ST is in fact climbing inside the bubble of TE because it eases his mind that his faith might be in conflict with what the world believes regarding man's origins. You guys can pat him on the back all you want. I say shame on you.

Evolution is not rejecting the special creation of man considering it took 14 billion years and an entire universe to do it - And we are the pinnacle of evolution hosting the most complex organism in the universe - the human brain. I think that makes us very special.

[Silvertusk]

This topic is always a contentious one so everyone please take a deep breath and think on what you're posting and the manner in which it is stated.

Of course there can be no contradictions between nature and nature's God. That isn't the issue. What ST is saying is that TE is important because it makes him feel safe. It begs the question, because it presumes evolution (Darwinism) is correct, and the Bible needs to be brought in line with such. I would contend that for some trying to reconcile these things has lead them away from the faith. TE is rejecting the special creation of man. It makes much of the OT an allegory.

I didn't read that (underlined) at all from Silver's post. What I took from it is exactly what I stated, which is that if TE is true it poses no threat whatsoever to our theology because we see no conflict between it and scripture. Can you say the same?

That is in fact exactly what I am saying - and if it turns out that evolution is not true (although seemingly unlikely at the moment) then I am in a win win situation here. My faith in God's sovereignty will still be strong.

[Silvertusk]

I just find it very very comforting to know that there is no threat to my faith from evolution - and really evolution is neutral in the debate and it is only the new-athiests that have hijacked it as a tool to promote their natualistic beliefs.

What kind of evolution are you talking about? The word has more than one meaning and whether evolution contradicts the Bible depends on which meaning you are using.

We see a process called natural selection through which different varieties of organism develop from the same ancestors by adapting to different environments. Two obvious examples of this are the different breeds of dogs and the different races of humans. This kind of evolution is called microevolution and doesn't contradict the Bible in any way. God didn't create every species that exists today but only created a few kinds, each of which contained enough genetic information so that all the species we see today would descend from them. This kind of evolution selects from genetic information that already exists; it doesn't produce any new information and so couldn't occur if all life descended from some simple single celled organism.

The other kind of evolution is called macroevolution. It is the belief that the simplest form of life developed gradually from inorganic matter and all the different forms of life we see today came from this source. In order for this to happen life would have to acquire genetic information that their ancestors didn't possess and there is no evidence that this is possible.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the difference between these two kinds of evolution:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

There is a logical fallacy called equivocation which consists of using a word which has two different meanings without distinguishing between them. Proponents of macroevolution of commit this fallacy. For example, they can point to evidence that proves the truth of microevolution and claim that it proves macroevolution is true. You can learn more about this fallacy here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... uivocation

Here is another interesting article about this subject:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -wholphins

Of course macroevolution contradicts a YEC view - especially one from answersingenesis - which I am sorry I think has very little credibility. But I am not a YEC so see no contradiction because I have a different interpretation of Genesis than you - to which I am entitled.

[PaulSacramento]

I am with you Paul. The problem is that TE doesn't mean this. TE is basically Christians who believe Darwinism, and reject the special creation of man.

That;s a huge statement dude...not sure of many TE that would agree with you.

[Byblos]

I am with you Paul. The problem is that TE doesn't mean this. TE is basically Christians who believe Darwinism, and reject the special creation of man.

That;s a huge statement dude...not sure of many TE that would agree with you.

It is and they don't.

If having been given a rational soul fashioned in the image of God is not special creation enough I simply don't know what to say to that.

[jlay]

That;s a huge statement dude...not sure of many TE that would agree with you.

If they do, they can certainly present the case as to why. I am certainly not the first person to claim that TE is Christian Darwinism.

[jlay]

Evolution is not rejecting the special creation of man considering it took 14 billion years and an entire universe to do it - And we are the pinnacle of evolution hosting the most complex organism in the universe - the human brain. I think that makes us very special.

I tell you what. Why don't you walk into the biology department here at the University of Tennessee (or any major university) and say, "Isn't it amazing how God soverignly took 14 billion years to arrive at the human brain, and endow us with a spirit. Don't you think that makes us special?" Wait on response and then you can tell me how comfortably your new worldview fits.

[Byblos]

Evolution is not rejecting the special creation of man considering it took 14 billion years and an entire universe to do it - And we are the pinnacle of evolution hosting the most complex organism in the universe - the human brain. I think that makes us very special.

I tell you what. Why don't you walk into the biology department here at the University of Tennessee (or any major university) and say, "Isn't it amazing how God soverignly took 14 billion years to arrive at the human brain, and endow us with a spirit. Don't you think that makes us special?" Wait on response and then you can tell me how comfortably your new worldview fits.

There are many TE scientists who believe exactly that, including might I add, the former head of the human genome project, Francis Collins.

[PaulSacramento]

That;s a huge statement dude...not sure of many TE that would agree with you.

If they do, they can certainly present the case as to why. I am certainly not the first person to claim that TE is Christian Darwinism.

Isn't Christian Darwinisim an oxymoron?
My understanding of TE ot TC (Theistic creation) is summed up:
...evolutionary creation as a description of how and when God brought about all the creatures on earth. We do not see God as distant from this process, for God did not just set up the universe at the beginning and let it go. Instead, he upholds the universe moment by moment, sustaining all things by the power of his word. The regular patterns in nature that we call natural laws have their foundation in the regular, faithful governance of God . Thus we believe that God created every species and did it in such a way that we can describe the creation process scientifically. The scientific model of evolution does not replace God as creator any more than the law of gravity replaces God as ruler of the planets.

Here are three examples of biblical attributes of God emphasized by studying evolutionary science:

God is extravagant. God did not create just one type of flower, but uses the system of evolution to create a huge variety of flowers, of every size, shape, color, and scent. As opposed to being “wasteful,” a biblical view of evolution helps us appreciate it as a pointer to the extravagance of God’s loving gift of life to the whole earth. God’s creation does not reflect a cold efficiency, but the transformation of such “waste” into worship, just as Jesus honored the woman who poured expensive perfume on his feet4 (Mark 14:3-9, John 12:3-8).
God is patient, and most often works gradually rather than instantaneously. In the natural world, we see God creating life over billions of years, not instantly, and grand geological processes playing out slowly over time, as well. Similarly, in the Bible we read of the centuries that passed between God’s covenant with Abraham and his covenant with David and the centuries more before Jesus appeared “in the fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4). In individual lives, God often works by planting his Word deep in us and letting it grow slowly over time. God seems pleased with the slow but extraordinary unfolding of his universe, just as he is patiently unfolding his plan of redemption.5
God is the provider. He provides for his creatures in each moment, giving them what they need to survive, adapt and thrive in communities of life. The Bible speaks of God feeding and caring for animals (Jonah 4:11, Psalm 104), and modern evolutionary science is shedding light on how God has arranged complex ecosystems that support many different kinds of creatures together. But God provides for his creatures even at the genetic level, giving species a measure of biological “creativity” to help them respond to new challenges. As biologist Richard Colling says, “Evolution is not about the imposition of death and destruction and survival of the fittest. Those things are a part of it, but not the main core of what evolution is. . . [The] evolutionary process of creating duplicate genes that give rise to new possibilities [is] redemption, it’s possibility, and it’s hope.”6

[Silvertusk]

Evolution is not rejecting the special creation of man considering it took 14 billion years and an entire universe to do it - And we are the pinnacle of evolution hosting the most complex organism in the universe - the human brain. I think that makes us very special.

I tell you what. Why don't you walk into the biology department here at the University of Tennessee (or any major university) and say, "Isn't it amazing how God soverignly took 14 billion years to arrive at the human brain, and endow us with a spirit. Don't you think that makes us special?" Wait on response and then you can tell me how comfortably your new worldview fits.

Quite comfortably thank you considering Time is for our benefit. 14 Billion years is meaningless to God.

Let me ask you a question - what type of universe do you think we need to have in order to give us perfect freewill? (Ignoring Calvinistic and deterministic ideas here).

Let me put a theory to you, something that C.S. Lewis himself touched upon. God wants to have the perfect relationship with us. A perfect relationship requires both parties to enter into it totally freely without any coercion or programming. Love given freely is pure. What sort of world would you need in order for you to have perfect freewill. You would need a world with set physical laws that are unchangeable so that you are able to understand the consequences of your choices - for instance - if I threw a brick at someone and it changed to foam because our physical laws are messed up - or God intervenes constantly - then it takes away my moral choice to throw the brick. A world that allows us perfect freewill needs to have set physical laws. Why can't the mechanisms of evolution be a byproduct of those physical laws (which they are) and therefore the way in which God brings about his creation? Creation does not have to be about what God can do - but what he wants. Yes God could create us in 6 days instantly - but he doesn't have to do it that way. He has set in motion all the physical laws of nature that evolves itself in order to produce its crowning glory - us, which God knew would happen - but then also allowing nature its freewill.

God maintains this through all time and then intervene on a more personal level to guide our souls.

Well there it is....take it or leave it.