ByFaithAlone

This seems to imply (and please correct me if I am wrong) that those who do not believe in a literalistic interpretation of the creation account do not believe in God or are not Christians. You can criticize the interpretation as much as you want but please do not imply that those of us who hold such views are somehow non-believers. Let us be clear, there is a field of study dealing with the interpretation of the Bible, from allegory to prophecy to epistle to history. This is the field of hermeneutics. So describing one part of Scripture as prophecy for example would not discount other parts from being history and vice versa. Similarly, I would contend that an allegorical view of the Creation in Genesis does not discount the real need for a Savior in Christ. Perhaps I am able to steer this conversation towards more of a conciliatory tone. Abdicate and I clearly have different views of the creation account in Genesis and I doubt either of us are likely to be convinced by the other. And that is fine. We should however, grow to learn about each other's positions. From my perspective, the YEC brings a profound respect for Scriptural inerrancy and most YEC thinkers such as Abdicate are worried about a reduction of all of Scripture to simply a nice moral story with no real consequences. And although I disagree that an allegorical view in any way detracts from Scripture, I can certainly understand their position and worry. Similarly, I think YECs can disagree with theistic evolutionists and scientists. However, they should acknowledge that those of us in the theistic evolution camp have a profound respect for God's creation and the study of aforementioned creation (Psalm 19, Psalm 111). I hope such dialogue between opposing viewpoints can engender such respect for each other's views.

Learning new things is always good in my opinion. History is also a passion of mine and science is my passion/profession so we are of one mind there. You mention that our current/historical understanding of the universe is rather unclear. I would sort of agree, especially with the historical part of that statement and we had significantly less data back then. Regarding your question about scientific philosophy, Kuhn emphasized the idea of paradigm shifts, incommensurability, and the impact of researcher's own subjective viewpoints on research. Some of these ideas are very useful and certainly historically important in the philosophy of science. While his idea of paradigm shifts is important, it should be noted that just because there is a paradigm shift doesn't mean that all previous research should be ignored. For example, quantum mechanics and relativity only modified Newtonian mechanics rather than doing away with the previous model.

I think one.opinion touched on this but theistic evolutionists have various views on the nature of Adam (literal vs. allegorical). As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are multiple articles on sites like Biologos that discuss this matter. And many people within the theistic evolution community express support for a literal Adam. Certainly, mitochondrial DNA does suggest a mitochondrial Eve at some point in our distant past to which all of us are related. Later you mention that there is fabrication and mythology on the part of evolutionary biologists and the scientific community as a whole. Is there a reason that you believe this or any evidence you could provide as to why people from various countries, with various political bents and from various religious and non-religious backgrounds would do such a thing? This entire idea of a global conspiracy seems rather far-fetched without evidence to support it. Especially considering they release their evidence to their peers and the public all the time in the form of articles.

The problem I think would be that the universe is both past-finite and has a known size. Sorry if that was unclear before. Inflationary cosmology indicates that all matter was once condensed into a small area. This then expanded into our observable universe of finite size. Based on cosmic microwave background radiation, physicists attempt to determine something known as the curvature of the universe which is based on both the magnitude of "hot" and "cold" spots of radiation. Physicists have largely determined that the curvature is relatively flat from our perspective which means indicates that the universe is likely much largely than our observable part of it. Perhaps trillions of light years across by some estimates. However, it would still be finite and something of finite size cannot by definition contain an infinite amount of matter. Although the universe is finite, just looking at our observable universe of around 43 billion light years across and even given the most wild improbabilities of life forming, it still seems highly likely that life could have formed given our current understanding of chemistry and biology. The universe is just so vast and light years are such massive distances as to dwarf the probability factors. And yes, in my view God's creative work did ordain for life to come about so there is that as well. We would simply disagree on how he did so and that is fine.

Based on the modern understanding of cosmology, our universe is inflationary (i.e. it expands). The rapid expansion of the early universe is known as the Big Bang. This modern model indicates that our universe is past-finite (i.e. began to exist) and therefore cannot be infinite in the amount of matter it contains. More recently, it was mathematically determined that any inflationary spacetime must not be past complete (another way of saying they must be past-finite). The relevant paper is Borde, Guth, Vilenkin 2008 and is titled "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete." Once again, regarding evolution that is not quite the definition of evolution. Evolutionary biology does not deal with the formation of life from non-life. That is abiogenesis and is another huge topic. Rather evolutionary biology only explains how and why changes occur in species and how speciation occurs. And although the universe is finite, probability arguments are still ineffective against evolution due to the vastness of the observable universe (some tens of billions of light years across). As to your last point, I'm a theistic evolutionist so I would disagree with you regarding evolution. However, if you are trying to attempt to pose problems to evolutionary biology, I would suggest that other arguments besides probability might be a better try.

Interesting but I've never heard this argument before and it seems to have some flaws. The Bible was given to us (humanity) but I don't think there is anything in the Bible that would preclude intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Nor does it preclude the possibility that they have a relationship with the creator as well. It just simply isn't mentioned either way. Although it would be an interesting to think about how sin, etc. would effect other sentient species.

Out of curiosity, what are the reasons that they think extraterrestrial life is impossible? Seems like it would be impossible to prove (proving a negative and all that). And why do they think it is unbiblical to think extraterrestrial life is impossible?

So in regards to building the wall, Trump does have the authority to declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. However, that does not give him funds for the wall. Funding is distributed through Congress. If he attempted to use the military to build the wall he would face a legal challenge as the laws in question 10 US Code 2808 and 33 US Code 2293 require that the military only be used in such matters for essential national defense purposes. The big issue here is that Trump would be vastly changing the definitions provided in the statutes and it would set a very dangerous precedent that the courts would not support. There is also the issue of Posse Commitatus Act although that argument is probably weaker than the previous argument. Congress can also vote to end the national emergency at any time and multiple GOP senators will not support the declaration of a national emergency. Now let's say that you are good with all of these changes to the interpretation of the law and the widening of such definitions of national security. And let's even say that Trump gets a court that supports such vast expansion of emergency powers and somehow avoids Congress immediately revoking those powers. He will still have to take funding from other DoD/Homeland projects to fund the wall. This will take away money from necessary projects like building and improving bases and other military infrastructure. And even if you are ok with all of that and would continue to support Trump through all of that, remember that health among other things are considered to be national security issues (see the decree on the H1N1 virus). When a different person becomes president they have access to this precedent to declare national emergencies in order to bypass Congressional funding. I find it hard to believe that many people that support Trump would have been happy if Obama had used such a national emergency to get funding for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). And health is a recognized national emergency! In summary, Trump supporters need to recognize a few things about this idea to declare a national emergency. The first is that it will face serious legal challenges which it likely would not survive. Secondly, it could be repealed by Congress with relative ease given the amount of GOP senators uncomfortable with such an expansion of presidential powers (especially the more libertarian/Freedom caucus). Third, the funding is still not guaranteed and would take from other projects. Lastly, if you are ok with this vast expansion of presidential power and it somehow gets through, a Trump supporter would have zero right to even raise a voice in protest at future presidents doing something different with that power that could be viewed as a national emergency.

This is a fairly old article based on a study in 2011. The study was conducted by Purdue (my alma mater) and Stanford. The professors made some rather wild claims that have yet to be replicated in a scientific setting. They claimed that solar flares and other solar activity may cause a difference of plus or minus 0.1% in the decay of a certain element. Even if this were true, it would not effect the assessment of the earth being billions of years old but rather only change the result by perhaps a few million or tens of millions of years. It should be noted that one of the authors (Fischbach) of the paper said the following: “The fluctuations we’re seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings...” Additionally, as I mentioned above these results have not been replicated and more recent evidence suggests some flaws in the methods used. Many critics have noted that some parts of the study were done under various conditions that could have effected instrumentation and caused the error. A follow-up paper published by Hardy, Goodwin and and Jacob (2011) accounted for these errors and after correcting them determined that there was no oscillation in values.

Ok so there is a slight problem with the phrasing of your question here. Evolutionary biology is the study of mutations and speciation that occur in life. Abiogenesis is the study of how life came to be from basic chemical components like amino acids. While evolutionary biology is a well accepted and proven scientific theory, abiogenesis is much less understood. Studies have shown that given the conditions present in sea vents (where life appears to have begun on Earth) it is possible for organic molecules to form from inorganic ones (the famous 1952 Miller-Urey Experiments) but how exactly life came into existence is not well understood by the scientific community and other hypotheses have been put forward such as panspermia. Regarding the infinite vs finite nature of the universe, cosmologists are as close to certain as you can be in science that our universe is at the very least past-finite. There is a finite amount of universe although it is still ridiculously vast and contains immense amounts of matter. Despite this finite universe, the time spans involved and the overwhelming amount of matter available makes probability arguments against evolution almost laughably poor in the view of the vast majority of the scientific community.

Ok so this is a very interesting question and the argument itself is rather old and hinges on the idea of contingent vs. necessary beings. In this case 'being' just refers to a given state of affairs and does not imply sentience. In terms of Western philosophy it was used by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Basically the premises and conclusion go roughly as follows: 1. Every contingent being as a reason for it's existence. 2. Our universe is a contingent being and must have a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 3. The universe exists. 4. The universe (being contingent) must have an explanation for it's existence (Principle of Sufficient Reason). 5. Therefore the universe has a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. Your question (and please correct me if I am wrong) concerns the universe itself and where it could derive it's existence from. In logic terms contingent beings are those that begin and/or cease to exist. You and I for example, are contingent beings. The question is if the universe should also be labeled as contingent. Before the 1920s this was one of the larger objections to this argument. Some thought the universe may be infinite and static. There were philosophical objections to that argument but there was no hard scientific proof either way. However, modern views of cosmology have significantly changed. Most scientists agree that our universe (or any inflationary universe) is past-finite or in somewhat more technical terms geodesically past-incomplete. This would make our universe a contingent being. Now of course there are always new objections being raised about the various premises and the past-finite nature of the universe but I hope that helps as a springboard for you to explore a bit more.

It's interesting that you took such a short time to respond to my post (around ten minutes). Perhaps you are a speed reader who looked up some of the references I mentioned with a speed I can only envy but it seems more likely that you did not look through my entire post. This seems even more likely given that you did not address some of the points I made in my previous post. Please do me the courtesy of at least looking through my post and dealing with it point by point. Now let's deal with some of the points you make: (a) evolutionary biology (b) galaxy shape (c) the speed of light (d) the implications of the "old clock" argument I don't know where you are getting the idea that there are multiple theories of evolution. Of course there are different ideas about how it happens and why but evolutionary biology as a whole is based around a central scientific theory. Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, your understanding of evolutionary biology seems to be very flawed if you think that fruit flies would somehow become human. As I also mentioned two posts ago, there are several examples of species divergence into new species (aka speciation) that are observable either currently or through the fossil record. As to each galaxy being the same shape, this is not quite correct. There are several different types of galaxies. Spirals are pretty common (like the Milky Way) but other shapes are observable. Elliptical, lenticular and irregular galaxies are the other major types. Of course these all of sub-types as well but those would be the large families. As to the whole speed of light issue we agree that it is not constant through material. Physicists do try to account for this as best they can when measuring distances between certain galaxies and is one of the sources of error in their calculations that is presented (as in most scientific papers) with appropriate statistics. However, the constant being used in many equations is c or the speed of light in a vacuum. This is understood to be constant under our models of physics. If you would like to argue that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant you are more than welcome to do so but it would require some significant evidence. Regarding my implication you mention above, I am simply arguing that God would not deceive us via nature as Scripture encourages us to study His creation (Psalm 111:2). You proposed that God has the possibility of making an "old clock" as you put it in your previous analogy. I countered that this would make God a deceiver which would not be in His nature. On this, you and I seem to agree. I would therefore contend that God creating an "old clock" universe would be contradictory to our theistic understanding of God. So that leaves us with two possibilities that theists like ourselves can accept. The first option is that modern scientific understanding is incorrect and the earth is very young and somehow all scientists are completely misunderstanding the vast amounts of data. The second option is that the modern scientific evidence is correct and that it is compatible with both our theological and historical understanding of the creation account in Genesis. I argue for the latter approach while you seem to be arguing for the either the first approach or the "old clock" approach which already has problems as mentioned above.

Michael, once again you are not addressing my points. If you wish to exit the dialogue that is fine. Simply say so rather than posting Scripture without saying why it is relevant. If you are implying that my views are heretical and I need to be "saved with fear" then I would like an immediate retraction. Simply disagreeing with my points is no reason to imply that I am not a Christian in need of you to save me by fear. It would be highly impolite and simply untrue.

Hey Abdicate, sorry I've taken so long to reply. Let's delve into it. So first we have to discuss the idea of carbon dating. Scientists tend not to use radiocarbon dating as a tool for anything over 20,000 years old. This is simply because by that point the amount of the isotope measure (C14) is so small as to be useless as scientific evidence. Nowadays, it is used a lot in archaeological chemistry as that it is where it is most useful. But as I said, for anything over 20,000 years old scientists use other methods of dating such as the potassium-argon dating method. As to the fact that radiocarbon has been shown to increase recently, that is partly true. The article that mentions that is Cook (1966) and while it is true that radiocarbon is higher than it was in the past but it is not rising steadily. Cook only looked at part of the data and drew an incorrect assumption. Studies since indicate that C14 has fluctuated over time. Regarding the speed of light we know that the speed of light isn't constant through materials. However, as I mentioned last time it is constant through a vacuum (c). I'm not sure where you are getting the data showing that it was massively faster at some point in the past. If you could provide something for me to peruse that would be great. As to evolution, I provided some examples of transitions currently being observed right now. As to fruit fly to human or horse fly to fruit fly, that is not how evolution works. Evolutionary biology would say that we have a common ancestor (for humans and flies some microorganism millions of years ago while fruit flies and horse flies diverged from each other much later) but not that a fruit fly would ever turn into a human. That is simply a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. The fact that you don't understand what evolutionary biology actually says is somewhat concerning as it undermines the entire conversation if you are pointing out flaws that evolutionary biology does not even claim. As to your last point, you mention something interesting. That science used to view the universe as static and infinite. While it was a popular theory it was certainly not the only one and it was not considered anything more than a hypothesis. As you mention, in the 20th century the universe was shown to be past-finite. The 1920s and 1930s was when this research was being done by Friedmann and Lemaitre. Both of them happened to be Christians (Lemaitre was even a member of the clergy) and their work is the foundation on which our modern understanding of Big Bang cosmology is built. I agree with you that there is a lot we do not know. That is the point of studying God's creation through science. However, while you may say that God created an "old clock" to use your metaphor, Of course, it is impossible for me to prove that He didn't create in that manner. I would ask why would our loving Creator deceive us in that manner? Then I go back and look at Origen, Augustine and others and see that the Church has always believed that an allegorical view of the creation in Genesis to be valid and orthodox. To me the current cosmological models point towards a Creator and I have no need to defend a young earth position. Thus, I arrive at my position of being a theist who also argues for such an allegorical view.

First of all, let me welcome you to the discussion Abdicate. Although not originally intended to be a discussion on theistic evolution it seems to have evolved into one (pun intended). Also it is quite nice to meet a fellow chemist. I did a lot of research in a biochemical/bioengineering laboratory as an undergraduate. Now let's go through your points as best we can. On your first point, you mention that some people assume they know everything and that assumptions tend to cause problems when searching for truth. I would completely agree with you that this would be a bad starting place and simply assuming things to be true would not be good science. You give several examples of assumptions that are made. Let's talk in brief about each of them. First, let's deal with the idea that our planet was seeded by extraterrestrial (although perhaps not sentient life - for example on theory of this seeding is that basic microbes came via a meteorite). This hypothesis attempts to deal with the question of abiogenesis which is a difficult field of study with no hard evidence pointing in one direction or another. This is indeed a hypothesis but has little evidence to support it and is not recognized as a well-proven theory by the scientific community (unlike evolution and the Big Bang for example which are regarded as having sufficient scientific evidence to warrant the title of theory). Next, let's deal with the question of the age of the universe and planets. Now this is calculated through a variety of methods from the isotopic decay of certain elements or based on the speed of certain galaxies and their distance from us. By extrapolating backwards scientists can calculate the age of certain objects and the universe. Lastly, let's deal with the speed of light issue. Speed of light is not constant and whoever told you that probably meant that speed of light in a vacuum is constant. This is true and that speed is the value of c that we see in numerous equations. If there is a paper that says otherwise I'd be interested in looking at it but no such evidence has been provided. Now, let's discuss some of your other points. In regards to the issue of Adam, there was a previous point made about this so I would ask that you look back in the thread to look over that issue. Next, let's deal with the "problems" you see within evolution. As to if evolution has stopped, the scientific evidence shows that it hasn't. Although it is harder to notice in animals due to their relatively longer lifespans, plants, short-lived animals and bacteria are probably the fastest to change. For example, the salsify family of plants which used to be one species back around 1900 has since split into several. E. coli is another quite famous example with multiple subspecies evolving from a single genetic heritage in laboratories. The apple maggot fly and the sea urchin Echinometra are some good examples of allopatric speciation. You and I agree that Scripture it true and that God is the Creator - an Uncaused Cause that made the universe and imparted upon humanity His image. I would simply disagree with a literal interpretation of the creation account found in Genesis. I would suggest that an allegorical view would better represent the historical views of the Early Church and would also line up with our understanding of God's creation through science.

Ok so now you aren't even addressing the issues I raised in your last argument. Let us at the very least be courteous to each other and consider each other's points. I have addressed your concerns about logical fallacies that a person holding my position may need to be wary of committing. Please do not debase the discussion to the point of ad hominem attacks. Scripture notes that we should always be ready to defend our views in a respectful manner (1 Peter 3:15-16) and commends those that study the works of the Lord (Psalm 111:2).

Sorry about my delay in response. I've been away for a bit. So let's deal with the fallacy of composition argument. Later, Michael aslo mentions a slightly different fallacy (argumentum ad populum) although he doesn't mention it by name. Just for those who do not know what they are and may need a reference, here are some definitions. Fallacy of Composition - the error of assuming that what is true for a member of the group is true for the group as a whole. Argumentum ad populum - the fallacious argument that says the proposition must be true because most people believe it to be true Michael is arguing (and please correct me if I am wrong) that just because Origen and others believed that the allegorical view of the creation account Genesis is correct does not mean that the entire Early Church believed it to be the correct interpretation (that would be a fallacy of composition as he rightly points out). On this, he and I completely agree. I have never argued that everyone in the Early Church viewed the creation account as allegorical. I have merely pointed out that it is a well-known, orthodox and historical viewpoint held by many members. Origen is one but as I mentioned there are other early Christians and contemporary Jewish scholars who held that view of Genesis (Augustine, Irenaeus of Lyons, Philo, etc.). There are of course people who thought it was literal as well. St. Basil is probably the oldest example that comes to mind. I think he is slightly outnumbered by those in the Early Church who wrote about the allegorical nature of the creation account but there were certainly people who voiced support for a literal six day creation. Now, I would never call Basil or anyone else who believe in a literal six day creation a heretic for doing so. However, I would still disagree with him as I believe that an allegorical view of creation is supported by science (the study of God's creative work) and by an orthodox interpretation of Scripture. Michael then goes on to mention that I am arguing that it is a widely accepted theory and thus it must be true. This would be a slightly different fallacy mentioned in my second definition - argumentum ad populum. When it comes to evolution this idea (or an appeal to authority) is a common objection thrown out by detractors. The main difference between such logical fallacies and the field of evolutionary biology is that in the scientific field evidence is required before a hypothesis is given enough support and weight to be called a theory. So scientists do not tend to hold the belief that evolution is an accurate theory for explaining the current state of life because of the vast amount of people that believe it but rather due to the scientific evidence that we have gathered over the last century or so. The last thing to discuss is the matter of Origen. As I have already mentioned Origen was certainly not flawless when it came to his theological beliefs. Some beliefs he had were hotly debated during his lifetime and afterwards with some of them being later viewed as unorthodox and even antithetical to the beliefs of the Church. My point behind addressing Origen, Augustine, Philo, etc. was to show that this was a historical view of creation that was never viewed a heresy by the Early Church nor was it considered to be a "lack of faith" as Michael thinks it to be. An allegorical view of the creation in Genesis does not mean that someone's faith is lacking. Rather, in more Thomistic terms, it means that the theistic evolutionist can accept both God's revelation through Scripture and his revelation through nature.

Personally, I would not use this argument. This is certainly a classical argument along the lines of the Watchmaker Argument and has been used in the past but is probably one of the weaker way to argue for God's existence. This is essentially an argument from biological complexity. In other words, how could life be so complicated with out a creator? Although this argument may be convincing to some, I don't think atheists who are well-versed in evolutionary biology will have much of a problem with this argument as although evolution gives no answers as to the origins of life (that falls under the study of abiogenesis) it does present a reasonable explanation as to the development of complexity through mutations. Of course, you are free to disagree with those explanations. But I would say it would not be particularly effective as an argument if you want to convince an atheist especially if they are well-versed in evolutionary biology. Arguments based around modal logic or the past-finite nature of the universe would be much more interesting to me personally and would be more effective in my view.

Ok let's just go over a few things. Firstly, you understanding of evolution is not quite correct. You state that "By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe." This is just an incorrect definition for evolution and more closely resembles a definition for abiogenesis although it still probably needs a few edits to fit. Evolutionary biology only deals with what occurs after life already exists. Next let's also take a look at the end of your argument. I have edited the text formatting so as to make it easier to read but none of your words have been changed. Ok so this is just incorrect on so many levels. Firstly, you start off with pure speculation and another assumption about evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology does not argue for some sort of ultimate pinnacle of biological fitness. The entire idea of an "ultimate consummation" of evolution does not exist. Additionally, you speculate that one can evolve to have features that are non-biological (omnipotence for example). This is simply not how evolutionary biology works. Secondly, there is no evolutionary way to become no longer subject to time if you exist within the universe as space and time are intrinsically linked. Physicists generally just refer to it as spacetime nowadays. I would agree with you that some creatures and perhaps eventually humans could aim and perhaps achieve some sort of biological immortality (i.e. not dying due to old age/disease) but nothing within the universe could ever be truly immortal. Firstly, everything in the universe is past-finite (see below for more on this). Secondly, current cosmological models indicate the heat death of the universe in the far distant future and even if you could live until that point you would eventually run out of energy and thus die along with the rest of the universe. Lastly, not only would this be impossible but I believe it would be antithetical to the theistic view of the universe and God. Current physics suggest that any inflationary universe (such as our own) is past-finite (geodesically past incomplete). Theists would argue that there must be a cause for the universe which would be an Uncaused Cause or God. In the model you present it is quite the opposite with the universe pre-existing before God exists and God coming into being. This would not be a classical definition of God as such a God would be past-finite. Thus it clashes with theistic thinking on the matter and there still remains the problem of a past-finite universe.

I am not saying Origen was perfect. None of us have a perfect theological understanding and obviously I don't agree with everything Origen had to say. Obviously, some of his views should rightly be considered to be flawed. However, let us note that even in the quote you post above it mentions that he also defended "orthodoxy" and Christian groups still hold to some of his ideas just not all of them. Also note that the allegorical interpretation of the creation account was not one of the theological positions condemned in 553. Instead you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In debate one might call this an ad hominem attack or an attack on the character of the person (i.e. because one thing someone said is incorrect, everything else they say must also be incorrect). As I mentioned before, he is not the only one in the Early Church to hold such views on Genesis and the creation account. Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote "Against Heresies" and criticized certain dogmas of the Alexandrian school of thought (which Origen belonged to) also commented on the allegorical nature of the creation in Genesis. St. Augustine who is probably one of, if not the most, respected theologian and Church Father in the Western tradition also uses allegorical interpretation. Simply pointing out that certain members of the church were wrong about one or multiple aspects of theology does not indicate that we should reject them altogether. After all, I am sure we are all wrong about some matters of theology. My point is that it is a well documented historical and common interpretation of the Early Church that the creation account was allegorical in nature and none of these views were condemned by any of the Early Church councils when all Christians were still unified.

I would agree to this in part. I would say that some people may find certain philosophical arguments for God's existence compelling and others will not. As you say, at the very least it is a starting point. For others, it may encourage a theistic or deistic approach to the universe if perhaps not a Judeo-Christian one. I very much follow in the footsteps of Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon and others who thought reason and science was one way for us to experience God in our lives. As you say, this is not the only way to experience God nor do I claim it is the best way. All I know is that it works for me and I am grateful for that. I think I always specified that it is the creation account as allegorical. If I misspoke once and said the entirety of Genesis please forgive me. When Origen, Augustine and others talk of the allegorical nature of Genesis, they refer to the creation account. Also remember that just because a specific name is used by Christ don't assume that the person is historical. Context is key. For example, when Jesus tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man most Christians do not assume that particular Lazarus existed (obviously there is the other Lazarus who was a friend of Christ who's story is not told in allegorical form). He does not need to state that Lazarus and the rich man are not historical figures as this was and is understood. Rather, they are part of a parable by which Christ taught about humility, salvation and the afterlife among other things. If we apply the context of the Jewish thinkers at the time and the Church Fathers it seems to indicate that many prominent Jews, apostles and the earliest followers of the Christian faith took an allegorical approach to the creation account. With regards to the specific individuals you mention, theistic evolution in general does not deny the possibility of a historical Adam or historical descendants. Some theistic evolutionists believe Adam and Eve to be historical while others view them as allegorical. Either way, most theistic evolutionists would argue that it is unlikely that they are the only humans given that in Genesis it notes that Cain was fearful of being killed by those "in the land of Nod." One.opinion linked an article on this thread or perhaps the other active thread regarding a historical Adam and theistic evolution coexisting. Nor do theistic evolutionists deny the possibility of a historical flood although most if not all would argue that the flood was a localized event and that water covered "the whole land" is a better translation into English then the translation water covered "the whole world." In regards to God creating humanity, a theistic evolutionist would agree that this is true. However, we would contend that this creation is within the framework of biological evolution. In other words, God created man through that process and imbued humanity with the imago deo (Image of God). The Image of God and our relationship with the creator is what makes humans unique. Thus, theistic evolutionists do not deny God's creative power and still place God as the Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover in Thomistic terms. Once again, such an interpretation seems consistent with the Jewish thought on the matter at the time (see the work of Philo) and early Christian thinkers that were taught either directly by apostles or by the followers of the apostles.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. I agree with you that Origen talked with many pagans. And he did reference philosophy, Scripture, logic and science in his discussions with these pagan intellectuals. Origen was part of the Alexandrian school of early Christian thought. Alexandria is thought to have been evangelized by St. Mark and held a special place in the early Christian Church (hence why the Catholics/Orthodox/Coptics/some Anglicans refer to Alexandria as the See of St. Mark the Evangelist) as it was a center for Christian theology. As your little snippet above mentions, Origen saw science, logic and philosophy as all pointing towards the divine providence of God. Augustine and later Aquinas, Moore, Bacon and others would also share this view. The most famous example is probably the writings entitled "Against Celsus" which was sort of an open letter between him and the aforementioned Celsus debating the merits of Christianity with Origen championing the Christian cause. However, I am not entirely sure how this is relevant other than proving that Origen was an early evangelist and intelligent man. If you are trying to claim that science somehow warped Origen's view, please see below. In your statement earlier you said the following regarding an allegorical interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. I rebutted this by saying that Origen, Augustine, etc. (early Christians) and Philo (a contemporary Jewish scholar) all held this allegorical view of the Genesis account. This was long before they could have ever known about evolutionary biology or modern cosmological ideas of a past-finite inflationary universe. There was no science available to them that could have suggested the age of the Earth or the universe as a whole. They held these views of Scripture long before any scientific input you claim is used to "misinterpret" Genesis. Instead, we need to an acknowledge that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis was around long before modern science could tell us the age of the universe or before we had access to the genomes of plants and animals. It is a historically authentic, theologically consistent and perfectly orthodox way of viewing Scripture held by some of the greatest and most influential minds in the Early Church.

Regarding your first statement, you have either not been reading what I am writing or are deliberately misinterpreting my statements. Those who I quote are Origen, Philo, Augustine and many others in the early church. They held these positions long before modern cosmological models or evolutionary biology were understood. So you are incorrect that these claims were made to match with science. Rather, it was a historical position of many members of the early church and Jewish thinkers from the time of Christ. Now you are free to disagree with these thinkers. Just realize that by doing so you are disagreeing with some of those closest to the disciples in terms of both time and historical views on Scripture and you are criticizing those who shaped the Creeds we espouse today. As to your second point that the Theory of Evolution alone cannot provide a basis for universal moral law I would agree. Hence the theistic part of theistic evolution. In my worldview, God is still responsible for universal moral law. As to your closing statement, I would argue that using historical sources (the members of the early church) in combination with analysis of text and our understanding of God's creation through science, an allegorical approach would be the most logical and straightforward approach to Genesis (as opposed to the literalism you espouse).

Once again, I would agree with you 100% if I agreed that Christ and his disciples viewed Genesis as a literal telling of God's creative work. I would argue that they likely did not view Genesis with such literalism. Why would I argue that? Mainly due to contemporaries of Christ (Philo of Alexandria for example) did not view Scripture in that way nor did a majority of the early church (once again see Origen of Alexandria, Augustine, etc.) Those in theistic evolution camp (myself and many of the early church included) would argue instead that Genesis is allegorical and shows the relationship between God and creation (Infinite Creator and Finite Created) and that when Paul, Christ and the early church talk about the death caused by the fall they are talking about our death in terms of sinfulness. Paul uses this metaphor several times for example talking about how we die with Christ and are raised anew with him through baptism. This does not mean that we literally die when we are baptized or perhaps there are some ministers and priests that need to be actually tried for hundreds or thousands of murders. The problem in my mind for those who interpret Genesis in a literal manner is two-fold. Firstly, they assume that Christ, his apostles and the early church viewed it in such a way. As I mentioned above, based on the writings we have discussing the subject this is likely not the consensus among those closest (historically) to Christ. Secondly, it assumes that God has deceived humanity through nature by allowing for such vast misinterpretation of the scientific evidence. This contradicts my theological understanding of God (as well as the early church - once again see the writings of Augustine, Origen, etc.). For both these reasons, I would argue against such an approach to Genesis.

BioLogos is another Christian organization that has many articles related to theistic evolution from historical, scientific and theological perspectives if people want to check that out. Members include Francis Collins, world renown geneticist from the human genome project, theologian and historian NT Wright and many more.