Evidence for theistic evolution

[Kurieuo]

Also, if you're going to comment on what the Bible says, then you should at least be qualified to comment.
It isn't as easy to paint as "literal" vs "allegorical". I bet many who use the term "literal" don't even know the true meaning of it.
What do most Evangelical Biblical scholars mean by it? (these are after all the ones who advocate taking the Bible "literally").

I'd encourage you read over my posts here.
I know that I often loose people when talking, but happy to clarify anything there if you do wish to try and gain understanding of these matters.
But, until you are familiar with the issues then you have no right to comment on what is/isn't literal or interpretations really.
Nor you Audie. It's no different than YECs commenting to you about scientific matters.

I was not intending to draw a strict dichotomy of literal/allegorical, I appreciate there are a myriad of opinions. I read the thread linked a while back, but admittedly skimmed parts. Reading Genesis I find myself rejecting what I would consider the view of most Evangelical Biblical scholars, It doesn't particularly stand out as any more inspired than the texts of other traditions and I don't see much point in trying to harmonize a literal reading of the text with current scientific models.

Sorry, if I came across overly strong there.
Audie has since put me in my place, but I thank you for taking it on the chin.

As for most of Evangelical Biblical scholars would be YEC, perhaps your pastors and even lay Christians.
YECs are after all the most vocal in churches. They'll try get you involved in video nights, discussions on creation and the like, tell people any other position is compromise.
They're the best marketed position in all of Christendom, and so many Christians (Evangelical or not, even non-Christians) would have probably had a taste of it and be influenced towards YEC.

BUT, when it comes to actual Biblical scholars, then I think the tables have always been the opposite.
At the start of that thread that I previously mentioned, I really get into some deep debate regarding different theological points. Don't blame you or anyone if they lost interest and left.
However, take a read of Norman Geisler Believes Age of Earth Is Not a Matter of Scriptural Orthodoxy and ICBI Response to Scripture & Young-Earth Creationism.

Take the Evangelical scholars on the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy. In the founding membership there were over 30 discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis 1. Only one of these positions involved a 6-day recent creation. Henry Morris wanted the council to accede to the YEC position, but instead received stiff responses from many scholars who even claimed the YEC position makes Scripture contradict itself and err. That is quite astounding. These scholars are not your liberal wishy-washy Christians. These are very conservative Bible-believing Christians who established the standards of Biblical authority for modern Evangelical "Bible-believing" Christians and denominations (ones that many YEC-leaning pastors and Christians take for granted).

Certainly the majority were not YEC then, and I'm sure such would also be true today.
That is, at a Biblical scholarly level with those who understand and stick to the "literal" historical-grammatical rules of interpretation.

[Proinsias]

Proinsias wrote:
I was not intending to draw a strict dichotomy of literal/allegorical, I appreciate there are a myriad of opinions. I read the thread linked a while back, but admittedly skimmed parts. Reading Genesis I find myself rejecting what I would consider the view of most Evangelical Biblical scholars, It doesn't particularly stand out as any more inspired than the texts of other traditions and I don't see much point in trying to harmonize a literal reading of the text with current scientific models.

Just my opinion, as well as Rich Deem, Hugh Ross, and others, that a literal reading does harmonize with science. I suppose if you mean harmonize with "current scientific models" is the same as evolution, then you're probably correct. Evolution, even Theistic Evolution, doesn't harmonize with a literal biblical interpretation.

Yeah, in my understanding, and upbringing, the Catholic Church is largely fine with idea of the evolution of man, Adam being more of a metaphysical event of receiving the spirit of life as opposed to a novel physical creation from the dust of the earth. I suppose one could could work with it to allow for Adam coming from the dust of the earth to be shorthand for a long period of evolution from mud to man which is then gifted the breath of life but that already feels like a departure from a plain reading of the text.

K,

I wasn't suggesting that a majority, or even large percentage, of Evangelical scholars were YEC, the ICBI is pretty much what I expected. Norman Geilser believes a lot of things I don't but on occasion we converge:

"Is theistic evolution compatible to evangelical faith?" he asked. "No."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/chris ... le-106524/

[Kurieuo]

I agree that Theistic Evolution (TE) is not compatible with a "literal" historical-grammatical view of Scripture, and as such evangelicalism.
However, that doesn't leave a YEC interpretation as the default winner in the evangelical faith.

There are many other positions, including Progressive Creation interpretations which Geisler also leans towards.

That said, TE is compatible with Theism and Christianity.
I'm sure Geisler would agree with this, as would Jac and other YECs here.
Scripture is a secondary issue to Christ Himself.

[Proinsias]

Agreed

[Philip]

Proinsias, what I meant by saying that how one views the Bible (allegorical vs. literal) has nothing to do with evolution is, that whatever view people take of Scripture has no bearing upon whether evolution is true or not. Mere views and interpretations can be wrong. Of course, how one views the Bible has everything to do with how some view both evolution and some the Bible. Understandably, people look for affirming correlations or refutations from a variety of sources. And just to be sure, I wasn't just trying to be a wise guy or smug in my response, but only to hold a critical eye to things being said.

[crochet1949]

Scripture is where Christ reveals Himself to us -- it's our Primary source of Truth.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm still waiting for scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves.If God directed evolution then where is the evidence I've overlooked?I still have seen no evidence in science life evolves and I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.There is no reason to believe God directed evolution or caused it to happen if life does not evolve.

I have read about and I have seen what kind of evidence they use to demonstrate life evolves and all it did was show that when scientists in a lab see and observe variations in reproduction or life adapting they believe it is evidence life evolves even though in every case there is no evolving going on.It tells me that people ignore what the evidence shows but believe the scientist claiming it evolved.It is reproduction and adaptation that is used as evidence for life evolving by science.

[Philip]

I'm still waiting for scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves.If God directed evolution then where is the evidence I've overlooked?I still have seen no evidence in science life evolves and I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.There is no reason to believe God directed evolution or caused it to happen if life does not evolve.

What if evolution DID happen and that it was God directed what does that change - as those are critical questions.

If so, it tells me I can't know when a Scripture passage is mere allegory or plain truth. Then, that leads me to the same question about many other passages, as which is WHICH? Which then means I am required to choose and interpret without ever having ANY possible certainty over a passage's true meaning. And then I essentially become the determiner of Bible facts, truth and meaning, and the Bible basically becomes a book of prolific mythical, indecipherable tales, and basically worthless except for a fun to speculate on book. Let's not forget that the Creation passages and ones involving Adam and Eve, their sin, their resulting impact upon all of humanity, our need for a Savior, are ALL connected to these foundational Bible passages. So if they aren't actual and true??? And WHY would God give us some wild, symbolic story about Adam and Eve's origins rather than a factual account, as it would lead to many false understandings. And even as allegory, there is a total disconnect between the creations of Adam and Eve and the beasts that preceded them. To me, none of that makes any sense. If you accept evolution, you are effectively saying entire, long sequences of Foundational Bible passages don't mean what they actually say. And, if so, how am I to trust and believe God's word, as it COULD mean a whole host of theorized meanings that are worthless to me. Thus is the slippery, treacherous slope of theistic evolution.

Some like to assert that God took two of His previously created creatures - say, perhaps, a hominid resulting from an untold amount of past evolutionary time, and then installed them with souls. Again, the text argues against that possibility. Note the book-ending phrase, "And God saw that it was good," that punctuates an ending sequence and that comes AFTER the creation of ALL the animal life, each created "according to their kinds." Afterward ("Then") a clearly different Creation sequence begins - and one that is AFTER the creation of ALL of the animal kingdom. And how do you reconcile evolution with this, as obviously, the creatures that were the first men did not yet exist. And to make sure we don't miss the vast difference: God decides to create man,"in our image," as opposed to the animals He created "according to their kinds." And not only are we NOT told of two theoretical/supposed already evolved creatures becoming man, but the second one not only doesn't yet exist, but the first one is created with "dust from the ground." Not only that, Adam appears to be initially physically created as an adult and yet not alive until God "breathed into his (already existing but not yet living) nostrils the breath of life." So, it was only AFTER receiving God's "breath of life" that "the man became a living creature." Add in the fact that Eve not only had also not evolved, she wasn't yet alive and THEN (subsequent to Adam's creation) she was created from "rib that the Lord God had taken from the man," during the world's first apparent anesthesia and operative procedure.

Point of the above examination being is that, read allegorically, the creation of man story has an obvious and EMPHASIZED line of demarcation and difference in the creation of ALL of the animals and man, of their separate natures, and even between the period in which the first couple came into to being - neither alive, yet both being fully formed as adults, Adam from "dust of the ground" and Eve also created immediately, yet sometime afterward, her origin being Adam's rib. Even allegorically, you cannot read evolution into this story. And it's either true or not - else God made up an asserted allegorical tale that is irreconcilable with man springing from creatures that preceded him. And, in the first books of the Bible, there are far more complex things that Scripture required early Israel to understand - were they so dumb that God had to replace the truth with a "rib" and "dust" story that makes no sense, even symbolically? And if Adam and Eve weren't real people, you might as well throw much of your Bible away! This text just doesn't appear to be reconcilable with evolution, not with Adam and Eve. One might - MIGHT, mind you - reconcile evolution with events OUTSIDE of the Garden, as opposed to those within it. But, at least with humans, that would appear at odds with Genesis 3:20. And if man is a direct and instant creation, I can't see why the animals couldn't likewise be, without any need for evolutionary processes.

[Audie]

Could have been, if there is a god so inclined as to do that.

But this only works for last thursdayists.

[Philip]

Audie: "But this only works for last thursdayists."

Audie, if you are referring to a belief that the Adam & Eve story is only compatible with an earth that is merely in the thousands of years old, then you are wrong. The story most certainly is compatible with a 13.7 billion year old universe/a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Did you finish that paper yet?!!!

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm still waiting for scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves.If God directed evolution then where is the evidence I've overlooked?I still have seen no evidence in science life evolves and I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.There is no reason to believe God directed evolution or caused it to happen if life does not evolve.

What if evolution DID happen and that it was God directed what does that change - as those are critical questions.

If so, it tells me I can't know when a Scripture passage is mere allegory or plain truth. Then, that leads me to the same question about many other passages, as which is WHICH? Which then means I am required to choose and interpret without ever having ANY possible certainty over a passage's true meaning. And then I essentially become the determiner of Bible facts, truth and meaning, and the Bible basically becomes a book of prolific mythical, indecipherable tales, and basically worthless except for a fun to speculate on book. Let's not forget that the Creation passages and ones involving Adam and Eve, their sin, their resulting impact upon all of humanity, our need for a Savior, are ALL connected to these foundational Bible passages. So if they aren't actual and true??? And WHY would God give us some wild, symbolic story about Adam and Eve's origins rather than a factual account, as it would lead to many false understandings. And even as allegory, there is a total disconnect between the creations of Adam and Eve and the beasts that preceded them. To me, none of that makes any sense. If you accept evolution, you are effectively saying entire, long sequences of Foundational Bible passages don't mean what they actually say. And, if so, how am I to trust and believe God's word, as it COULD mean a whole host of theorized meanings that are worthless to me. Thus is the slippery, treacherous slope of theistic evolution.

Some like to assert that God took two of His previously created creatures - say, perhaps, a hominid resulting from an untold amount of past evolutionary time, and then installed them with souls. Again, the text argues against that possibility. Note the book-ending phrase, "And God saw that it was good," that punctuates an ending sequence and that comes AFTER the creation of ALL the animal life, each created "according to their kinds." Afterward ("Then") a clearly different Creation sequence begins - and one that is AFTER the creation of ALL of the animal kingdom. And how do you reconcile evolution with this, as obviously, the creatures that were the first men did not yet exist. And to make sure we don't miss the vast difference: God decides to create man,"in our image," as opposed to the animals He created "according to their kinds." And not only are we NOT told of two theoretical/supposed already evolved creatures becoming man, but the second one not only doesn't yet exist, but the first one is created with "dust from the ground." Not only that, Adam appears to be initially physically created as an adult and yet not alive until God "breathed into his (already existing but not yet living) nostrils the breath of life." So, it was only AFTER receiving God's "breath of life" that "the man became a living creature." Add in the fact that Eve not only had also not evolved, she wasn't yet alive and THEN (subsequent to Adam's creation) she was created from "rib that the Lord God had taken from the man," during the world's first apparent anesthesia and operative procedure.

Point of the above examination being is that, read allegorically, the creation of man story has an obvious and EMPHASIZED line of demarcation and difference in the creation of ALL of the animals and man, of their separate natures, and even between the period in which the first couple came into to being - neither alive, yet both being fully formed as adults, Adam from "dust of the ground" and Eve also created immediately, yet sometime afterward, her origin being Adam's rib. Even allegorically, you cannot read evolution into this story. And it's either true or not - else God made up an asserted allegorical tale that is irreconcilable with man springing from creatures that preceded him. And, in the first books of the Bible, there are far more complex things that Scripture required early Israel to understand - were they so dumb that God had to replace the truth with a "rib" and "dust" story that makes no sense, even symbolically? And if Adam and Eve weren't real people, you might as well throw much of your Bible away! This text just doesn't appear to be reconcilable with evolution, not with Adam and Eve. One might - MIGHT, mind you - reconcile evolution with events OUTSIDE of the Garden, as opposed to those within it. But, at least with humans, that would appear at odds with Genesis 3:20. And if man is a direct and instant creation, I can't see why the animals couldn't likewise be, without any need for evolutionary processes.

We both know Genesis 1 is one of the most divisive chapters in the bible but having said this I know God's word is true and because it is true there will be things discovered that confirm it true at the right time and I believe as Christians we should be willing to change our minds when God's word is revealed.Now you and me know all about the evidence in the earth and the evidence that shows the earth is old and so we as Christians should not ignore it yet so many do.

I really believe this is uneccesary because you are preventing evidence that will confirm God's word true yet so many do it and are locked into their interpretation and so they must try to defend it,which they try to.This is so unnecessary to me because of a true understanding of God's word and first off,right off the bat,there is a sign post in the bible that clearly rules out comformatism and this is true no matter how old you believe the heavens and earth are,conformatism is out and catasrophism is in.

It should be understood that any teaching in the last days that teaches this world has went on continually since the beginning is wrong and is deception in the last days.And yet the evidence we know about clearly shows catastraphism,it shows this world has not gone on continually since the beginning because of a catastrophy that pervented it from going on continually since the beginning and yet the only reason it is taught it has went on continually since the beginning is so that life can evolve.

Keep in mind this world since Adam and Eve has went on since the beginning and this includes Noah's flood which is why we are descendants of Adam and Eve and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

[Audie]

Audie: "But this only works for last thursdayists."

Audie, if you are referring to a belief that the Adam & Eve story is only compatible with an earth that is merely in the thousands of years old, then you are wrong. The story most certainly is compatible with a 13.7 billion year old universe/a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Did you finish that paper yet?!!!

No, that bit about instant creation of all the various organisms we have.

The A and E story is read about as many different ways as there are readers, it seems, so I guess its compatible with most anything.

In any case, there simply is no way to reconcile your views with what can be learned about the earth thro' research, nor your views with mine, so in the interests of unconflictionality, I think I will desist here.

[RickD]

Audie: "But this only works for last thursdayists."

Audie, if you are referring to a belief that the Adam & Eve story is only compatible with an earth that is merely in the thousands of years old, then you are wrong. The story most certainly is compatible with a 13.7 billion year old universe/a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Did you finish that paper yet?!!!

No, that bit about instant creation of all the various organisms we have.

The A and E story is read about as many different ways as there are readers, it seems, so I guess its compatible with most anything.

In any case, there simply is no way to reconcile your views with what can be learned about the earth thro' research, nor your views with mine, so in the interests of unconflictionality, I think I will desist here.

Audie,

Who said "all the various organisms we have" had to be instantly created? PC allows for certain kinds of evolution. You do understand that, don't you?
PC certainly does not say that every different organism as they are today, were created that way.

[Audie]

Audie: "But this only works for last thursdayists."

Audie, if you are referring to a belief that the Adam & Eve story is only compatible with an earth that is merely in the thousands of years old, then you are wrong. The story most certainly is compatible with a 13.7 billion year old universe/a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Did you finish that paper yet?!!!

No, that bit about instant creation of all the various organisms we have.

The A and E story is read about as many different ways as there are readers, it seems, so I guess its compatible with most anything.

In any case, there simply is no way to reconcile your views with what can be learned about the earth thro' research, nor your views with mine, so in the interests of unconflictionality, I think I will desist here.

Audie,

Who said "all the various organisms we have" had to be instantly created? PC allows for certain kinds of evolution. You do understand that, don't you?
PC certainly does not say that every different organism as they are today, were created that way.

Of course I know that. PC edges toward a more educated stance than what we get from a 6 day poofter. Its still playing square peg, round hole tho.

[Philip]

As for those believing in theistic evolution, the Genesis accounts go FAR beyond what could truthfully be considered (accurately) symbolic, as it makes statements that are not only are not symbolic of evolutionary connections, but that would have to be considered lies - IF evolution had occurred instead. Remember, God cannot lie. So even IF He has given us a version of how man came into being using symbolism, that symbolism cannot contradict the truth of the actual events, nor can it misrepresent them - it could be symbolic, but not contradictory so - certainly not in so MANY, obvious ways.

Genesis DIRECTLY contradicts Evolution:
1. The animals are not connected whatsoever to Adam and Eve, as they were all created with different natures (after their kind) than man (in God's Image).
2. Adam did not come from animals, in fact, he did not even exist until after their creation.
3. The animal kingdom is complete and "THEN" God said, "Let us make man in Our Image."
4. Adam was not even alive until he "became a living creature" as well as a newly created adult man.
5. Adam's body is formed and THEN he received "into his nostrils the breath of life."
6. From his beginning, Adam was created in the Image of God - there is no period of evolvement or an otherwise living creature connected to his existence.
7. Adam is created, instantly/miraculously, from "dust from the ground."
8. No other hominids or evolved creatures could possibly have produced Eve, as she was created from Adam's "rib."
9. Eve is not yet alive or some evolved creature, in fact, she doesn't even exist before becoming a human being.
10. Eve's creation from Adam cannot be symbolic of evolved processes, as if she might somehow have been part of Adam's related lineage - to be sure, we're told that after the rib "operation" that produced Eve, God "closed up its place with flesh."

So, the above goes far beyond any truthful symbolism of asserted evolutionary processes leading to man, but actually, even if symbolically told, directly contradicts evolution. It separates man's sequence from the animals, and Adam and Eve from any prior creatures, and their immediate creations in God's Image, Eve coming from a part of Adam's body. One can call this symbolism that supports evolution all they desire to, but, in my opinion, not credibly so.