watchinginawe

I was referring more towards observed natural adaptation of life. For example, the Galapagos finches and the variation of beaks with environment and food sources or even the differences we observe among contemporary humans. I like your distinction regarding the "new creature".

Not necessarily. Adaptation is observed evolution and that seems part of God's design. Adaptation is also an improvement over the existing form given a particular environment.

I wanted to mention and solicit input on how the fall of humanity plays into this as well. We know that God expelled Adam and Eve (humanity) from the Garden of Eden as a result of the fall. So some features of life that we see today is a result of the fall. I have heard varying opinions about things like viruses and toxic bacteria, etc. as perhaps being the result of the fall. I am not so certain about that personally, I don't believe that anything else was created but rather that expulsion from the Garden of Eden and sin brought upon humanity all that God prophesied in the judgment of Adam. Anyway, who wants to chime in and help with my view of the consequences of the fall on contemporary life in all of this? Blessings,

I do not view the resting the seventh day as a day of rest and then beginning again to create, but rather God ceased creating any further after six days. God's work is now in sustaining His creation, that began on the seventh day and continues to this day. God's work of creation ceased after six days. I'm glad you quoted this because I thought to come back and expound a bit more on whether continuing evolution is God "creating" or not. My view is that evolution occurs, but it is not an ongoing creative process that God has included into His creation. Thus, evolution is more of a sustaining feature of created life much like other sustaining features of our Earth and solar system and all the universe. I do not believe that God created just one living or type of organism which then "created" all the life we see today by natural evolutionary means. I believe the life we see today is beyond the means of natural evolution beginning from a simple form of life. So I am not in the common ancestry camp but rather the special creation camp where it comes to life. I like Michael Behe quite a bit. However, I don't believe that Michael Behe believes that the flagellar motor evolved naturally. Behe is a Catholic and I have heard him speak to how he was raised and believed in the "perfect billiards shot" as a Catholic but came to a different view when he engaged in scientific work. He didn't believe that natural evolution could bring forth things that were "irreducibly complex". But I will look up and see if I can find a lecture on how he views this sort of thing. I am sure that he isn't a YEC, so you are correct there.

Agreed. Everything after the first day of creation is a second order creation of God, thus it was "caused" or "made" by God to form from existing created matter from the first day. Thus, life also is a second order creation. Creation is referred to as a specific "work" of God that occurred during a finite period of "six days". If God just created it all on day 1 and then let things just progress from there as He set into motion, I would not understand how it is that He "rested" from His work on the seventh day. Also, if evolution is how God "creates", did He really rest the seventh day? Isn't he having to continue to labor? I believe creation has ceased and God has rested from creating and now sustains His creation.

It does seem more and more that way, doesn't it? At least perhaps "not natural", or therefore , impossible? No, that is a contradiction to Science since life manifestly exists and the only impossible explanations are supernatural, so they will continue to hold on to self organization of some manner as the best explanation. I like what John Lennox says of this, that such logic becomes a "Science of the gaps" explanation for anything we are ignorant of in avoidance of coming to the right conclusion.

That seems a bit of having your cake and eating it too to me. But that would seem to include a lot of other things if we just add the distinction of God-ordained. Thus, thunder claps would become supernatural manifestations as well as granite layers, faults, and oil in shale, etc.

I believe Piñatas and sticks, or something like that.

I agree with your post but the issue differences remain major to me. BTW, yes, the foundation of our Christian faith is Jesus Christ. When we put tests in front of that then the result can be a misplaced faith. There are lots and lots of these IMO. I am the least fond of responses like "you believe in a different Jesus", etc. Anyway, I digress.

I'll just stay with the why first. You quoted a poster who believed Darwinian Evolution, and I'll just add the Modern Synthesis, is bogus. You apparently disagreed with him and said that such minor disagreements shouldn't bring disparaging comments about one's faith. I agree except that I think disagreeing on Evolution is a somewhat major disagreement that shouldn't bring forth disparaging comments among brothers and sisters in Christ regarding their faith. I could see someone reading your post and saying, "yeah, but this is major". So my point is framed around the thought that even major points of disagreement should not divide us in a bitter fashion.

This is not an "evolution" poll. This is to ascertain the forum's thoughts as to how life began. I would say "naturally" means according to how Science currently views things, that life forms naturally when conditions are favorable. I would say "supernaturally" means that life can't form naturally and was therefore created by God. I am in the "supernatural" camp. I believe this is truly a binary poll. Maybe there are those who just "don't know", but I would think that is very few. Blessings,

We who have our faith placed in Jesus Christ should be able to disagree on issues of even major importance without demonizing those who disagree with us else this forum and many others could call it a day. I say that because "minor" and "major" is often in the eyes of the one who disagrees. I'll wager many see the kind of disagreement in this thread as definitely major. I guess I see it more on the major side rather than the minor side too.

I have possibly lost the art of the rhetorical question even though I framed it with an emoticon , but I am sure that I qualified my post suggesting how a Materialist may view things. I'm not a Materialist, but I have been one when I was young and ignorant. Blessings,

There is no reason to deny them the claim that humanity was the computer's designer. Thus, we have soup to computers through evolution alone, at least for the materialists. The computer "evolved" because intelligent life first evolved from non-intelligent life which first evolved from non-ordered matter, at least as it concerns life. The computer is kind of like a wasp's nest then, just the natural artifact of intelligent life. Intelligent life is necessary in order to construct forum posts and to conduct science and to formulate modern theories of evolution and to design and manufacture computers and to make space ships, etc. Thus, intelligent life is simply the result of the natural evolution of life and therefore must also be prevalent throughout the universe, at least anywhere that life first chemically formed and then underwent evolution to intelligent life. It simply must have happened billions of times wherever conditions favored it just like it has happened here on Earth. Right?

Marathoner, you do not seem to be lacking in the response department.