ByFaithAlone

Bacon very much falls in line with Augustinian and Thomistic thought on that matter. Augustine's 5th century commentary on the book of Genesis is very interesting if people are interested in getting an understanding as to how the early church viewed Genesis.

If I had to guess (and Michael please correct me if I am wrong) Michael would argue that evolutionary thought is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis. I would assume that Michael would reject anything other than a literalistic interpretation of the creation account (6 days, young earth, etc) and sees anything less as a dilution of Scriptural inerrancy. On the other hand, I would of course contend that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis fits with both scientific knowledge of the universe and with the understanding of Genesis held by the Early Church and the Patristic and contemporary Jewish sources we have available.

Thanks to everyone for the replies so far. Even back in the day evolution was always a contested topic around here although there were a lot more cosmological discussions which I tend to find a bit more interesting. There used to be a mathematician (viole I think was the username) that had an excellent grasp of the math behind the inflationary cosmology (aka the Big Bang) and theoretical physics in general. She was always interesting. But I digress. To answer your question, I don't think I see my work that much differently than my friends and colleagues who are atheists or Jewish or Muslim or any other philosophical bent. Ultimately, in science the goal is to discover some sort of truths about nature and the universe we inhabit. I take a Thomistic view on the matter seeing science as a way to appreciate the beauty of God while I think my fellow chemists who happen to be atheists tend to view that beauty as wonderful but not of divine origin. I do agree with you in part. I would concur that science has no jurisdiction outside of the natural. However, I would contend that science can be somewhat helpful in discussing certain philosophical arguments for God's existence. For example, the classical Prime Cause philosophical argument first codified in Christian philosophy by Aquinas and since updated and revised numerous times is helped (at least in my mind) by modern cosmological ideas of a past-finite universe (something not known during the time of Aquinas). Certainly both Friedmann and Lemaitre (both devout religious men) thought that inflationary spacetime was best philosophically explained by a creator. I don't think everyone will believe based on these philosophical arguments but they are a starting point for discussion at the very least. I have noticed a lot of threads tend to head towards the evolution debate which I personally find a bit odd as I am a theist who also concurs with the majority of the scientific community on evolution. As you mention above, the important thing to a theist (at least in my mind) is not the method or process of creation but rather that the universe has a creator. Of course many people are very literal when it comes to the writings of Genesis. I am in more of the camp of some of the Church Fathers who viewed the creation as written in Genesis as allegorical (Origen of Alexandria, Iraneaus of Lyons, St. Augustine and Philo - a Jewish contemporary of Christ and the early church). That is perhaps not a popular view around here but it is mine.

Ok so it's a long time since I've posted on this forum. I used to be active back in the day but not so much recently. And I used to really enjoy the conversations I had with both believers and nonbelievers on this site regarding science and religion. However, after looking over the forum I have become to notice that things have become rather one sided with believers posting things and demanding that nonbelievers defend against 30-50 bullet points. It all just seems like a phone that only goes one way. I am sure that it must be somewhat annoying for nonbelievers and seekers to be "preached" at all the time. Sometimes people just post a block text of things that they want nonbelievers to account for ranging from abiogenesis to cosmology to evolutionary biology. I am not saying that such threads are unimportant or that people should not be asking questions but I think it's time to turn the tables slightly. I was interested in starting a dialogue between those of faith and those that are interested in leaning more or curious about why people believe what they believe. On Reddit and other such sites there are Ask Me Anything posts (AMAs) where users get to ask a person anything they want related to the person's profession, etc. So let's open up the game and turn things around. I'm a Christian and a scientist with degrees in chemistry and history. I'm going to be an open book as best I can. I am sure there are questions that I will be unqualified to answer but I will try my best. Other people can hop in with their own responses of course and anyone is free to disagree with me and ask more questions. Let's start a dialogue on Science and Faith. AMA.

I have made the ONLY argument that NEEDs to be made. I idon't need to make a philosophical argument. You need to believe the Bible. Evolution is impersonal according to the ToE. It is unguided, unplanned and wholly naturalistic. The very nature of the theory precludes God. It really isn't very hard to understand. But you have an agenda that entails skewing the Bible and the ToE. It's completely relevant. Why are all of them wrong and you are right??? Like I said, you and bary really don't know what you are talking about and this debate proves that your entire platform about Genesis being allegorical is all about pushing your bizarre version of Evolution that no reputable scientist will touch. You mistake methodological naturalism used by scientists and metaphysical naturalism (the claim you are backing). I can still hold the scientific method of discovery using methodological naturalism without holding to a metaphysical naturalism position. Once again, I see no philosophical argument in support of your claim. Support it or withdraw it. There is no middle ground here.

I don't need to offer any "proof" of anything on a philosophical level. I didn't ask them about philosophy. It is an impersonal and wholly naturalistic theory. Being impersonal precludes a personal God being the source or the guide for it. The theory is designed to preclude God or any other intelligent entity. That's just the facts. That you want ot skew the theory only shows that you cannot be trusted in a debate and or that you don't have a firm grasp on the ToE. Here is the problem. I am not a biologist with a Ph.D. nor do I claim to be an expert in evolutionary theory. I don't think bary would claim these credentials either. In fact I think we are both proud to be in our respective fields. However, I do recognize something that you have somehow overlooked. This is not an issue of what a few scientists you met think evolution implies. Even if 99.99999% of biological scientists believed that evolution implies that metaphysical naturalism is true, if they lack a philosophical and logical basis for it, they have no justification. The argument must be made, from a philosophical level, that evolution implies metaphyscial naturalism in order for us to say that God and evolution cannot exist in the same universe. This argument has yet to be made. the only arguments that need to be made have been made. Everyone who knows anything about the ToE knows that it precludes God. Neither I nor anyone else needs to make a philosophical argument. The majority of evolutionists are atheists, by far. You don't have the clout or the authority to deny what everyone else knows as true and we are not beholden to your made up standard of needing a philosophical basis. You don't know what you are talking about and you need to stop before you continue making a laughing stock out of yourself. No, you have not provided the argument requested. You made the philosophical claim that evolution entails atheism. You should support that claim. This is a simple request based on common decency in a debate. If you don't have the philosophical grounds on which to base your claim, just withdraw it. We won't judge. It is a very difficult (I would even say impossible) claim to make. Saying that the majority of evolutionists are atheists is irrelevant. As I said: "Even if 99.99999% of biological scientists believed that evolution implies that metaphysical naturalism is true, if they lack a philosophical and logical basis for it, they have no justification."

I don't need to offer any "proof" of anything on a philosophical level. I didn't ask them about philosophy. It is an impersonal and wholly naturalistic theory. Being impersonal precludes a personal God being the source or the guide for it. The theory is designed to preclude God or any other intelligent entity. That's just the facts. That you want ot skew the theory only shows that you cannot be trusted in a debate and or that you don't have a firm grasp on the ToE. Here is the problem. I am not a biologist with a Ph.D. nor do I claim to be an expert in evolutionary theory. I don't think bary would claim these credentials either. In fact I think we are both proud to be in our respective fields. However, I do recognize something that you have somehow overlooked. This is not an issue of what a few scientists you met think evolution implies. Even if 99.99999% of biological scientists believed that evolution implies that metaphysical naturalism is true, if they lack a philosophical and logical basis for it, they have no justification. The argument must be made, from a philosophical level, that evolution implies metaphyscial naturalism in order for us to say that God and evolution cannot exist in the same universe. This argument has yet to be made.

Cobalt, I noticed that you have not offered the philosophical proof that connects evolution to metaphysical naturalism. Perhaps you and shiloh could work together on that front to form a cohesive argument. The concept of interpreting wide swaths of scripture allegorically were prototyped by Origen and Augustine. And they were conjured up to make things like Replacement Theology, the Papacy, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. workable and "supported" scripturally. The RCC uses allegory as the Swiss Knife of proof-texting to enable any false doctrine they like, and it is used as the same type of vehicle for others wishing to enable any false doctrine one could mention. Got scripture that forbids something, or conflicts with your personal worldview? No Problem! Our new Allegorical Interpretation Kit removes even the most stubborn textual problems, and does so instantly, without all those messy hermeneutics of the leading brand. Call now. Operators are standing by. It has been used as that type of vehicle since it got dreamed up. In this thread, it is being used by people to float the theory that evolution is allowable under allegorical interpretation. And you, and BFA, and anyone else that wishes to can bring up "other" Christians. You can bring up supposed scholars. You can say Justin Beiber believes in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. None of that carries any weight at all. I will say it again, since no one on the allegorical side wants to deal with it, because there is really no way to refute it. You cannot make a case for interpreting Genesis as allegorical when the Prophets didn't. When Jesus didn't. When the Apostles didn't. When the church didn't begin entertaining the idea that it was allegory at all until the late 3rd/early 4th century. When you can show me Jesus telling us that Genesis is just allegory, then you have a case. Until then, not so much. And here we just get the facts wrong. Neither Origen nor Augustine started the idea of the allegorical Genesis interpretation. It was championed by Philo, a Jew from Alexandria and contemporary of Christ, Polycarp disciple of John the Apostle and Polycarp's pupil Irenaeus of Lyons. Athenagerous the first recorded dean of the Alexandrian theological school started by Mark was a supporter as well. These were all first or second century members of the early church often taught by the disciples themselves or people who had been taught by the disciples. You can disagree with me but know who and what you are disagreeing with and please get the history straight. If you cannot understand why that text is there, and what it means, then you need to find out exactly where your faith is at and what it is placed in. Because just that section of text there disproves what you are attempting to float, and it is just one of many, many scriptures that do exactly the same thing. Genesis is not allegory. Never has been, never will be. If you need to believe in evolution so badly that you will slice and dice scripture to do it, find some other way to rationalize believing it. Because slicing and dicing Genesis in that particular manner is not possible. Hebrews 11:1-13 talks about the faith of the Jews in awaiting the Messiah and the importance of that faith throughout history. However, I assume that you wanted to make a deeper point then that so I thought I would let you explain. If you do not wish to explain how this relates to the discussion, it is irrelevant. Quoting Scripture is of no use if interpretation and explanation is not provided. I cannot get inside your head to see why you posted that particular passage and why you think it so utterly destroys my position. I asked politely for you to explain but you continue to refuse. What more can I do?

That is nonsense. If I wanted to understand Catholocism, I would go to a priest. If I want to understand Judaism I would consult Rabbis. If I want to understand how anything works, I go to the people who understand it best. One criticism that gets leveled at Christians is that we talk about stuff like this without actually taking the time to search out those who are best able to explain it. I took that criticism seriously and went to three university proffessors in my city, all of whom hold doctorates in their fields of research and in cognate scientific fields as well. So I have a pretty good understanding of the ToE. I got the same stuff from all three of them and am comfortable that I am able to correctly frame the theory in terms of its core tenets. You and D-9 are not correctly framing the theory and that is simply not going to get past me. I am not interested in your cooked up version of Evolution. You cannot make the actual theory work so you speculate and fantasize that it can somehow work with a biblical worldview that is just futile. Okay, so what is their argument that you find so compelling that evolution must entail naturalism as a metaphysic? I didin't ask them about the metaphysic, necessarily. I asked them to explain the theory itself, and what it entailed. I did ask them about theistic evolution and all of them balked at it. To them it is a joke and is not really evolution. To them it was entirely ridiculous to think that God used evolution. What I took from them is that the ToE precludes any gods or intelligent enties involved in the process of evolution either as causalities or as "guides." All three professors made it clear to me that the ToE makes no room whatsoever for any gods. In fact, one of them wondered why a Christian would even want to be an evolutionist. All three of them made it clear that Genesis cannot be reconciled with the ToE. I think they are right, even though I disagree with them about evolution itself. I think they have a firm grasp on the obvious problems that exist with trying to make the Bible accomodate a theory that precludes God. The problem with Theistic Evolutionists is that they have to modify both the ToE and the Bible to reconcile them together. You cannot take the ToE as it is conventionally understood and make it fit with the Bible as written. What you have to do in order to make this work is skew what the ToE actually says, while emasculating the text of Scripture into a non-literal text that doens't have to be accepted as written and deny its authority say what it says. Rather you want to believe what you can twist into becoming in order to make it suit your tastes. So basically you are saying that none of them had a philosophical reason for which to hold to the position that evolution is metaphysically naturalistic but their opinions that it is confirmed your opinion that it is so you simply accepted it without philosophical justification. You say that you think they are right but no philosophical proof or argument has been presented. I personally care very little for what you think on the issue but I would like to see some philosophical proof that metaphysical naturalism is implied by evolution. Ironically enough a Christian by the name of Alvin Plantinga already has an evolutionary argument against naturalism so I would like to see how your evolutionary argument for naturalism compares. Thanks.

What is "silly" is to continue to claim that Genesis is allegory when the rest of the Bible proves it is not. The only reason you cling to this theory is because you belong to a belief system that is more secular than Christian and because you do not wish to accept the fact that Genesis is literal, because if it were, that would challenge your worldview. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible. And while you are so fond of using the term "priori assumption" in post after post, your entire position rests on a priori assumption that Genesis is allegorical. But it isn't. And you refuse to deal with any evidence to the contrary. Because there is no way to do so. If Genesis is not allegory, then everything else falls apart. Firstly, I dont assume Genesis is allegorical. I just have scientific, historical precedent and textual reasons which I believe support the idea. Secondly, you also really took what I was calling silly out of context. Also, you have not supported your claim that Evolution and Christianity are philosophically incompatible. Lastly, accepting evolution as science does not imply a naturalistic worldview. If you think it does, provide evidence. Thanks. The evidence is the worldly positions you espouse and support that a well-grounded Christian following Christ would not. If you do not "assume" that Genesis is allegorical, then why do you continually argue that it is? The rest of the Bible does not support that theory, either scientifically, historically, or textually. The evidence I was asking for is the evidence that evolution implies metaphysical naturalism. This has yet to be supplied by either yourself or shiloh. You are dodging the request for that particular piece of evidence. I don't assume it but I argue it because I believe it to be scientifically true, consistent with a historical Christian view of Genesis, textually viable and more philosophically tenable then the YEC view which is in my opinion non-scientific, not consistent with a historical Christian view of Genesis, not textually sound and would make God a deceiver and therefore philosophically untenable.

Good for you Cobalt. You can quote Scripture. So can I. However, what I can't do is get inside your head and see what you are trying to say when you quote Scripture. What is the point of quoting this passage? You may be able to quote scripture. But I notice that you never actually do. And when it is shown to you, you don't seem to know what to do with it, or how to interpret it. That particular portion of scripture is self-evident in regards to this topic. Firstly, I do quote Scripture. I even have Scripture as my signature, but this is irrelevant to the question I asked. As to me apparently not being able to understand or interpret it properly, this is a rather bold and arrogant claim. Your purpose is obviously not self evident as I asked what you meant by posting this.... Please explain to this poor theistic evolutionist the point of this Scripture which I apparently cannot understand. Thanks.

What is "silly" is to continue to claim that Genesis is allegory when the rest of the Bible proves it is not. The only reason you cling to this theory is because you belong to a belief system that is more secular than Christian and because you do not wish to accept the fact that Genesis is literal, because if it were, that would challenge your worldview. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible. And while you are so fond of using the term "priori assumption" in post after post, your entire position rests on a priori assumption that Genesis is allegorical. But it isn't. And you refuse to deal with any evidence to the contrary. Because there is no way to do so. If Genesis is not allegory, then everything else falls apart. Firstly, I dont assume Genesis is allegorical. I just have scientific, historical precedent and textual reasons which I believe support the idea. Secondly, you also really took what I was calling silly out of context. Also, you have not supported your claim that Evolution and Christianity are philosophically incompatible. Lastly, accepting evolution as science does not imply a naturalistic worldview. If you think it does, provide evidence. Thanks.

Sigh... where do I start...? Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking is a physicist not an evolutionary biologist. Hawking also knows that space and time come into existence together he just doesn't think God is the cause. Please get your facts straight. Thanks That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Good for you Cobalt. You can quote Scripture. So can I. However, what I can't do is get inside your head and see what you are trying to say when you quote Scripture. What is the point of quoting this passage?

That is nonsense. If I wanted to understand Catholocism, I would go to a priest. If I want to understand Judaism I would consult Rabbis. If I want to understand how anything works, I go to the people who understand it best. One criticism that gets leveled at Christians is that we talk about stuff like this without actually taking the time to search out those who are best able to explain it. I took that criticism seriously and went to three university proffessors in my city, all of whom hold doctorates in their fields of research and in cognate scientific fields as well. So I have a pretty good understanding of the ToE. I got the same stuff from all three of them and am comfortable that I am able to correctly frame the theory in terms of its core tenets. You and D-9 are not correctly framing the theory and that is simply not going to get past me. I am not interested in your cooked up version of Evolution. You cannot make the actual theory work so you speculate and fantasize that it can somehow work with a biblical worldview that is just futile. First of all, this really doesn't address the issue shiloh. You still have not proven that evolution ********must******* imply metaphysical naturalism. In regards to your statements I have some questions: 1. Who are these renowned professors? Credentials would be nice. 2. As a matter of interest, since these are renowned university professors, what are their individual areas of research? Are they scientists, philosophers, both...? 3. Did they make specific claims that evolution excludes the idea of the Judeo-Christian concept of God? If so, what is their philosophical basis for these claims? 4. On what basis did they claim that evolution is metaphysically naturalistic? 3 and 4 are of particular importance as that is the original question posed by bary that you have failed to answer.

In regards to the issues shiloh has presented regarding the supposed conflict with God and evolution I will first deal with the 6 arguments he presented. 1. Evolution is inconsistent with God's omnipotence - In regards to this issue, your argument makes the a priori assumption that God, in order to be powerful must not create over millions of years or use the process of evolution to create. Note that this argument, although exceptionally poor applies equally to the 6-day creation account as it does to an old earth creation account or a evolutionary account. Power is not demonstrated based on time. Plate tectonics are powerful, moving entire continents but they take ages (from our perspective) to move these continents any measurable amount. Time of creation is of no relevance, especially to an eternal God. This is the basic flaw in your argumentation that causes it to fail and to which you have provided no counter-argumentation. 2. Evolution is inconsistent with God's personality - In regards to this issue, you once again make an assumption. You say that God wanted to create man in his own image and he should have done it instantly rather than taken the time required by evolution. You also state that man is the only creature of maintaining a relationship with God and thus, as rocks and plants can have no relationship with God, you imply that the time spent on these organisms from an evolutionary perspective would not be part of God's personality as God desires relationships. I would like to note once again that this is a time issue which as I noted in regards to your first objection is simply not valid. The second problem is that God is also a creator and even if he cannot maintain relationships with rocks and plants in the same way he would maintain a relationship with humans, he is still the creator of the universe and a creator can take pride in his work regardless of the work's ability to recognize him so there are other reasons God chooses to create in addition to building a relationship with the human race. For these two reasons, your argument fails. 3. Evolution is inconsistent with God's omniscience - In regards to this issue, you assume that because "mistakes" exist in nature, God had no prior knowledge of them. This is unreasonable to assume. He could have reasons for creating in the particular manner of evolution. Assuming his intentions is in my opinion, a very dangerous thing to do both philosophically and theologically. We must simply look at the evidence we have to see which method of creation explains nature in the best way and then see why God would create in such a way. 4. Evolution is inconsistent with God's nature of love - In regards to this issue, you assume that there were no other external factors or reasons that maximized other goods that God did not consider when creating the universe. Once again, this runs into the objection that I made above concerning assuming God's mind and intentions. 5. Evolution is inconsistent with God's purposiveness - In regards to this issue, you say that God's purpose was the salvation of man and evolution is a waste of billions of years. However, this commits to the time argument dealt with in your first and second objection. For the same reasons, this argument should be rejected outright. Additionally, as noted in argument two this may not be God's only reason for creation of the universe and assuming that it was is, as I mentioned multiple times, is a very dangerous assumption to make. 6. Evolution is inconsistent with the grace of God - the reasons bary said that this was silly is that it does not relate to evolution. You said the following on your first post on this issue: "Evolution, with its theology of struggle for survival in the physical world, fits perfectly with the humanistic theory of works for salvation in the spiritual world. The Christian concept of the grace of God, providing life and salvation in response to faith alone on the basis of the willing sacrifice of himself for the unfit and unworthy, is diametrically opposite to the evolutionary concept" Firstly, evolution does not have a theology, it is a scientific theory, not a theological one. Secondly, it has nothing to do with works or salvation as evolution has nothing to do with salvation in any way shape or form. Lastly, there exists no logical reason or philosophical objection that has been presented that places evolution against the sacrificial love of Christ. Bary was right to call this silly. It has no point or relation to the arguments.

Welcome to the forums. I am personally not Catholic for various reasons but many members of my extended family are and I can understand why these misconceptions are annoying. I hope you enjoy your stay here.

"Evolution is inconsistent with God's omnipotence. Since He has all power, He is capable of creating the universe in an instant, rather than having to stretch out His creating over eons of time. Evolution is inconsistent with God's personality. If man in His own image was the goal of the evolutionary process, surely God should not have waited until the very tail end of geologic time before creating personalities. No personal fellowship was possible with the rocks and seas, or even with the dinosaurs and gliptodons. Evolution is inconsistent with God's omniscience. The history of evolution, as interpreted by evolutionary geologists from the fossil record, is filled with extinctions, misfits, evolutionary cul-de-sacs, and other like evidences of very poor planning. The very essence of evolution, in fact, is random mutation, not scientific progress. Evolution is inconsistent with God's nature of love. The supposed fact of evolution is best evinced by the fossils, which eloquently speak of a harsh world, filled with storm and upheaval, disease and famine, struggle for existence and violent death. The accepted mechanism for inducing evolution is overpopulation and a natural selection through extermination of the weak and unfit. A loving God would surely have been more considerate of His creatures than this. �One (sparrow) shall not fall on the ground without your Father� (Matt. 10:29), said Jesus. Evolution is inconsistent with God's purposiveness. If God�s purpose was the creation and redemption of man, as theistic evolutionists presumably believe, it seems incomprehensible that He would waste billions of years in aimless evolutionary meandering before getting to the point. What semblance of purpose could there have been in the hundred-million-year reign and eventual extinction of the dinosaurs, for example? �Let all things be done decently and in order,� the Bible commands (1 Cor. 14:40). Evolution is inconsistent with the grace of God. Evolution, with its theology of struggle for survival in the physical world, fits perfectly with the humanistic theory of works for salvation in the spiritual world. The Christian concept of the grace of God, providing life and salvation in response to faith alone on the basis of the willing sacrifice of himself for the unfit and unworthy, is diametrically opposite to the evolutionary concept (See Eph. 2:8-9)." (Morris, John. Scripture and Creation, pp. 39-40) 1. has no bearing on anything. God could have created the multiplicity of everything in no time at all instead of 6 days. It happening in billions or years, days, or no time doesn't have any reflection on God's actual power. It's just what God happens to desire to do. 2. this assumes that God is in time and was 'waiting around'. I don't think a billion years is a substantial amount of time to God. In fact I understand God to be outside of time entirely, so these time scales which seem enormous to us are nothing whatsoever to God. 3. this is the same response as to God's power. God knew precisely what would happen. He could have his own reasons for preferring one method of creation over another. Presuming to understand God's intentions that fully strikes me as chutzpah. 4. This one is a lot more interesting than the others. Still, it may be that God's maximizing other Goods is sufficient to allow for things to play out via evolution. 5. This is a repeat of 1 and 2 and I have the same response. 6. this is silly. The fact remains that evolution is simplly not consistent with how God is revealed in the Bible. You can deny it in meaningless knee-jerk responses, but you can't really present a well thought out argument as demonstrated in the tripe you posted here. I fail to see how this response addresses the counterpoints brought by bary. How do you respond to his point that you are making a priori assumptions about the very nature and intentions of God when regarding time, physical death, and God's omni's? I fail to find any response to them in your posts. Until then, I fail to see how you can say that evolution is in direct conflict with theism.

The entire NT refers to the events in the Garden as literal, not just Jesus. Theistic Evolution is a very sad joke. Anyone claiming to be a theistic evolutionist might as well claim he is also an atheistic Christian. Both are equally oxymoronic. Your not making much sense. How can you compare "theistic evolutionist" to something that is quite impossible. A christian CAN'T be an atheist becaue to be a christian you have to believe that Jesus is the son of God (therefore a belief in God) and died on the cross for our sins. However, a Christian can also believe that evolution is a process that God uses. A theistic evolutionist is also not oxymoronic because the theory of evolution is not inherently atheistic. After all, the theory does not go into how life first got on earth, and instead deals with already existing life. And the theory also does not state that there is no God, and instead neither confirms nor denies one. So yes a man can be a believe in God and the fact that he created the world, and believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of Man, and that Jesus is the son of God, and also believe in evolution....and *GASP* still be a christian. After all his belief in evolution does not destroy/overwrite his belief in God and the fact that Jesus is Lord, so its not like he is losing his christianity for believing in evolution. You hit the nail on the head here. Evolution is science, not intrinsically atheistic or theistic. Science in general is not intrinsically attached to one particular religious mindset. It makes as much sense for someone to call the theory of evolution atheistic as to call Newton's theory of universal gravitation atheistic. Thank you for making this point. You are wrong on all counts. Furthermore, you cannot comparre the theory of gravity with the ToE beacause the theory of gravity is not connected to any particular worldview whereas the ToE is diametrically opposed to a biblical worldview where, for instance, man is represented as a special creation of God and was created separate from the rest of the created order and was created in His image. The ToE denies any spiritual or other intelligent causality and relies solely on natural selection. The theory of gravity is not at all similar. You mistake evolution for philosophical naturalism and materialism which I would say are opposed to the idea of God's existence. This is generally the view held by people such as Dawkins that you mention. When they make statements such as God does not exist, they are not making scientific statements but rather philosophical ones. However, evolution, as with any science, is not opposed or supportive of philosophical naturalism. You are claiming that science supports a particular worldview when all science tries to do is achieve knowledge of facts regarding our natural world. I don't see how this is opposed to the Christian worldview.

The entire NT refers to the events in the Garden as literal, not just Jesus. Theistic Evolution is a very sad joke. Anyone claiming to be a theistic evolutionist might as well claim he is also an atheistic Christian. Both are equally oxymoronic. Your not making much sense. How can you compare "theistic evolutionist" to something that is quite impossible. A christian CAN'T be an atheist becaue to be a christian you have to believe that Jesus is the son of God (therefore a belief in God) and died on the cross for our sins. However, a Christian can also believe that evolution is a process that God uses. A theistic evolutionist is also not oxymoronic because the theory of evolution is not inherently atheistic. After all, the theory does not go into how life first got on earth, and instead deals with already existing life. And the theory also does not state that there is no God, and instead neither confirms nor denies one. So yes a man can be a believe in God and the fact that he created the world, and believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of Man, and that Jesus is the son of God, and also believe in evolution....and *GASP* still be a christian. After all his belief in evolution does not destroy/overwrite his belief in God and the fact that Jesus is Lord, so its not like he is losing his christianity for believing in evolution. You hit the nail on the head here. Evolution is science, not intrinsically atheistic or theistic. Science in general is not intrinsically attached to one particular religious mindset. It makes as much sense for someone to call the theory of evolution atheistic as to call Newton's theory of universal gravitation atheistic. Thank you for making this point.

The big bang theory though its sounds and look logical, goes contrary to the bible on creation. The theory is tided in with evolution. If you or anyone else accepts this theory then your telling me that you came from monkey, I certainly didn't (Genisis 1:26-27; then chap 4-5). why is it then men and animals stops evolve into something else? Yes I do believe we change and adopt to our environment, but not according to evolution and BIg Bang Theories Evolution doesn't imply that we 'came from monkeys'. We share a common ancestor with modern monkeys, that is the assertion. sorry i shouldn't say monkeys but APEs. Thats not according to books i've read. According to evolution theory (I work in a library so saw books on evolution) the human race came about through species evolving, eg. look at this picture. THis is what evolution theory asserts, and is a direct contradiction to the word of God. I even find it insulting to man and God. One contradiction between theorist on the Big Bang is that there was a big explosion. "Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe."(http://www.big-bang-theory.com/) No one claims the Big Bang was an explosion. That is just a blatant misrepresentation of the theory. The Big Bang Theory simply holds that the universe came into existence at some initial point as which space and time literally came out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo - something perfectly compatible with the historical Christian position) and now it is expanding outwards. The term was coined by a man named Hoyle who was a proponent of the steady state model and was according to some, trying to mock the model given by the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations. The name stuck. Also it depends on what you mean by apes. Apes is not really a scientific term. We descended from a common ancestor that we share with the modern great apes as they are known so we share a family in terms of taxonomy. This image is misleading and inaccurate. The way evolution is understood now is via the phylogenetic tree- the tree of life. Well yes, there's that too lol

I think the three main points of the contentions are still with us. In regards to the historical literalism ideas, I think D-9 has accurately displayed why I think there is a problem with saying that this is not a scientific claim. If you claim Genesis in combination with the genealogy of Christ to be purely historical in nature then it is only reasonable to say that humanity is under 10000 years old as a historic fact simply based on the presupposed historic ages of Adam and his presupposed historical descendants. Based on the historical view held by Shiloh, Cobalt and Tinky it would be unreasonable to old an OEC view and still claim Genesis and the genealogy of Christ as historic in nature. Once again I would like to simply point out that the YEC view is simply unscientific and unhistorical with stacks of evidence proving not only and old universe but also human civilization that existed well before 4004 BC (if we are to use the Bishop's calculations). Thus I think the premise argument I presented still presents a problem to those with the historical view of Genesis as they make historical and thus scientific claims (as age, etc are determined by science in addition to historical/archaeological research). In regards to Shiloh's comments regarding the Church Fathers, it would be presumptuous to assume that every view that the Church Fathers held was directly from the apostles. However, as you have noted before, the allegorical Genesis idea is important as a theological question at the very basis of the faith as it raises questions regarding the nature of the Fall (many of which you brought up). Also we know that the issue of an allegorical Genesis was a topic of discussion in both Jewish and Christian theological circles. Philo and other Jewish contemporaries held and expounded these views. I think it would be unreasonable to say that this prominent view was not discussed by the early disciples. If it was truly heresy, you would see it be denounced by disciples of John such as Polycarp and his followers which included Ireneaus but in fact we see the opposite. Furthermore, the theological school in Alexandria started by Mark the Apostle. Note that Alexandria was the home of Philo, the Jewish scholar who was noted for his support of the allegorical view of Genesis. Athenagrous and Clement of Alexandria were some of the first to be recognized theologians from this seminary, taught by those who had been taught by Mark. If Mark had viewed his contemporary Philo as heretical, why wouldn't this have been stamped out? Why didn't John say anything to Polycarp regarding this important issue? It seems unreasonable to assume these issues, so important and discussed often my writers of that day did not deserve at least one sermon or mention by the apostles. After all, how much effort would it have taken for the apostles to declare this obvious "heresy" as you put it. In regards to a priori assumptions and begging the question, I think you sink your own ship here. You say, "We intuitively know the difference between a historical narrative that is meant to be understood as real history an the fictional writings of J.R.R Tolkein and other authors of fiction." This intuition is derived from your personal views, not based on historical precedent or scientific reasons. This is the a priori ideas I am talking about. You have an intuition, an assumption, that Genesis is literal and historical and for that reason you cling to the view and say that Scripture supports it. In regards to your claims that I make a priori assumptions, I used to be a YEC like yourself when I was much younger (10 or 11). I held to my views a priori, not accepting evolution, the Big Bang or much of science in general. During my teen years I began examining the scientific and historical evidence for both sides and found that YEC had no support and evolution did (In that time I also became an atheist however as is evidenced, I have since returned to Christianity). So, no I would say that my views have not been a priori but rather based on what I believe to be best supported by the facts.

The big bang theory though its sounds and look logical, goes contrary to the bible on creation. The theory is tided in with evolution. If you or anyone else accepts this theory then your telling me that you came from monkey, I certainly didn't (Genisis 1:26-27; then chap 4-5). why is it then men and animals stops evolve into something else? Yes I do believe we change and adopt to our environment, but not according to evolution and BIg Bang Theories Evolution doesn't imply that we 'came from monkeys'. We share a common ancestor with modern monkeys, that is the assertion. sorry i shouldn't say monkeys but APEs. Thats not according to books i've read. According to evolution theory (I work in a library so saw books on evolution) the human race came about through species evolving, eg. look at this picture. THis is what evolution theory asserts, and is a direct contradiction to the word of God. I even find it insulting to man and God. One contradiction between theorist on the Big Bang is that there was a big explosion. "Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe."(http://www.big-bang-theory.com/) No one claims the Big Bang was an explosion. That is just a blatant misrepresentation of the theory. The Big Bang Theory simply holds that the universe came into existence at some initial point as which space and time literally came out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo - something perfectly compatible with the historical Christian position) and now it is expanding outwards. The term was coined by a man named Hoyle who was a proponent of the steady state model and was according to some, trying to mock the model given by the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations. The name stuck. Also it depends on what you mean by apes. Apes is not really a scientific term. We descended from a common ancestor that we share with the modern great apes as they are known so we share a family in terms of taxonomy.

I wouldn't give two hoots for any "church father" who didn't believe in a literal Genesis. A literal Genesis is foundational to the rest of Scripture. And the simple fact that Jesus adhered to a literal Genesis is enough to bury the allegorical crowd. This is an a priori assumption on your part that Jesus viewed Adam as literal when he discussed the idea of Adam and sin.

Once again I am going to attempt to synthesize the main problems I have with the positions held by Cobalt and Shiloh. There are three major points of contention from my perspective. Literal View of Genesis You hold that the creation account was historical. Defining historical as something factual that occurs in the past, this can only lead me to believe that a YEC view must be held. Humanity must be regarded (based on the ages of the people in the Bible) as under 10000 years old. These are historical and scientific claims. As it happens, both on a scientific and historical level, these opinions have no weight. No historian or scientist in his right mind would contend that the earth and humanity itself is under 10000 years old. It would be the height of folly to make such claims when we have bones that can be accurately dated to an older age. Simply put regarding Genesis as historical disregards the facts that we see in nature. Unless God is intentionally trying to deceive us (something I do not believe to be a part of his nature) I see no reason to hold Genesis as historical and literal. I would therefore hold that the following premises (1) The literal/historical view of Genesis implies a young earth/humanity (2) Scientists and historians reject the idea of the earth and humanity being under 10000 years old (3) Either (a) God is deceptive in his manner of creation or (b) the Earth/humanity is not 10000 years old (4) Deception is not the nature of a holy and loving God (5) Therefore (3, 4) the Earth /humanity is not 10000 years old (6) Therefore (1,5) the literal/historical view of Genesis is wrong Regarding the Church Fathers Somehow you keep forgetting that both Jews and Christians held the view that Genesis was allegorical at this time. Could you stop ignoring them? Regarding canon, you hold that the NT canon is older than the 4th century. This is just wrong. Canon did not exist in a codified form until the early 4th century. Granted there were lists of potential NT canon earlier from individual scholars but NT canon was not codified until the ecumenical councils and possibly the first Council of Nicaea. Regarding the relevance of discussing the Church Fathers, I would contend that it is logical to hold to the following premises (1) The apostles held to beliefs regarding the OT similar to Christ (2) The apostles would teach these OT views to the ones they accounted and form their own disciples (3) The vast majority of people who learned directly from the apostles held to an allegorical view of Genesis and was consequentially expounded to future generations (4) It is reasonable to hold that the apostles most likely held to these allegorical views. P.S. How in the world do you think Martin Luther is a Church Father? This somewhat explains your confusion in regard to this issue. A Priori Assumptions and Begging the Question Your arguments all assume that the writers of the NT held to the literal view of Genesis. For this you provide no justification. You make this a priori assumption and use it to disregard other arguments. This is simply fallacious.