Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[nebula]

 

 

Shiloh

 

What I want from you is the argument that the evolutionists in question gave that convinced you that you cannot subscribe to both evolutionary theory (as I have defined as species from common descent) and believe that God  created everything. You have repeatedly stated 'they' told you this. I have repeatedly asked for what it is that they argued that you have found so compelling. So... why do you think this so strongly?

 

 

Gen. 1:21

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

 

What does "according to their kinds" mean to you?

 

 

According to the standard evolutionary model, all life has "a common ancestor."

 

Yet this theory has yet to find the evidence for the arising of this thing we call life - a functioning, self-sustaining cell. (A new "kind" arising from previously existing different "kind".)

 

This theory also fails to to explain how the different "kingdoms" as we classify them arose. (What is the ancient non-animal ancestor from which the first "animal" came? At what stage of development did it go from bacteria/plant/whatever to animal? There is not hard core evidence for this; rather, there are fill-in-the-blank arguments to explain what "must" have happened.)

 

From what ancient "ancestor" did the canines arise? What evidence is there that some non-canine animal population mutated adaptive changes to their anatomy and physiology to enable then to be a completely new kind of creature?

 

If you want to discuss the evidence for evolution that's cool, but that is really a different topic and should be in a different thread.

 

As far as creating in kinds go, as I take that as part of the 'non literal' account of God's creative activities I'm not sure why I'd dissect that term.

 

 

Hmmm, i guess you missed what I was trying to get at.

 

You asked Shiloh about how evolution contradicts the Bible.

 

I was trying to bring forward one of the arguments on that.

 

 

The conflict here as I see it - you come from belief in naturalistic-based evolution, trying not to fit that belief into what the Bible says, while most people here come from belief in theologic-based Creation having a hard time believing anything with a naturalistic-base to it.

 

 

For me, I can accept such things as time not being as it seems. (Notice how the Bible never mentions the creation of water, for example.) But I cannot reconcile anything in Scripture to support such things as God making animals out of a "common ancestor" precursor. But most importantly, what does evolution say about who and what man is? Personally, the argument that God evolved a population of apes and ape-like hominids or however it is best described into Homo sapien and then inserted a unique soul into this population . . . doesn't cut it.

 

 

Is this making more sense to the explanation I was trying to reach at?

[nebula]

Evolution is a methodological scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It isn't an explanation for the origin or meaning of life. That is, evolution is not arising from philosophical naturalism, it is arising from methodological naturalism. When a scientist comes along and says that evolution requires no creator and no intelligent guiding force, i.e. NO GOD, they are no longer talking about science, but about philosophy. That scientist has stepped out of the methodological bounds and into naturalism.

 

Sure, but do any of them admit to this?

[Guest shiloh357]

Evolution is a methodological scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It isn't an explanation for the origin or meaning of life. That is, evolution is not arising from philosophical naturalism, it is arising from methodological naturalism. When a scientist comes along and says that evolution requires no creator and no intelligent guiding force, i.e. NO GOD, they are no longer talking about science, but about philosophy. That scientist has stepped out of the methodological bounds and into naturalism.

 

Wrong.  For them to say that evolution requires no god or intelligent causality is not philosphy.  If they were to say "there is no god or gods in existence, THAT would be a philosophical statement.  To claim that Evolution is entirely naturalistic isn't philosophy.   Science can't detect anything outside the natural world and those who live within the framework of only what science can detect are not making philosophical statements.

 

 

Does that mean that evolution is entirely naturalistic? No. Just because a scientist decided to be a philosopher for a day, doesn't mean we need to take their opinion on board as "gospel".  What it does mean is that the vast majority of evolutionists put evolution into a naturalistic context. But that is a vastly different conclusion to "evolution is naturalistic".

 

The ToE which is part of mainstream science states that it is entirely naturalistic.   From where do you derive the qualifications and the authority to claim otherwise??

 

It is entirely naturalistic due to the fact that scientists view evlution as an alternative to the creation account in Genesis.  The ToE is designed to contradict the account in Genesis at every point.  Genesis presents a planned, guided, personal and supernatural creation event.   Evolution is unguided, unplanned, naturalistic and impersonal.   You can't more diametrically opposed than that.

So when Christians suggest that God could have used evolution, they aren't talking about an oxymoron. They are just suggesting a mode of creation.

 

Yes they are talking about an oxymoron, IF we are going to be honest about the ToE and the Bible and where they completely contradict each other.

 

Furthermore, how can a Christian support evolution when you have the very creation of man in Genesis occuring from the dust of the earth?   The creaion of man is given to us and shows that man is not evolved from some other creature or line of creatures going back to a pool of primordial soup.   You simply cannot reconicile evolution with the Bible no matter how hard you try.

 

This whole thing (along with gay marriage) is going to be a line in the sand.  People are going to have to decide if they are going to be Christians and believe the Bible or reject the Bible and be evolutionists.   Pick a side and commit to it instead of trying to have one foot in the world and one foot in the Kingdom.   Whom do you believe:  God or the evolutionists?

 

I must say it feels quite frustrating that this point isn't yet appreciated. 

 

It is appreciated, but it is wrong.

 

[JDavis]

 

Evolution is a methodological scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It isn't an explanation for the origin or meaning of life. That is, evolution is not arising from philosophical naturalism, it is arising from methodological naturalism. When a scientist comes along and says that evolution requires no creator and no intelligent guiding force, i.e. NO GOD, they are no longer talking about science, but about philosophy. That scientist has stepped out of the methodological bounds and into naturalism.

 

Wrong.  For them to say that evolution requires no god or intelligent causality is not philosphy.  If they were to say "there is no god or gods in existence, THAT would be a philosophical statement.  To claim that Evolution is entirely naturalistic isn't philosophy.   Science can't detect anything outside the natural world and those who live within the framework of only what science can detect are not making philosophical statements.

 

 

Does that mean that evolution is entirely naturalistic? No. Just because a scientist decided to be a philosopher for a day, doesn't mean we need to take their opinion on board as "gospel".  What it does mean is that the vast majority of evolutionists put evolution into a naturalistic context. But that is a vastly different conclusion to "evolution is naturalistic".

 

The ToE which is part of mainstream science states that it is entirely naturalistic.   From where do you derive the qualifications and the authority to claim otherwise??

 

It is entirely naturalistic due to the fact that scientists view evlution as an alternative to the creation account in Genesis.  The ToE is designed to contradict the account in Genesis at every point.  Genesis presents a planned, guided, personal and supernatural creation event.   Evolution is unguided, unplanned, naturalistic and impersonal.   You can't more diametrically opposed than that.

So when Christians suggest that God could have used evolution, they aren't talking about an oxymoron. They are just suggesting a mode of creation.

 

Yes they are talking about an oxymoron, IF we are going to be honest about the ToE and the Bible and where they completely contradict each other.

 

Furthermore, how can a Christian support evolution when you have the very creation of man in Genesis occuring from the dust of the earth?   The creaion of man is given to us and shows that man is not evolved from some other creature or line of creatures going back to a pool of primordial soup.   You simply cannot reconicile evolution with the Bible no matter how hard you try.

 

This whole thing (along with gay marriage) is going to be a line in the sand.  People are going to have to decide if they are going to be Christians and believe the Bible or reject the Bible and be evolutionists.   Pick a side and commit to it instead of trying to have one foot in the world and one foot in the Kingdom.   Whom do you believe:  God or the evolutionists?

 

I must say it feels quite frustrating that this point isn't yet appreciated. 

 

It is appreciated, but it is wrong.

 

 

 

Isn't it a little above your pay grade to determine what is going to be the "line in the sand"?

 

Have you read any of the work by Francis Collins?   

 

I do not agree with all that he says on evolution but I would not feel comfortable declaring him on the wrong side of the line in the sand. 

 

I don't really believe that is the job of a human

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Evolution is a methodological scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It isn't an explanation for the origin or meaning of life. That is, evolution is not arising from philosophical naturalism, it is arising from methodological naturalism. When a scientist comes along and says that evolution requires no creator and no intelligent guiding force, i.e. NO GOD, they are no longer talking about science, but about philosophy. That scientist has stepped out of the methodological bounds and into naturalism.

 

Wrong.  For them to say that evolution requires no god or intelligent causality is not philosphy.  If they were to say "there is no god or gods in existence, THAT would be a philosophical statement.  To claim that Evolution is entirely naturalistic isn't philosophy.   Science can't detect anything outside the natural world and those who live within the framework of only what science can detect are not making philosophical statements.

 

 

Does that mean that evolution is entirely naturalistic? No. Just because a scientist decided to be a philosopher for a day, doesn't mean we need to take their opinion on board as "gospel".  What it does mean is that the vast majority of evolutionists put evolution into a naturalistic context. But that is a vastly different conclusion to "evolution is naturalistic".

 

The ToE which is part of mainstream science states that it is entirely naturalistic.   From where do you derive the qualifications and the authority to claim otherwise??

 

It is entirely naturalistic due to the fact that scientists view evlution as an alternative to the creation account in Genesis.  The ToE is designed to contradict the account in Genesis at every point.  Genesis presents a planned, guided, personal and supernatural creation event.   Evolution is unguided, unplanned, naturalistic and impersonal.   You can't more diametrically opposed than that.

So when Christians suggest that God could have used evolution, they aren't talking about an oxymoron. They are just suggesting a mode of creation.

 

Yes they are talking about an oxymoron, IF we are going to be honest about the ToE and the Bible and where they completely contradict each other.

 

Furthermore, how can a Christian support evolution when you have the very creation of man in Genesis occuring from the dust of the earth?   The creaion of man is given to us and shows that man is not evolved from some other creature or line of creatures going back to a pool of primordial soup.   You simply cannot reconicile evolution with the Bible no matter how hard you try.

 

This whole thing (along with gay marriage) is going to be a line in the sand.  People are going to have to decide if they are going to be Christians and believe the Bible or reject the Bible and be evolutionists.   Pick a side and commit to it instead of trying to have one foot in the world and one foot in the Kingdom.   Whom do you believe:  God or the evolutionists?

 

I must say it feels quite frustrating that this point isn't yet appreciated. 

 

It is appreciated, but it is wrong.

 

 

 

Isn't it a little above your pay grade to determine what is going to be the "line in the sand"?

 

Have you read any of the work by Francis Collins?   

 

I do not agree with all that he says on evolution but I would not feel comfortable declaring him on the wrong side of the line in the sand. 

 

I don't really believe that is the job of a human

 

Francis Collins is a fallible man.   I am appealing to an infallible Bible and an infallible God.   I couldn't care less about Francis Collins' opinion on the matter.  That he, like others, have sold out to the world in this area is unfortunate, but I am not surprised.

 

You cannot be an evolutionist and a Bible believer.  What we have today in the theistic evolutionist camp is a lot of people who skew both the ToE and the Bible to create this hybrid notion of TE.  The fact is that they accept evolution but they accept it on their terms.  They will accept the Bible, but they only accept it on their terms.  Anyone who is honest about the ToE and the Bible will realize that the two are mutually incompatible.   You can have one or the other, but you can't have both.

[JDavis]

 

Francis Collins is a fallible man.   I am appealing to an infallible Bible and an infallible God.   I couldn't care less about Francis Collins' opinion on the matter.  That he, like others, have sold out to the world in this area is unfortunate, but I am not surprised.

 

 

Isn't it a little above your pay grade to determine what is going to be the "line in the sand"?

 

Have you read any of the work by Francis Collins?   

 

I do not agree with all that he says on evolution but I would not feel comfortable declaring him on the wrong side of the line in the sand. 

 

I don't really believe that is the job of a human

 

 

You cannot be an evolutionist and a Bible believer.  What we have today in the theistic evolutionist camp is a lot of people who skew both the ToE and the Bible to create this hybrid notion of TE.  The fact is that they accept evolution but they accept it on their terms.  They will accept the Bible, but they only accept it on their terms.  Anyone who is honest about the ToE and the Bible will realize that the two are mutually incompatible.   You can have one or the other, but you can't have both.

 

 

Thank you for your  fallible human opinion.  I have to say that for one that discounts fallible human opinions as much as your do, you sure spend a lot of time giving your  fallible human opinion to people

[~candice~]

 

Evolution is a methodological scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It isn't an explanation for the origin or meaning of life. That is, evolution is not arising from philosophical naturalism, it is arising from methodological naturalism. When a scientist comes along and says that evolution requires no creator and no intelligent guiding force, i.e. NO GOD, they are no longer talking about science, but about philosophy. That scientist has stepped out of the methodological bounds and into naturalism.

 

Sure, but do any of them admit to this?

 

 

Yes!

[nebula]

 

 

Evolution is a methodological scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It isn't an explanation for the origin or meaning of life. That is, evolution is not arising from philosophical naturalism, it is arising from methodological naturalism. When a scientist comes along and says that evolution requires no creator and no intelligent guiding force, i.e. NO GOD, they are no longer talking about science, but about philosophy. That scientist has stepped out of the methodological bounds and into naturalism.

 

Sure, but do any of them admit to this?

 

 

Yes!

 

 

I have not encountered this.

[~candice~]

 

Evolution is a methodological scientific explanation for the diversity of life. It isn't an explanation for the origin or meaning of life. That is, evolution is not arising from philosophical naturalism, it is arising from methodological naturalism. When a scientist comes along and says that evolution requires no creator and no intelligent guiding force, i.e. NO GOD, they are no longer talking about science, but about philosophy. That scientist has stepped out of the methodological bounds and into naturalism.

 

Wrong.  For them to say that evolution requires no god or intelligent causality is not philosphy.  If they were to say "there is no god or gods in existence, THAT would be a philosophical statement.  To claim that Evolution is entirely naturalistic isn't philosophy.   Science can't detect anything outside the natural world and those who live within the framework of only what science can detect are not making philosophical statements.

 

 

Does that mean that evolution is entirely naturalistic? No. Just because a scientist decided to be a philosopher for a day, doesn't mean we need to take their opinion on board as "gospel".  What it does mean is that the vast majority of evolutionists put evolution into a naturalistic context. But that is a vastly different conclusion to "evolution is naturalistic".

 

The ToE which is part of mainstream science states that it is entirely naturalistic.   From where do you derive the qualifications and the authority to claim otherwise??

 

It is entirely naturalistic due to the fact that scientists view evlution as an alternative to the creation account in Genesis.  The ToE is designed to contradict the account in Genesis at every point.  Genesis presents a planned, guided, personal and supernatural creation event.   Evolution is unguided, unplanned, naturalistic and impersonal.   You can't more diametrically opposed than that.

 

 

 

I've bolded the parts I refer to. Shiloh, where does the ToE state that it is naturalistic, rather than, that some atheists use it as part of a naturalistic framework? You should ignore scientists who make philosophical or metaphysical claims about the world - they are stepping outside of their expertise.

 

The ToE is not designed to do anything other than explain observations. The ToE is not designed to contradict Genesis, LOL. It is a scientific theory, and scientific theories are limited to inferences about the physical world. When the ToE is used to boulster naturalistic worldviews, it is being used in a philosophical naturalism sense, and is going beyond what ToE actually is.

 

Stating that the ToE is naturalistic is making the same error that some (most) atheists make - taking a physical statement and using it to make inferences about the metaphysical.

 

Very frustrating.

[nebula]

 

 

 

 

Shiloh

 

What I want from you is the argument that the evolutionists in question gave that convinced you that you cannot subscribe to both evolutionary theory (as I have defined as species from common descent) and believe that God  created everything. You have repeatedly stated 'they' told you this. I have repeatedly asked for what it is that they argued that you have found so compelling. So... why do you think this so strongly?

 

 

Gen. 1:21

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

 

What does "according to their kinds" mean to you?

 

 

According to the standard evolutionary model, all life has "a common ancestor."

 

Yet this theory has yet to find the evidence for the arising of this thing we call life - a functioning, self-sustaining cell. (A new "kind" arising from previously existing different "kind".)

 

This theory also fails to to explain how the different "kingdoms" as we classify them arose. (What is the ancient non-animal ancestor from which the first "animal" came? At what stage of development did it go from bacteria/plant/whatever to animal? There is not hard core evidence for this; rather, there are fill-in-the-blank arguments to explain what "must" have happened.)

 

From what ancient "ancestor" did the canines arise? What evidence is there that some non-canine animal population mutated adaptive changes to their anatomy and physiology to enable then to be a completely new kind of creature?

 

If you want to discuss the evidence for evolution that's cool, but that is really a different topic and should be in a different thread.

 

As far as creating in kinds go, as I take that as part of the 'non literal' account of God's creative activities I'm not sure why I'd dissect that term.

 

 

Hmmm, i guess you missed what I was trying to get at.

 

You asked Shiloh about how evolution contradicts the Bible.

 

I was trying to bring forward one of the arguments on that.

 

 

The conflict here as I see it - you come from belief in naturalistic-based evolution, trying not to fit that belief into what the Bible says, while most people here come from belief in theologic-based Creation having a hard time believing anything with a naturalistic-base to it.

 

 

For me, I can accept such things as time not being as it seems. (Notice how the Bible never mentions the creation of water, for example.) But I cannot reconcile anything in Scripture to support such things as God making animals out of a "common ancestor" precursor. But most importantly, what does evolution say about who and what man is? Personally, the argument that God evolved a population of apes and ape-like hominids or however it is best described into Homo sapien and then inserted a unique soul into this population . . . doesn't cut it.

 

 

Is this making more sense to the explanation I was trying to reach at?

 

Honestly I am not sure what you mean by this. I don't think God creating our physical forms via evolution or directly out of dust has any bearing on anything. Either way God intended to create us and made it happen.

 

 

I thought we were talking about the theory of evolution and how it conflicts or not with Genesis 1, not about your personal beliefs on the matter.