Evolution, Science, and God

[rsc2a]

The phrase "evening and morning" suggests literal days. I think, given Moses' use of that phrase, he definitely had literal days in mind when he wrote it

Did the author mean actual days? As a literary device, I would have no problem with that statement. Did he intend for the audience to read Genesis 1 and 2 as a textbook? I'd have all kinds of problems with that statement. Here is another example:

"...with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, for His steadfast love endures forever..."

The psalmist really means with a "hand" and with an "arm" when he wrote those words. That doesn't mean the psalmist is saying that God has hands or arms. He is using the language as a literary device in order to make his point. In like manner, the author of Genesis actually meant days when he wrote the first account, but it was in a context where the days were a "frame" upon which he built the creation account, much like stanzas are the frame upon which music is built.

---

The problem is with your use of the word "literally". Theologically speaking, to "literally" read the text is to read the text as the author originally intended. Common vernacular usage of the word "literally" generally violates the literary, historical, and cultural context in which the passage was written and is, as a result, has the opposite meaning as the theological usage of the term.

If you insist on a "plain" reading, you're going to start having problems with more than just Genesis 1 and 2. For instance "evening and morning" is used elsewhere in passages that are clearly not referring to a 24-hr period. Why don't you consistently apply that hermeneutic schema to those passages? You'll also need to start addressing why you reject a "literal" meaning for passages such as the John 6 ones (among many, many others).

---

When you look at the entire creation account(s), there are numerous problems that start to arise from reading the account(s) like a textbook. If your interpretation doesn't address these problems, it's flawed in some aspect. The greater (in number and severity) these problems, the weaker the interpretation becomes.

When you step back from reading the creation account(s) like some sort of science textbook, it is possible to reconcile the account(s) not only with themselves, but also with the culture in which they were written, the historical interpretations and general revelation (i.e. science). This degree of reconciliation makes the non-textbook interpretation the stronger interpretation and further weakens the case for the textbook answer.

 

[wheatpenny]

In order to be interpreted correctly, one of the requirements is that a verse must be read in the context of the whole rest of the Bible.  Also, logic and reason must come into play  In the case of John 6, a literal interpretation would involve cannibalism, which makes it an unreasonable interpretation, therefore a literal meaning can't be the correct meaning.
In the case of the creation account, a literal interpretation is reasonable, given the references to the six days in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. The author of the Torah clearly believed the earth was created in six days. And assuming God to be omnipotent, a supernatural act of creation in only six days is certainly possible.

 

[Izdaari]

In order to be interpreted correctly, one of the requirements is that a verse must be read in the context of the whole rest of the Bible.  Also, logic and reason must come into play  In the case of John 6, a literal interpretation would involve cannibalism, which makes it an unreasonable interpretation, therefore a literal meaning can't be the correct meaning.

Right... although the Catholic Church does interpret it that way, via transubstantiation. Personally, I do believe in Real Presence, but call it a holy mystery, not something we can analyze or explain or even theorize about without sounding like fools.

In the case of the creation account, a literal interpretation is reasonable, given the references to the six days in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. The author of the Torah clearly believed the earth was created in six days. And assuming God to be omnipotent, a supernatural act of creation in only six days is certainly possible.

It is possible, nothing is beyond God's power. And I don't doubt the human author believed it happened that way. But the evidence of the created universe itself indicates otherwise. I don't think God made the universe and specifically the earth appear to be billions of years old to deceive us.

It seems far more likely to me that the creation story we were given was what humankind was able to believe and understand at that time. Not false, but oversimplified and incomplete, like the explanations that parents give young children, based on their assessment of how much the kids are able to understand.

 

[rsc2a]

In order to be interpreted correctly, one of the requirements is that a verse must be read in the context of the whole rest of the Bible.  Also, logic and reason must come into play  In the case of John 6, a literal interpretation would involve cannibalism, which makes it an unreasonable interpretation, therefore a literal meaning can't be the correct meaning.

A literal meaning is the correct meaning. You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "What did the author mean when they wrote this?" The non-literal meaning is the interpretation that one would have that didn't match what the author was saying. In this case, I believe the literal meaning does not support transubstantiation, yet, like Izzy (can I call you Izzy?), I don't have a problem calling it a mystery.

In the case of the creation account, a literal interpretation is reasonable, given the references to the six days in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. The author of the Torah clearly believed the earth was created in six days. And assuming God to be omnipotent, a supernatural act of creation in only six days is certainly possible.

The literal meaning is reasonable since it is the correct interpretation. We have to determine what the literal meaning is.

It is possible, nothing is beyond God's power. And I don't doubt the human author believed it happened that way. But the evidence of the created universe itself indicates otherwise. I don't think God made the universe and specifically the earth appear to be billions of years old to deceive us.

I don't even know if the author believed it happened this way. I don't think it matters either way because of your other points. Other than that, I completely agree with you.

It seems far more likely to me that the creation story we were given was what humankind was able to believe and understand at that time. Not false, but oversimplified and incomplete, like the explanations that parents give young children, based on their assessment of how much the kids are able to understand.

And that would be consistent with how God does a lot of things. He didn't drop Jesus onto the Israelites. There were hints and shadows and a progressive revelation leading to a more complete truth of the Messiah. If this is normative for how God reveals Himself in one area, why would we expect something different in another area?

 

[Izdaari]

In this case, I believe the literal meaning does not support transubstantiation, yet, like Izzy (can I call you Izzy?), I don't have a problem calling it a mystery.

Certainly. All my friends do, and you seem friendly enough.  :-*

 

[wheatpenny]

I'm not necessarily saying I believe in a six-day creation, I'm just saying that it can't be dismissed given a plain reading of the text.
I personally am torn between progressive creationism and theistic evolution.  I think the truth is somewhere between those two.

 

[christundivided]

I'm personally a "gaper".

I will say you can not always judge what "was" by what "is".

It is obvious that distance between celestial bodies is not an absolute determining factor for evolutionary history. Scientifically.... we don't know enough to doubt the plain history given in the Scriptures. There may well be things faster than the "speed of light". If we find such.... then this will dramatically changes peoples ideas of "light years". Who's even got the proof that "light" has always traveled at constant speed throughout history? Such "laws" are our laws.... not God's "laws".

I have found no one that can get past what is written in 2 Peter concerning the great flood. It is obvious that God remade the entire earth with the devastating effects of nature. This happened in a matter of just a few short DAYS.

As much as people like to go back the Hebrew and talk of "time". You can't get past the Greek source for "day" mentioned in Peter 3:8.

Does anyone care to deal with the "day" mentioned in Peter 3:8?

 

[rsc2a]

I'm not necessarily saying I believe in a six-day creation, I'm just saying that it can't be dismissed given a plain reading of the text.

The problem is when the "plain reading" contradicts every field of science (i.e. general revelation) and other, better, explanations can be made that address the cultural and literary concerns raised by a YEC stance for the creation account(s). Combine that with traditional interpretations (read "old") from both the Church and Jewish scholars that state a belief other than that required by YEC, and most of the arguments for a YEC position evaporate.

I personally am torn between progressive creationism and theistic evolution.  I think the truth is somewhere between those two.

Good enough for me. 

 

[rsc2a]

I'm personally a "gaper".

I will say you can not always judge what "was" by what "is".

It is obvious that distance between celestial bodies is not an absolute determining factor for evolutionary history. Scientifically.... we don't know enough to doubt the plain history given in the Scriptures. There may well be things faster than the "speed of light". If we find such.... then this will dramatically changes peoples ideas of "light years". Who's even got the proof that "light" has always traveled at constant speed throughout history? Such "laws" are our laws.... not God's "laws".

Umm...nature's laws are God's laws.

I have found no one that can get past what is written in 2 Peter concerning the great flood. It is obvious that God remade the entire earth with the devastating effects of nature. This happened in a matter of just a few short DAYS.

It's not obvious that God "remade the entire earth". In fact, it would be theologically problematic if that were so.

As much as people like to go back the Hebrew and talk of "time". You can't get past the Greek source for "day" mentioned in Peter 3:8.

Does anyone care to deal with the "day" mentioned in Peter 3:8?

Deal with it? Sure...it has absolutely nothing to do with the creation accounts. What is the author trying to tell us here? It's nothing about creation.

 

[brianb]

I think we need to just trust what the word of God says and not worry about what scientists say - science does have absolutes but that doesn't mean that science is flawless.

 

[christundivided]

Umm...nature's laws are God's laws.

Nature's laws have perspective. Life isn't confined to a "test tube". We do not know the beginning or end of the "experiment". Thus we do not know all the variables associated with what we call "nature's law".

Let me give a verse of Scripture that might help.

Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Though this verse does not deal with what we call "nature laws"..... it does show that even God's law.... CHANGES at times. Not all TIMES are the same. Who is to say that what we consider a "natural" absolute is nothing more than a "glimpse" at a finite moment within the "experiment".

It's not obvious that God "remade the entire earth". In fact, it would be theologically problematic if that were so.

The writer of 2 Peter clearly calls it the "old world". The earth was dramatically impacted by the events of the flood. This happened in a matter of "days" (24 hour periods)

Deal with it? Sure...it has absolutely nothing to do with the creation accounts. What is the author trying to tell us here? It's nothing about creation.

So the "new world" left over from the effects of the flood wasn't God action in "creation"?

While it might not be an absolute comparison.... it does show that God can/does change/create things in a very short time. Would you agree?

How would this affect your beliefs in the Genesis 1, 2. ?

 

[rsc2a]

Nature's laws have perspective.

This comment makes absolutely no sense.

Life isn't confined to a "test tube". We do not know the beginning or end of the "experiment". Thus we do not know all the variables associated with what we call "nature's law".

Simple observation shows us various ways the universe operates. Do you accept that a rock will fall if you throw it into the air, or do you deny this obvious truth because you "do not know all the variables associated with what we call 'nature's law'".

Seriously...if you have that little faith in physics, I hope you never get in a car, take a ride in an airplane, or even use your microwave.

It never ceases to amaze me how schizophrenic some people are about their philosophical belief structures. If someone were to treat Scripture with the type of deconstructionist, relativistic logic applied here, people would rightly cry "foul". Yet when readily observed facts, facts that have been documented (in varying degrees) for nearly the entire history of man, contradict one's interpretation, we have to reject those things that are so apparent instead of questioning our interpretation.

Let me give a verse of Scripture that might help.

Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Though this verse does not deal with what we call "nature laws"..... it does show that even God's law.... CHANGES at times. Not all TIMES are the same.

Keep on reading...Hebrews gives you clues that might help you.

(Hints: type, shadow, fulfillment, progressive revelation)

Who is to say that what we consider a "natural" absolute is nothing more than a "glimpse" at a finite moment within the "experiment".

This is the type of deconstructionist, relativistic garbage I was talking about. Where is there any evidence that those natural laws have changed at any time in creation. The only other time I hear people make these kinds of claims is when they are trying to disprove God by ignoring the basic laws of the universe. (e.g. Hawking)

It's not obvious that God "remade the entire earth". In fact, it would be theologically problematic if that were so.

The writer of 2 Peter clearly calls it the "old world". The earth was dramatically impacted by the events of the flood. This happened in a matter of "days" (24 hour periods)

*sigh*

Do you know what eisegesis is?

Where does the periscope you are referencing mention the "whole world" or "days" as 24-hr periods? (There is one case where "day" is probably a 24-hr period in the expanded periscope but that will rip your argument to shreds, so I don't think you are referring to it.)

Deal with it? Sure...it has absolutely nothing to do with the creation accounts. What is the author trying to tell us here? It's nothing about creation.

So the "new world" left over from the effects of the flood wasn't God action in "creation"?

The idea of some type of second "creation" after the Flood would definitely be a heterodoxical position. It would also be more in line with Buddhism or Hinduism than the Abrahamic faiths in regards to eschatology.

While it might not be an absolute comparison.... it does show that God can/does change/create things in a very short time. Would you agree?

How would this affect your beliefs in the Genesis 1, 2. ?

Sure. He also can/does change/create things over a very long period of time.

And neither one tells me anything about Genesis 1 & 2. Since the author wasn't trying to tell us how God created the universe, I don't use text to answer questions about how God created the universe. I also don't read cookbooks to figure out how tightly to torque down intake bolts or automotive repair manuals to tell me how long to cook my turkey.

 

[Izdaari]

And neither one tells me anything about Genesis 1 & 2. Since the author wasn't trying to tell us how God created the universe, I don't use text to answer questions about how God created the universe. I also don't read cookbooks to figure out how tightly to torque down intake bolts or automotive repair manuals to tell me how long to cook my turkey.

Although... Alton Brown did once use an engine hoist to lower his Thanksgiving turkey into the deep fryer from a safe distance. 

 

[christundivided]

Nature's laws have perspective.

This comment makes absolutely no sense.

There is God's perspective. (absolute) and man's perspective (lets call it a "stab" in the dark)

I'm sure you would say that one of "nature's laws" is the "speed of light".

Do you get it?

Simple observation shows us various ways the universe operates. Do you accept that a rock will fall if you throw it into the air, or do you deny this obvious truth because you "do not know all the variables associated with what we call 'nature's law'".

A rock wouldn't fall in outer space because the environment is different. Do you get it? We do not know all the various "environments" contained within "nature". Observation only goes so far.... We observer things within "our" environment. This does not mean that this environment hasn't changed over time and things that act a certain way NOW... have always acted the "SAME WAY". Get it?

Let me give an example and you can pick apart my example....

Did you know that radiometric dating is affected by "gamma rays"? Did you also know that the "equations" associated with "radiometric dating" have been changed over time due to the fact we have identifying certain past astronomical events which affected the "dating process"?

Who is to say that we have identified ALL these "anomalies"?

Seriously...if you have that little faith in physics, I hope you never get in a car, take a ride in an airplane, or even use your microwave.

The "wheel" was used long before anyone knew anything about "physics".

Did you know that "physics" includes "natural philosophy"? I mean.... philosophy has always had perspective.

This is the type of deconstructionist, relativistic garbage I was talking about. Where is there any evidence that those natural laws have changed at any time in creation. The only other time I hear people make these kinds of claims is when they are trying to disprove God by ignoring the basic laws of the universe. (e.g. Hawking)

Not trying to disprove God. HOWEVER, laws are made to be changed and even broken. You must be proud of yourself to have been able to live in a time when you know all the variables throughout history. It amazes me how people want to talk of how the earth is billions of years old and then claim they know everything that has happened in those "billions" of years.

Rather arrogant.... don't you think?

 

[rsc2a]

Nature's laws have perspective.

This comment makes absolutely no sense.

There is God's perspective. (absolute) and man's perspective (lets call it a "stab" in the dark)

I'm sure you would say that one of "nature's laws" is the "speed of light".

Do you get it?

Yeah....your comment still makes no sense.

Simple observation shows us various ways the universe operates. Do you accept that a rock will fall if you throw it into the air, or do you deny this obvious truth because you "do not know all the variables associated with what we call 'nature's law'".

A rock wouldn't fall in outer space because the environment is different. Do you get it? We do not know all the various "environments" contained within "nature". Observation only goes so far.... We observer things within "our" environment. This does not mean that this environment hasn't changed over time and things that act a certain way NOW... have always acted the "SAME WAY". Get it?

You might have a case if our environment has changed appreciably in regards to physical laws. Yet, there is no evidence that the physical laws have changed like you are talking about. In fact, the evidence shows that there is very slight variations in some physical constants yet the range within these variations still allows for very precise estimates.

Evidence rules in science. Without evidence, you can't prove your case.

Let me give an example and you can pick apart my example....

Did you know that radiometric dating is affected by "gamma rays"? Did you also know that the "equations" associated with "radiometric dating" have been changed over time due to the fact we have identifying certain past astronomical events which affected the "dating process"?

First....you use "quotes" in the "strangest" way. 

Second, no one is arguing that new evidence can't prove the old evidence false. That would violate the entire principle behind the scientific method (and is why I have such a problem with the global warming guys).

Einsteinian physics proved that Newtonian physics wasn't entirely accurate. Yet, Newtonian physics is still accurate enough where it is used in almost all cases. (We still use Newtonian physics for the vast majority of applications because the inaccuracies are so small as to not matter.)

Yet the laws we do have accurately and predictably explain the data for every type of experiment we throw at them. When they stop working for some reason, we look at our understanding of the laws and revise it. In fact, I cannot think of a single example (there might be one) where a fundamental law of physics was broken so severely that we just tossed the whole thing. (See Einstein vs. Newton again.)

Who is to say that we have identified ALL these "anomalies"?

No one. But I still expect friction from my brake pads as they are applied to my rotors to stop my car when I press the brake pedal as a result of hydraulic pressure. If the same family of tests keep giving you the same results, there is a high degree of likelihood that "something" is causing those tests to have those results

If you want to ignore this basic, common sense, principle, I suggest you stop going to the doctor and quit driving around. In fact, I probably wouldn't eat modern food or use your computer. Your "k" button might start singing show tunes before long.

The "wheel" was used long before anyone knew anything about "physics".

This is a dumb statement. You don't think our caveman ancestors knew that rocks fall when you throw them in the air?

Not trying to disprove God. HOWEVER, laws are made to be changed and even broken.

Let me know when you "break" gravity.  :

You must be proud of yourself to have been able to live in a time when you know all the variables throughout history. It amazes me how people want to talk of how the earth is billions of years old and then claim they know everything that has happened in those "billions" of years.

Rather arrogant.... don't you think?

No one is claiming to know all the variables. That would be asinine. No one is claiming to know what happened since creation began. That would be an equally asinine statement. They are about as asinine as holding onto a particular Biblical interpretation in spite of fact that all scientific evidence and (culture) contextual evidence and the vast majority of the historical and (literary) contextual evidence says your interpretation is wrong.

 

[brianb]

Personally, I see no conflict with strict creationism and what is observable...except in the mind of those who have determined to see any kind of evolution where there is none (not talking about adaptation)...and the strict creationism is the only view totally inline with the Scripture...final authority of all truth.

And modern humanistic science also contradicts Genesis from day 1.
Modern science teaches that light was created before matter but in Genesis 1:2 we have an earth which is formless and void and darkness all around the earth. If there was light - like from the sun before this than it wouldn't be dark.

Now another question would be did God bring light into being by creating the sun (which would mean it would take about 8 minutes 18 seconds for light to get from the sun to the earth) or was it instantaneous? From what we see about God elsewhere in scripture we see that he does things instantaneously that are out of the ordinary.

 

[Izdaari]

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.  :

 

[rsc2a]

And modern humanistic science also contradicts Genesis from day 1.
Modern science teaches that light was created before matter but in Genesis 1:2 we have an earth which is formless and void and darkness all around the earth. If there was light - like from the sun before this than it wouldn't be dark.

Now another question would be did God bring light into being by creating the sun (which would mean it would take about 8 minutes 18 seconds for light to get from the sun to the earth) or was it instantaneous? From what we see about God elsewhere in scripture we see that he does things instantaneously that are out of the ordinary.

Maybe, just maybe....the "light" in Gen 1:3-5 wasn't...

"the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible; electromagnetic radiation from about 390 to 740 nm in wavelength"

...all these pesky little questions go away when you consider that option as a possibility.

 

[rsc2a]

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.  :

Amen.

 

[christundivided]

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.  :

Amen.

and that means "what" exactly?