evolution definition and other issues

[alphaparticle]

Having seen several threads now about evolution and Christianity I've come to the conclusion that about half of the disagreement is a semantic one.

 

I have seen a number of interesting notions beyond this though which bolster my impression there is a semantics issue going on.Some argue that evolution necessary entails, by definition, non interaction in biological development. Some object that if I accept evolution that must mean I reject the idea that humans have non materials souls. Here's what I've come to understand by what many mean by the term evolution: evolution is the materialistic worldview that all life, including humans, developed through blind, material processes. Of course accepting such a thing requires assuming that God does not exist as another underlying assumption is that only materials things even exist. On the other hand, I have typically taken the line that by 'evolution' I mean something much more restricted than that, namely, something like common ancestry of all life on earth. Given that, God could intervene at any level, including at some point endowing us with souls. Now, some have complained that my definition doesn't fit with what many evolutionists understand to be evolution. I would take issue with that and say that they are making grandiose metaphysical claims over and above coming up with a very specific scientific hypothesis. However, it doesn't intrinsically bother me (at least any more), to say that I promote a form of intelligent design, insofar as I believe God created the universe with the clear intention of creating humans also.

 

As to a couple common arguments:

 

I don't think God is rendered more or less powerful by using more or less time to create. His power is defined by what He *could* do if He wants to. God *could* create an infinite amount of things, infinitely complicated, in no time at all. That He chose to do it one way vs another doesn't seem relevant to that question.

 

I have also maintained that it is possible to believe the Bible to be true, including Genesis, without taking the creation account as completely historical. I have never found that this threatened the core of the gospel, as I became a Christian believing that Jesus was resurrected from the dead before I came to view the Bible as inspired by God.

[Guest ninhao]

Hello Alpha I agree mostly. There is the glaring problem though that if you attempt to allegorise Adam the people who speak of him in the bible, and genealogies including him,  are mistaken.imo What do you think about this ? I am reasoning on progressive creation atm ( which up to recently I held as OEC ) and  this is the main stumbling block. It is important that Adam was the first man created in God's image to accept the story of sin and redemption. 

[~candice~]

Nin, plenty of TE'ers and PC'ers believe in a literal Adam.

 

I agree that defining evolution as "materialistic atheistic origins science" infers ... atheism. So I have to agree with alpha on his initial point.

 

I am also loathe to remind everyone again that scientists often take liberties they don't have in defining evolution as a godless origins theory. Scientists have no authority in that domain. 

[Guest ninhao]

Candice many Christians also take the position that evolution is a godless model do they do this because of the scientists claim ? I'm not sure why we get defensive when scientists make anti God claims about this model because all non believers deny God. 

[Guest]

Having seen several threads now about evolution and Christianity I've come to the conclusion that about half of the disagreement is a semantic one.

 

 

Semantic

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

And Semitic Too

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11

 

You Bet

 

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. Revelation 21:1

[alphaparticle]

Hello Alpha I agree mostly. There is the glaring problem though that if you attempt to allegorise Adam the people who speak of him in the bible, and genealogies including him,  are mistaken.imo What do you think about this ? I am reasoning on progressive creation atm ( which up to recently I held as OEC ) and  this is the main stumbling block. It is important that Adam was the first man created in God's image to accept the story of sin and redemption. 

 

I didn't mention allegorizing Adam in my OP and in fact I'm agnostic about that issue. Maybe there was a literal Adam, maybe not. I go back and forth. Adam could be the literal first man with a human soul, or he may stand for a group that had fallen into sin.

[alphaparticle]

Nin, plenty of TE'ers and PC'ers believe in a literal Adam.

 

I agree that defining evolution as "materialistic atheistic origins science" infers ... atheism. So I have to agree with alpha on his initial point.

 

I am also loathe to remind everyone again that scientists often take liberties they don't have in defining evolution as a godless origins theory. Scientists have no authority in that domain. 

 

I agree that they don't, but I think this is where the problem is. In the minds of many scientists this is a part of a larger piece of a materialist puzzle, and then they communicate that in many ways to others. I can see how that would be a turn off for believers.

[~candice~]

Candice many Christians also take the position that evolution is a godless model do they do this because of the scientists claim ? I'm not sure why we get defensive when scientists make anti God claims about this model because all non believers deny God. 

 

That's true, many Christians listen to scientists on philosophical matters that scientists are not experts on. 

[RobbyPants]

Well put, Alpha. I know plenty of Christians (my wife, included) who believe in evolution. Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God in and of itself, but rather, just parts of the two accounts of creationism in Genesis.

[Hawkins]

Having seen several threads now about evolution and Christianity I've come to the conclusion that about half of the disagreement is a semantic one.

 

I have seen a number of interesting notions beyond this though which bolster my impression there is a semantics issue going on.Some argue that evolution necessary entails, by definition, non interaction in biological development. Some object that if I accept evolution that must mean I reject the idea that humans have non materials souls. Here's what I've come to understand by what many mean by the term evolution: evolution is the materialistic worldview that all life, including humans, developed through blind, material processes. Of course accepting such a thing requires assuming that God does not exist as another underlying assumption is that only materials things even exist. On the other hand, I have typically taken the line that by 'evolution' I mean something much more restricted than that, namely, something like common ancestry of all life on earth. Given that, God could intervene at any level, including at some point endowing us with souls. Now, some have complained that my definition doesn't fit with what many evolutionists understand to be evolution. I would take issue with that and say that they are making grandiose metaphysical claims over and above coming up with a very specific scientific hypothesis. However, it doesn't intrinsically bother me (at least any more), to say that I promote a form of intelligent design, insofar as I believe God created the universe with the clear intention of creating humans also.

 

As to a couple common arguments:

 

I don't think God is rendered more or less powerful by using more or less time to create. His power is defined by what He *could* do if He wants to. God *could* create an infinite amount of things, infinitely complicated, in no time at all. That He chose to do it one way vs another doesn't seem relevant to that question.

 

I have also maintained that it is possible to believe the Bible to be true, including Genesis, without taking the creation account as completely historical. I have never found that this threatened the core of the gospel, as I became a Christian believing that Jesus was resurrected from the dead before I came to view the Bible as inspired by God.

 

We can actually work it out this way.

 

Under the assumption that God exists. He can do this,

 

1) create half of the overall species and allow the other half of the species to, say, evolve from a single cell. (i make a half vs half for the sake of easy understanding)

2) create every single species

3) allow everything evolves from a single cell

 

In the case of 1), how can humans later on distinguish which species are created, and which are not ? They can't. Randomly say, if rat is a result of evolution while cat is a result of creation, then what evidence out there can distinguish the two ? It's none. 

 

Now if cat was originally created and under the assumption that nature has the power to make changes, then cat now is part of the "evolution" process, 100000000 years later, humans can never tell whether cat is a result of evolution or a result of creation. In this case, the evolutionist's stand point is that, everything subject to this "evolution" process must have been evolved from a single cell. This stand point is a purely faith based belief based on the fallacy that anything ever "evolved" cannot be created but must be evolved from a single cell.

 

If God exists, things can be created in the first place then placed to the nature to allow natural impact (evolution) to do the rest.

 

Now get back to case 2), if God created everything but allow the nature to act after the first creation, can humans 100000 years later identify if species at the time are originally created or not ? They can't. But based on their partial observation that nature has certain impact to living organisms, they can quickly draw the conclusion that everything must have evolved from a single cell.