Evoultion and creation are antithetical - discuss

[somethingcleverhere]

I really have no opinion on this topic at large, and I tend to not bother myself with questions like "is the earth young or old", but I am slightly bothered by the claim that evolution implies only change and not progress.

As I understand it, natural selection favors those within a species that have the most useful traits. Over time as these individuals reproduce their favorable traits are passed on to their children and then the most favorable of those do the same and etc etc.

Now given that natural selection says that the most favorable traits are passed on (unless I have misunderstood it) how could you say with a straight face that there is no mention of progress in evolution? Of course species progress according to evolution, their ancestors reproduced because they had the traits which were the most beneficial. How could you not make a "value judgment"? After all, isn't that why they lived through natural selection to pass their traits on in the first place?

[Tubal-Cain]

I really have no opinion on this topic at large, and I tend to not bother myself with questions like "is the earth young or old", but I am slightly bothered by the claim that evolution implies only change and not progress.

As I understand it, natural selection favors those within a species that have the most useful traits. Over time as these individuals reproduce their favorable traits are passed on to their children and then the most favorable of those do the same and etc etc.

Now given that natural selection says that the most favorable traits are passed on (unless I have misunderstood it) how could you say with a straight face that there is no mention of progress in evolution? Of course species progress according to evolution, their ancestors reproduced because they had the traits which were the most beneficial. How could you not make a "value judgment"? After all, isn't that why they lived through natural selection to pass their traits on in the first place?

I tried to get to what you are saying in post #9 where I said: "Survival of the fittest is the closest thing to progress you can find in evolution. It is a matter of whether the species survives or not. It is not a matter of whether a species is perfect." What I'm trying to point out is that there is not a progression from imperfection to perfection in evolution.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Evolution advocates physical progress, the increase of favourable traits for the survival of a species. This is not in opposition to the Bible. Evolution does not deal with our spiritual natures, only our physical ones. I can be the most beautiful specimen of the human being (which i'm not, just so ya know - sorry, ladies - though I can always pretend), thus representing the pinnacle of human evolution. Yet my spiritual life could be as rotten as a rotten apple that's been left outside to rot for the weekend and then mixed together with rotten salad (which it isn't, just so ya know..... at least, I don't think it is ). Our spiritual life is what the Bible deals with - our physical traits are irrelevant in that respect.

Anywho, just to lighten things up a little:

edit: ok, not sure why my images aren't being displayed, I can only guess that my account won't let me post images until I've reached a certain number of posts. Sad, guess you guys are just going to miss out on some good stuff

Edited April 4, 2007 by ParanoidAndroid

[MorningGlory]

It seems to me that it is impossible to believe in evolution and at the same time be a disciple of Christ - not the least because Jesus Himself referred to a literal first man and first woman. Evolution proposes an upward progression whereas creation proposes degeneration leading to death, as do all the Bible's teachings on the subject. I'm not looking to argue the science of evolution v creation so much as explore how it is possible for some who call themselves Christians to accept that evolution is compatible with knowing God and Jesus Christ. I find it puzzling..... I also personally believe that until the scourge of evolution is challenged and removed from our lexicon, we cannot, as a wider society, hope to know God. So-called theistic evolutionists must approach life from a totally different perspective than believers in Biblical creation. To put it simplistically, as the human race we are either on our way up or on our way down. We have either fallen from perfection or are progressing towards it. As far as I can tell, there is a diametric opposition between Christianity and evolution. I'd like to hear your thoughts, though, because it all helps in one's witness to those who have never heard that there is any alternative to evolutionary theory. Don't worry about the science - I'm convinced that Biblical creation offers a better scientific evaluation of available evidence than does evolutionary theory. What I'd be interested to discuss is the total opposition (light versus darkness) that seems to me inherent between Creation and Evolution which I perceive to be polar positions.

Ruth

I don't have any problem believing in evolution, which is proven by the fossil record, and believing in God and his creation of the universe. I believe He created the universe just as recorded in Genesis, including all the 'homanids' from which evolutionists claim we descend. Ever wonder why science can't find the 'missing link' between ape and man? Simple; there is no such link! Evolution applies only to lifeforms other than man and cannot prove that one species morphed into another. I don't believe evolution is capable of producing the diversity and perfect adaptation to the environment that we see in this world. Evolution can only adapt an existing design. It cannot create anything. Our species, made in His image, has only been here for a few thousand years and has not changed one bit since appearing on earth. We developed lighter or darker skin color only has a reaction to the sun. (Note that the 'man from mud' scenario is literal; does not the Bible tell us Man was created from dirt?)

The main problem with the whole Creation/Evolution debate is that science tries to apply physical laws to a supernatural being; God exists outside of time. Is it so unreasonable to think that He has sometimes changed his mind about a species (the dinosaurs come to mind) and wiped them out? Or that Man is his most prized creation? If we were on the same plane as, say, turnips....wouldn't turnips have souls?

I just don't see what all the debate is about. The above is just my opinion but....it's the one I live with.

[methinkshe]

Here's the problem as I see it - well, a couple of them, anyway.

God made man to live forever. He warned Adam that in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "dying he would die" (literal translation) i.e. dying spiritually he would die physically. Thus physical death came into the world directly as a result of Adam's sin. "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 According to evolutionary theory, physical death preceded Adam's sin, thus death did not come into this world as a result of sin. So if death did not come into this world as a result of sin, but I know that it was for sin that Jesus died, why should I believe that Jesus dying for my sin will lead to eternal life in Him? Dying for sin cannot conquer death (and thus give eternal life) if death preceded sin rather than was a result of sin.

Furthermore, if God did not create me, if I were just the accidental result of chance and/or environmental pressures, why or from what or whom do I need to be saved? If God didn't create me, I owe Him nothing. What right has He to judge me if I am just an accident, a product of chance? He may just as well claim a right to judge the final destiny of a piece of paper, blown and tossed by the wind until it ends up in a municipal dump. But God made man in His image, gave him choices, a spirit that could communicate with Himself; and thus man is answerable to God for the choices he makes. And there is no plan of salvation for animals, note. So at what point along the supposed evolutionary tree did God say that now you are no longer animal but are human, you are answerable to Me for your choices? And I will judge you on whether you believed in Jesus/the Messiah or not? Which specific ape cum human copped for God's righteous judgement? As I understand evolutionary theory, everything happens so slowly that it would be very difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when an indiviidual ape became sufficiently human to stand answerable to God.

Ruth

[methinkshe]

It seems to me that it is impossible to believe in evolution and at the same time be a disciple of Christ - not the least because Jesus Himself referred to a literal first man and first woman. Evolution proposes an upward progression whereas creation proposes degeneration leading to death, as do all the Bible's teachings on the subject. I'm not looking to argue the science of evolution v creation so much as explore how it is possible for some who call themselves Christians to accept that evolution is compatible with knowing God and Jesus Christ. I find it puzzling..... I also personally believe that until the scourge of evolution is challenged and removed from our lexicon, we cannot, as a wider society, hope to know God. So-called theistic evolutionists must approach life from a totally different perspective than believers in Biblical creation. To put it simplistically, as the human race we are either on our way up or on our way down. We have either fallen from perfection or are progressing towards it. As far as I can tell, there is a diametric opposition between Christianity and evolution. I'd like to hear your thoughts, though, because it all helps in one's witness to those who have never heard that there is any alternative to evolutionary theory. Don't worry about the science - I'm convinced that Biblical creation offers a better scientific evaluation of available evidence than does evolutionary theory. What I'd be interested to discuss is the total opposition (light versus darkness) that seems to me inherent between Creation and Evolution which I perceive to be polar positions.

Ruth

I agree to an extent. I also do not see how a true Christian could believe in Evolution. However, Old Earth Creation is not Evolution. There is a vast difference in Old Earth Creation and Evolution. I am an Old Earth Creationist, I am not an evolutionist. I believe God Created Man in an instant from dirt. I also believe that man was created several Billion years after the Creation of the Universe began.

When the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters, time as we know it had not begun. Who knows of what the waters consisted or what was above or beneath the waters at that period, or for how long that period existed? Then God said: "Let there be light...." etc etc. i.e. time and Creation as recorded in Genesis began. From the moment that God began His creation I believe there were seven literal 24hr periods - as in, "evening and morning were the first day" x 6 and on the 7th day God rested.

What interests me more in terms of this present discussion is the attempted synthesis of evolution and Christianity which I do not believe is possible - unless one is prepared to deny foundational truths and thus render the whole Bible open to personal interpretation. I am reminded of the apocryphal story of the old lady on her death bed who was visited by her pastor.

"What can I do for you," he asked her.

"Read to me from my Bible" she said, handing to her pastor her much read and worn Bible.

The pastor took a look at the Bible and how thin it was and noticed that there were very few pages. "Why is your Bible so thin?" he asked.

The dying woman replied: "I listened to your sermons every week. Every time you said that this is not really true, this is just a myth, it didn't really happen this way, Jesus wasn't really born of a virgin, He didn't really walk on the water - it was a conveniently placed sandbank, I tore out the offending pages because I only wanted to know truth."

In Christ Jesus,

Ruth

[Tubal-Cain]

God made man to live forever. He warned Adam that in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "dying he would die" (literal translation) i.e. dying spiritually he would die physically. Thus physical death came into the world directly as a result of Adam's sin. "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 According to evolutionary theory, physical death preceded Adam's sin, thus death did not come into this world as a result of sin.

Those who fully embrace evolution realize that physical death preceded the appearance of humans in history. I don't see how this conflicts with 1 Cor 15:21-22 since we all die because we are descendants of the first man (whether that is a literal Adam or the first human that came about by evolution).

You also seem to be alluding to Rom 5:12 which says that sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. I assume we both believe that knowledge of sinful behavior was passed down from the first man (whether that is a literal Adam or the first human that came about by evolution) so that part of the verse is not problematic. The second part may appear more tricky but you must realize that most who fully embrace evolution take the story of Adam and Eve as allegory. We find that the story pertains to each and every one of us. We all have to choose between (spiritual) life and (spiritual) death and that choice has consequences. However, we all sin and hence spiritually die. Note that Paul says all die, not just because Adam sinned, but because we all sin. So, yes, (spiritual) death comes about by sin and we all sin.

So if death did not come into this world as a result of sin, but I know that it was for sin that Jesus died, why should I believe that Jesus dying for my sin will lead to eternal life in Him? Dying for sin cannot conquer death (and thus give eternal life) if death preceded sin rather than was a result of sin.

You should believe Jesus' death will lead to eternal life because it is a promise from God and He cannot lie. And on what basis do you claim that "dying for sin cannot conquer death (and thus give eternal life) if death preceded sin rather than was a result of sin"? I would think God can conquer death any way He sees fit.

Furthermore, if God did not create me, if I were just the accidental result of chance and/or environmental pressures, why or from what or whom do I need to be saved?

You need to be saved from the just punishments of your sins. Whether you were created in six literal days or through the process of evolution you have still sinned and still justly deserve punishment.

What right has He to judge me if I am just an accident, a product of chance?

As a just and moral judge it is His moral duty to punish the wicked for their sins. You can make no argument that what He does is immoral or unjust.

And there is no plan of salvation for animals, note. So at what point along the supposed evolutionary tree did God say that now you are no longer animal but are human, you are answerable to Me for your choices? And I will judge you on whether you believed in Jesus/the Messiah or not? Which specific ape cum human copped for God's righteous judgement? As I understand evolutionary theory, everything happens so slowly that it would be very difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when an indiviidual ape became sufficiently human to stand answerable to God.

I am unaware of anything in the Bible that rules out salvation for animals. I am aware of passages that speak of the universal restoration of the heavens and the earth and hence most likely includes plants and animals alongside humans. Exactly when a creature becomes responsible for their moral choices is impossible to determine but is not important for us to know. We humans are promised salvation and that is all we need to know.

[Arthur Durnan]

Good response, Tubal-Cain! I certainly pick up what you put down. When we accept what God declares, problems dissolve. If we continually dispute His revelation, problems multiply. Like, if Adam, the First Adam in Eden, was but figurative, why wouldn't the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, be such too? But as we know, there's more in the Encyclopedia Britannica about the reality of Christ as a living Person than there is about Julius Caesar & Napoleon Bonaparte put together. In fact, the latter once said that if Julius Caesar were to enter the room, all would stand. But if Jesus Christ were to enter that same room, all would bow. Did J.C. and N.B. exist? If so, chances are fairly excellent that the Man of Galilee & Heaven did (does) too.

Christ is no impersonal abstraction

Evolved from ages past;

But a living bright Reality

Eternal and steadfast!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[methinkshe]

Those who fully embrace evolution realize that physical death preceded the appearance of humans in history. I don't see how this conflicts with 1 Cor 15:21-22 since we all die because we are descendants of the first man (whether that is a literal Adam or the first human that came about by evolution).

You also seem to be alluding to Rom 5:12 which says that sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. I assume we both believe that knowledge of sinful behavior was passed down from the first man (whether that is a literal Adam or the first human that came about by evolution) so that part of the verse is not problematic.

Now we need to discuss imputation of sin. Before the Law was given, sin was not imputed. In Adam we inherit a sinful nature - one that is spiritually dead, incapable of communication with God. However, until the Law was given, personal sin was not imputed. Man was simply dead to God because of his inherited-from-Adam sinful nature. Man was made righteous through faith, as with Abraham - "And his faith was counted to him as righteousness".

The second part may appear more tricky but you must realize that most who fully embrace evolution take the story of Adam and Eve as allegory. We find that the story pertains to each and every one of us. We all have to choose between (spiritual) life and (spiritual) death and that choice has consequences. However, we all sin and hence spiritually die. Note that Paul says all die, not just because Adam sinned, but because we all sin. So, yes, (spiritual) death comes about by sin and we all sin.

Yes, but physical death is a consequence of spiritual death. If you read the AV or a good translation from Hebrew, you will read "dying you will die" even if only in the margins. In other words, because you will die spiritually, you must die physically. But that wans't God's original intent.

You should believe Jesus' death will lead to eternal life because it is a promise from God and He cannot lie. And on what basis do you claim that "dying for sin cannot conquer death (and thus give eternal life) if death preceded sin rather than was a result of sin"? I would think God can conquer death any way He sees fit.

If death was already present then how can death be a consequence of sin? We read that "the wages of sin is death". If death preceded sin, then death is not the wages/penalty of sin. Like..death is just a nasty bug...or whatever. I am not disputing that God can do what He chooses, but God always operates within His own character - He is not capricious. Thus if God says that death is theconsequence of sin (which He does) then death cannot precede sin. Similarly, miscarriage cannot precede pregnancy. God is the author of reason and logic as well as the author of faith. He does not require that we have a logic/intellect bypass when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am unaware of anything in the Bible that rules out salvation for animals. I am aware of passages that speak of the universal restoration of the heavens and the earth and hence most likely includes plants and animals alongside humans. Exactly when a creature becomes responsible for their moral choices is impossible to determine but is not important for us to know. We humans are promised salvation and that is all we need to know.

Restoration and salvation are different animals (excuse the pun). Yes, there is no doubt that the whole creation "groans" and awaits restoration. But there are also references to man's special spiritual place and authority over animals. Even to the point that we are abjured not to be like "brute beasts" (James, I think). There is a measure of authority and concommitant responsibility that is given to humans that is not given to animals.

Ruth

[Tubal-Cain]

Now we need to discuss imputation of sin. Before the Law was given, sin was not imputed. In Adam we inherit a sinful nature - one that is spiritually dead, incapable of communication with God. However, until the Law was given, personal sin was not imputed. Man was simply dead to God because of his inherited-from-Adam sinful nature. Man was made righteous through faith, as with Abraham - "And his faith was counted to him as righteousness".

I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Care to explain?

Yes, but physical death is a consequence of spiritual death. If you read the AV or a good translation from Hebrew, you will read "dying you will die" even if only in the margins. In other words, because you will die spiritually, you must die physically. But that wans't God's original intent.

Are you referring to Gen 2:17? If so, I don't think the Hebrew means that spiritual death requires physical death.

If death was already present then how can death be a consequence of sin? We read that "the wages of sin is death". If death preceded sin, then death is not the wages/penalty of sin. Like..death is just a nasty bug...or whatever. I am not disputing that God can do what He chooses, but God always operates within His own character - He is not capricious. Thus if God says that death is theconsequence of sin (which He does) then death cannot precede sin. Similarly, miscarriage cannot precede pregnancy. God is the author of reason and logic as well as the author of faith. He does not require that we have a logic/intellect bypass when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

The punishment of sin is more than mere physical death, for physical death can be a gateway to eternal life with God, which is no punishment. The true punishment of sin is separation from God. Even the righteous die physically. So, yes, sin precedes spiritual death. Rom 6:23 and the surrounding verses is contrasting death with eternal life; not physical death with physical life.

Restoration and salvation are different animals (excuse the pun). Yes, there is no doubt that the whole creation "groans" and awaits restoration. But there are also references to man's special spiritual place and authority over animals. Even to the point that we are abjured not to be like "brute beasts" (James, I think). There is a measure of authority and concommitant responsibility that is given to humans that is not given to animals.

And there is no reason that man's special status over animals cannot be maintained alongside evolution. Anyone, Christian or otherwise, realizes that only humans are religious and that man essentially controls nature.