Jump to content
A Christian 1985

God used Evolution to 'create' man

Recommended Posts

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but sub­stantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.

 

            Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142

            As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.

 

Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?

 

Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145

 

                The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146

 

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

 

Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground.  Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.

What does the scientific record say?

 

The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149

 

Scientific evidence and Scripture concur!

 

And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)

 

 Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162

 

Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!

 

What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?

 

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)

 

In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)

 

But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)

 

1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.

2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.

 

What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”...

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).

 

Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153

 

The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.

 

It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167

 

The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?

 It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will.

This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-­mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.

How did God solve this problem?

 

    The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y­-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. 178

 

And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23)

 

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.

 

The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

            It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!

 

If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.

                                    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I have the sources of these quotes please?

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, A Christian 1985 said:

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but sub­stantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.  

            As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.

Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?

Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145 

The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146

Hi 1985,

Apart from the discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution itself the ramifications of it place Theistic Evolution at odds with the Bible as follows (copied from my archives as it is a recurring but welcome discussion):

Theistic Evolution is the belief that evolution is God's method of Creation.

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[Wkpd]

Anyone who subscribes to theistic evolution places themself in conflict with these Bible verses:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Since macro-evolution(microbes-to-man) requires millions of years of mutation and death before the random/chance/accidental development of a human being, and the Bible clearly teaches that there was no death prior to the creation of the first man, either Darwin is right and the Bible is wrong, or the Bible is right and Darwin is wrong regarding the origin of species.  

Many would-be Christians hold views that are contrary to Scripture without being aware of it. The idea that the Biblical 6 days of Creation are stages of evolution each millions of years long (a requirement of macro-evolution) is not Scriptural. Anyone who persists with this view when they are advised of their error cannot call themselves a Bible-believer, and their profession to be a follower of Christ is in doubt.

Jesus Himself affirmed the Genesis account of Creation and referred to OT Scriptures on many occasions:

Mat 19:4
(4)  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Well Said! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hebrews 11:3 - " By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

This passage says that God spoke everything into existence which matches what Genesis says.

About Cain's wife.  Incest was not a "thing" nor defined by God until about 2500 years after Adam.  It's not so much that incest is immoral - Abraham was married to his half-sister and it was no sin.

There's a reason God stepped in with the Law and defined incest was that after 2500 years, physical mutations were common enough for close blood relatives to NOT marry.  If both the woman and the man - say brother and sister - were to be carriers of something, say Huntington's disease. Then odds are, the child would not only carry it but it would be active in the child.  We are lucky that so many mutations are recessive.

Adam and Eve carried perfect genetic material.  So did their children.  So did the grandchildren.  But slowly as time passes and genetic material decays - mutations occur.

Much of what was in the law was for the protection of his people, not necessarily their moral state.  Such things like having to have a priest declare your house clean or unclean [spiritually] because of mold.  Forbidding some animals to be eaten.

Cain either married a sister or a niece.

If the ban on incest were based strictly and only on a moral dilemma,  like rape, it would have been grossly sinful from the beginning.

Edited by Jayne
  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Brilliant! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 6:53 PM, Michael37 said:

Anyone who subscribes to theistic evolution places themself in conflict with these Bible verses:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

This is not necessarily true - at least, for all theistic evolutionists (TEs). I recognize that many TEs think of Adam and Eve as archetypes that may not have actually existed. However, there are also many (like me) that believe in Adam and Eve as literal figures that were the first to receive the "image of God". It is possible to accept the evidence for evolution and still maintain belief in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe that the genealogy in Luke's Gospel, from Jesus to Adam, is strong evidence for a literal Adam and Eve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This is not necessarily true - at least, for all theistic evolutionists (TEs). I recognize that many TEs think of Adam and Eve as archetypes that may not have actually existed. However, there are also many (like me) that believe in Adam and Eve as literal figures that were the first to receive the "image of God". It is possible to accept the evidence for evolution and still maintain belief in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe that the genealogy in Luke's Gospel, from Jesus to Adam, is strong evidence for a literal Adam and Eve.

Belief in a literal Adam & Eve is not the issue where TE is concerned. The issue is entirely the introduction of death into Creation as a result of Adam & Eve's disobedience to God. The Theory of Evolution and its offspring contradict the Word of God by positing that millions of years of mutation & death led to human life. Given the non-biblical hypothesis that death is instrumental in producing superior life-forms in stages until a human is produced, it is blasphemous to ascribe the progress of evolution to God when God's purpose in His Son Jesus Christ's death is categorically the defeat of death. Death is an enemy to God so to say that He ordained it to achieve the creation of the first man and woman is a profane perversion of the truth. Anyone who believes TE is not a Bible believer and on a path of deception from which no good can come.

I urge anyone caught up in the lie of TE to repent and have faith in God's Word.

Rom 8:18-21
(18)  For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
(19)  For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
(20)  For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
(21)  because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

  • Thumbs Up 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

The issue is entirely the introduction of death into Creation as a result of Adam & Eve's disobedience to God.

I believe it is more reasonable, particularly in the context of the passages, that the death mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 is a spiritual death, and not physical death.

20 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Anyone who believes TE is not a Bible believer and on a path of deception from which no good can come.

We have a difference of opinion, no need for theatrical drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 7:06 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Mosaic Law did not come into being till 2500 years or so later. 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23 August 2019 at 12:06 AM, A Christian 1985 said:

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

 

The logical deduction is that the biblical account is a true and accurate historical record.

What you have significantly failed to show is that you have not been significantly influenced by evolutionary thought or that you don't value atheistic scientific ideas above what the bible says.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 9:22 PM, Michael37 said:

Belief in a literal Adam & Eve is not the issue where TE is concerned. The issue is entirely the introduction of death into Creation as a result of Adam & Eve's disobedience to God.

God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree.   Adam eats, and lives on physically for many years thereafter.   So we know that the "death" was not a physical one.   It was a spiritual death, brought about by disobedience, which separated us from God.   If Jesus came to save us from physical death, He failed; we will all die someday.   But he saved us from the death Adam brought into the world.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...