Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

But the ToE says that the process isn't guided.   So why be an evolutionist if you are not going to accept what the theory says?

 

The ToE cannot rule out a supernatural being guiding the system. Evolution isn't guided is true insofar as the theory can claim given the philosophical parameters of science which does not leak into the realm of the metaphysical. 

 

Saying that 'God guides the process' is not a scientific statement just as saying 'God doesn't guide the system' is a nonscientific statement. 

 

The ToE does rule out the a supernatural being.  It cannot be naturalistic and supernaturalistic at the same time.  It cannot be impersonal and personal at the same time.  This is another example of why I have found that you are not a reliable or trustworthy source when it comes to these things.  I have gotten the straight dope from experts and they say the oppposite. I will trust them before I accept the misinformation that comes from you.  The ToE is an unguided, unplanned, impersonal process and is wholly naturalistic in every way.  That is the correct and standard way to understand the core tenets of evolution. 

[Guest shiloh357]

When you have an actual argument to present as to why evolution *must* entail the naturalistic metaphysics, let me know. Otherwise you are merely allowing yourself to buy the propaganda of atheists.

 

 

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.

 

[enoob57]

 

Then I guess we need to go into all the churches, gather them up, and toss them in the garbage because you, an unbeliever, says it's not for us today.

You misunderstand, I'm saying the writers of Genesis didn't have the 21st century in mind, they had their own culture in mind. And if you want to understand Genesis in their light, you have to read it from their perspective, not that of a 21st century American.

Wrong again, D-9...

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Only believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit that guides us in the discernment of Scripture.

Now if only believers came to the same theological conclusions. Instead, we are left with an ever diverging theology that occasionally gets more conformed, usually as the consequence of war or otherwise stamping out "heresies" from the face of the Earth by force. I'm not impressed.

 

The satanic influence has smeared his imps from one spectrum to another with concepts and fantasies all for the purpose of

of confusion from truth... satan knows if he can successfully hide the truth from ones like yourself then you will remain lost!

There exist only one source for truth and I have seen this written to you in 100's of different ways and you will not see it for

you refuse to believe it to be so.... there are some really good apologetics for why God's Word is self evident with truth and

It's Witness 'IS' without flaw in the completeness of the delivery... and because it is the only way for you to find truth- you have

become your own judge and jury in death -as you will be without excuse and our job as witnesses is complete in this! Love, Steven 

[enoob57]

 

 

 

 

When you have an actual argument to present as to why evolution *must* entail the naturalistic metaphysics, let me know. Otherwise you are merely allowing yourself to buy the propaganda of atheists.

 

 

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?

 

Barry just a chime in to a theological reality you may have not entertained yet:

We know by Scripture God intends to completely destroy/end the first created element

of heaven and earth... now why this is a an evidentiary relevance to your question of  

naturalism and metaphysics lies in the complete and eternal separation of the two-

spirit (metaphysics) natural creation (naturalism)... If the spiritual essence was tied in to

a natural means then there would be codependence but this is not the case with God's

revelatory instruction to us!  Love, Steven

[enoob57]

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you have an actual argument to present as to why evolution *must* entail the naturalistic metaphysics, let me know. Otherwise you are merely allowing yourself to buy the propaganda of atheists.

 

 

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?

 

Barry just a chime in to a theological reality you may have not entertained yet:

We know by Scripture God intends to completely destroy/end the first created element

of heaven and earth... now why this is a an evidentiary relevance to your question of  

naturalism and metaphysics lies in the complete and eternal separation of the two-

spirit (metaphysics) natural creation (naturalism)... If the spiritual essence was tied in to

a natural means then there would be codependence but this is not the case with God's

revelatory instruction to us!  Love, Steven

 

Well I don't think you have to argue that the spiritual is dependent on the natural though. Evolution is a theory about how our physical forms came about, it has nothing to comment on whether or not we have spirits, when, and so on.

 

Greater in point is the focus of that which God is not even keeping over that which God is never allowing end!  Surely you can see the influence 

of science to lift up the created thing over all else as important... only because self initiated effort can seemingly gain ground to that of intellect 

but to what purpose as God Himself question us

Mark 8:35-36

  36 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

NKJV

basically if one focuses on created thing (which has been given over to spiritual forces of darkness) and allow that influence to redefine God's Word...

this above becomes specific Words to that person!  Love, Steven

[Mr. Nice Christian]

 

 

   

"The reason a non-literal method of interpretation is adopted is, almost without exception, because of a desire to avoid the obvious interpretation of the passage.  The desire to bring the teaching of Scripture into harmony with some predetermined system of doctrine instead of bringing doctrine into harmony with the Scripture has kept the method alive."

 

 

   Pleading an allegorical interpretation of Genesis is done to make the theory of evolution acceptable and workable. 

 

 

That would be correct IF the idea of an allegorical interpretation of Genesis was created in a respone to the idea of evolution that came about in the 19th century from Christians who wanted to accept evolution.

 

However the idea of genesis not being all literal has been around and even shared by christians before evolution came about.  And if there was no theory of evolution existing, an idea of an allegorical interpreation of Genesis would still exist and be believed by some christians.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Mr. Nice Christian

[enoob57]

Cobalt, I take it that is your statement to peace out of the discussion. Alright.

 

Steven science doesn't *have* to go that way though. It used to be aimed explicitly at studying God's creation and scientists assumed they could do it because God created it to be orderly. That's the sort of approach I have in mind.

I understand but the influence of the structure of science is and can only be one of natural law which brings the real deficiency:

Problematic is that they have made God to be in submission to His creative laws... yet we have The Lord Jesus showing us

God is not! As the influence of science is one of physical reliance it can do little else but elevate the sensual structures to that of all

importance... but God is ending the natural(to be never again)! One does not throw away that which has importance! 

I rejoice with you in Jesus but make sure you look outside of this world to where He is at presently... making sure He Who has

called you to Himself 'IS' the One Who is sitting Here-

Col 3:1-4

3 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.

2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

NKJV

This embodies my concern for you to have proper focus... not on that which passes away but on Him and where He takes us!

 Love, Steven

[ByFaithAlone]

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. 

[ByFaithAlone]

 

 

 

When you have an actual argument to present as to why evolution *must* entail the naturalistic metaphysics, let me know. Otherwise you are merely allowing yourself to buy the propaganda of atheists.

 

 

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. 

[ByFaithAlone]

 

Hebrews 11:1-13 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.  2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.  4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.  5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.  6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.  7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.  8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.  9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.  10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.  11 By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.  12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.  13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.

 

 

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?