Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?

Hank, you were responding to what I wrote, not Charles.

Let me see if I understand. In the beginning, when animals were created, they were merely tov, not tov mod. So, not only did they fall from the superlative when Adam sinned, but they ascended to the superlative sometime after they were created. Perhaps they were flawed when they were created -- maybe they were not immortal, or they were carnivorous -- and so for this reason God withholds the superlative when describing them. But, by the end of the sixth day they had overcome their flaws so that God could declare that all of creation was tov mod. Then, those flaws once again became evident, and so by the time the psalmist wrote, they could again only be described as tov, not tov mod.

Isn't it far more likely that God was saying that each part of creation was tov (good), and in totality creation was tov mod (very good)? Why read badness into God's claim that something is good?

I'm not the one who insisted an account must be in error if it leaves out details.

I agree with you about the middle sentence. The last sentence is disputed even by most young-earth creationists, since they use evolution to explain how things speciated after the flood. I don't think their super-rapid version of evolution is valid, but I don't think they'd turn to evolution for an answer unless even they saw that there was much evidence to support it.

I didn't say gravity held the universe together. I've been adamant that God does that, even if natural forces (including gravity, but also many other forces) partially describe the orderly way he does so.

 

UTEOTW.
You wrote concerning Rom. 1:18-23:

Now it is you that is being dishonest. I clearly wrote that this Scripture applies to all evolution scientists. And of course it does because it applies to every agnostic and every atheists. I wrote this: "Please allow me one more quote mine that proves that evolutionist scientists don't really believe their own theory." (that God does not exist. We are lucky that through evolution we have life). Certainly not the God of the Bible anyway, and that's all their father Satan wants us to believe.

Paul clearly writes that they all suppressed in their minds their clear knowledge of God in order to sin without conscience. How can this be out of context then when it applies to all agnostics and atheists?

And I take D.J. Kennedy at his word. He is clearly a godly man who would not lie about such a thing in order to deceive. Now as for evolutionists...

 

"Now it is you that is being dishonest. I clearly wrote that this Scripture applies to all evolution scientists. And of course it does because it applies to every agnostic and every atheists. I wrote this: "Please allow me one more quote mine that proves that evolutionist scientists don't really believe their own theory." (that God does not exist. We are lucky that through evolution we have life)."

Wrong again. You cannot make a case that the author originally intended for this passage to apply to evolution.

Second, you should be careful with your phrasing. You say fairly directly that those who accept evolution say "that God does not exist." Well if you look around this thread you will see several examples of people who accept both God and evolution. Your assertion is false.

 

The simplest way to put it is that the god of evolution is NOT the God of the Bible.

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, 'Where is this "coming" he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation [note: this is a very good quick explanation of evolution!].' But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens exsted and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and dearth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

2 Peter 3:3-7

 

Only if you twist the passage from referring to those who scoff at the second coming and instead assert that it contradicts the orderliness of creation that is declared elsewhere in Scripture:

"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." (Genesis 8:22)

"Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them." (Jeremiah 33:25-26)

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17)

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power." (Hebrews 1:3)

Praise God, our Creator has not made his creation chaotic! Jesus upholds the orderly laws and systems, and as a result creation can be investigated.

[ September 18, 2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

funny how you skipped the last part of the 2 Peter quote about the creation and the deluge...

did you deliberately forget?

 

Evolution is an atheistic philosophy, therefore theistic evolution is an oxymoron by definition. I say that evolution is a philosophy not true science. Science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

1. What are the facts or truths of evolution?

2. What general law does evolution demonstrate?

 

I am continually amazed why people want to confuse the atheistic evolutionary concept with Divine Creation.

 

No, I dealt with your claim about evolution. I've noticed that you generally don't respond to detailed posts, so I tried to stick to a single issue as a courtesy.

But anyway, on to the rest of what you quoted:

"For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (2 Peter 3:5-7, ESV)

I think it's fairly evident that when Peter says "the world that then existed", he is not referring to the entire planet. This is because our planet is still the same planet as before the flood, while the world Peter refers to "was deluged and destroyed." This accords quite well with a local flood. The term "world" frequently refers to less than the entire planet in Scripture (and occasionally in modern use as well). Frequently it refers to the populated world, or the world of the Gentiles or Roman world. It is interesting that Peter refers to "heavens" and the "earth" when referring to creation (verse 5), then switches to just "world" when referring to the flood (verse 6), and then back to "heavens and the earth" when referring to the coming judgement (verse 7). Of course, the term "heavens and the earth" is typically used to refer to all that exists (cf. Genesis 1:1), unlike the term "world".

As for the earth being formed out of water, that's obviously an allusion to the imagery in Genesis 1:2,6-10, Job 38:4-11, Psalm 104:5-9, Proverbs 8:27-31 and other passages. While I may be more open to poetic description in these passages than you, I still think they are true. Scripture doesn't have to reveal the details of plate tectonics or other scientific details for me to consider it trustworthy. While our planet's initial formation does not seem to have had much to do with water, the formation of earth's biosphere would not have been possible without it.

 

Quite simply, evolution is the science that tries to explain the observed fact of what we know as, well, evolution.

Maybe an analogy would be in order. If you hold an object up in the air and let go, what happens? It falls to the floor. This is the observed fact of gravity. Now, why does it fall? Well, here is where we get into theory and it really is not worked out so well. Einstein tried to explain gravity as a curving of space-time itself. This theory has been very successful. But we still want to know why things fall. Currently, it is hypothesized that there is a force particle called the graviton that transmits the gravitational force. But it is yet to be discovered. (Interestingly, one of the big hints going for string theory is that it predicts a particle that has the characteristics expected of the graviton. No other theory makes such a prediction.) Gravity is also mysterious in that it is so weak. We need to explain why. But you can see how there are theories of gravity that try and explain the observed fact of gravity.

Now, back to evolution. The observations are compelling enough that most scientists consider evolution to be an observed fact. The current issues are to learn more about how the process of evolution takes place and what has happened in the past. This is done by continuing to study aspects of current and past life. These studies should reveal for you the facts and truths upon which evolution lies.

Let's take the example of fossil transistions. There are many, many examples of such transitions. Some of the better known are the fish to amphibian transition, the whales , the horses , and the reptiles to mammals .

Of this subject Gould said

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York.

But there are many other areas of evidence. One area to look at is shared endogenous retroviruses. These are viruses which have inserted their DNA into a germ lne cell of their host which has then been used for reproduction and then fixed into the whole population. Here is an example concerning humans and the other apes.

"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences," Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 96, Issue 18, 10254-10260, August 31, 1999.

Here, about a dozen different retroviral DNA inserts are used to construct the evolutionary tree of human and the other apes and primates. See the following chart to see how closely the different inserts match.
http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue18/images/large/pq1892815002.jpeg

Emphasis added.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

There are many other such examples. There is a specific complication concerning ERVs and humans in YE "science." As shown above, humans and the other apes and primates share insertions that demonstrate their common ancestry. (The quote is "Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place.") In a young earth hypothesis, this is a major problem. You would have to assume that the humans and all the "kinds" (whatever that may be) of primates and apes were infected by the same combination of virii, that they all inserted the exact same sequence in the same place, and that all these insertions were fixed into the various species.

Furthermore, since these insertions are common between essentially all humans, in a young earth they all must have taken place in the (about) ten generations between the creation and the last common ancestor (Noah) and none have taken place since. Unlikely.

Another example are atavisms. These are things like whales with legs, humans with tails and toes in horses. The amazing thing is that such atavisms only occur with parts that would be expected based on the evolutionary history of the organism. You never see a reptile with atavistic lactal nipples of a mammal with atavistic feathers. Such things would be serious problems for evolution.

Another issue is the so called twin nested heirarchy. Whatever way you try and group animals into larger and larger groups, it comes out the same. You can use physical traits. You can group them by evolution based on ancestors in the ofssil record. You can do it based on genetics. It always comes out essentially the same. Here is thread detailing this for genetics with humans. Link to Thread. You will find the same results for any combination of coding and noncoding genes.

And this can go on and on. We have not touched on ontogeny. Past biogeography. Present biogeography. Parahomology. Vestiges. Pseudogenes. Transposons. Or any of a whole host of observations.

 

Mercury says:

It's much simpler than that. Elohim left a position and a work for Adam over His creation:

Genesis 1
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

No. And not badness, I never used those words. Incompleteness is closer to the truth. God indeed chose for creation to be a progression over time but six days not billions of years. During that progression the work was incomplete.
God left the "finishing" touch to Adam.
When he entered the scene and took over, things then were tov mod.

I'm not sure what your objection to my reference to the Virgin Birth is all about. Here is what you said

I did make a mistake, I said only one gospel includes the virgin birth, actually two gospels give an account of the Virgin Birth (Matthew, Luke) Mark and John leave out this important doctrine of the Virgin Birth of the Logos made flesh.

There is no contradiction.

Evolution is a contradiction because it replaces the creation account with a set of "facts" which disagree with the Genesis account.

The Genesis account makes it quite clear that there is NO genetic/biological connection between the animal kingdom and the human race.

Adam was/is a special and unique creation in the image and likeness of God formed from the "dust of the ground". His biological beginning was then and there on the sixth day. Nowhere does the Scripture even hint that Adam's origin was from the animal species or has a common ancestory with the animal kingdom.

Believe that monkeys, baboons and chimpanzees are in the biological line of the Savior if you wish, personally I cannot take that "leap of faith".

HankD

 

Hank, based on what you've now said about the good/very good distinction, I no longer see what you were trying to indicate about Psalm 104. You seem to have come around to what I originally claimed, yet without agreeing with me.

It only contradicts the Genesis creation accounts if one interprets them both as literal history, and in that case, they also contradict each other. I think their literal differences are a neon sign that they are not intended to be read that way. The author was not so oblivious as to not notice that he described the order of creation differently in both.

The Genesis 2 account makes it quite clear that both Adam and the animals were formed from the ground into living creatures by God. To me, that's a pretty obvious connection. Not only do we have the same Creator, but he made us from the same material.

And now you are arguing from silence. The text also does not hint about DNA or many other biological details.

Technically they aren't in the biological line of humans, but that's beside the point. I don't see how our biological line makes any difference. Paul describes Jesus' incarnation as him "making himself nothing". To quibble over details about where we've inherited our genes is to ignore how drastically less we are than God, and how far Jesus stooped to reach us.

 

Posted by Mercury:

We know from Jesus' bodily resurrection that our resurrected bodies will be physical and they will be just as Jesus' body was after the resurrection -- it was physical, Thomas could see the scars, and Jesus ate food. Therefore, the physicality of our bodies in some sens will still exist. This physicality seems to have been a part of how God made us. This is one reason I see a conflict with believing we came from beasts.

There is no passage that says Jesus walked through walls. He came into a room that had a locked door but that does not mean he walked through walls. He could have unlocked the door.

Gen. 1.27-28 does not say God made man by his word.

 

If our bodies have "evolved" from a lower life form at which point did our souls "evolve"?

Gen 1:28 also indicates that immediately upon creation, man was to have dominion over all the other creatures He had created. We were immediately separate from the animals and fish and birds.

 

Hi Mercury, there can be no meeting of the minds (at least on my part) in this issue between theistic evolution and special creation (YEC).

I believe we have reached the point of diminishing returns in this thread and there is no point in simply repeating ourselves.

However, it is a good thing to occassionally let the undecided readers see the debate one more time, review the posts and decide for themselves.

I will respond one more time to your inquiries in a summary and probably quit at this point.

The separation of the days (in my interpretation) of creation with cardinal numbers attached proves that they are sidereal days.

This also supports the distinctness of the several species creation. That, along with the repeated "after his kind" proves conclusively to me that there is no common biological ancestory and/or the passing of genetic material between the species.

There is only one exception: Elohim took a rib from Adam and formed Eve.

The fact that there are two accounts of creation one account leaving out the days proves nothing.

There are four gospels, two leave out the Virgin Birth.

All the simililarities of the biological creation and the species therein are explained by a common Creator not a common ancestory.

All the anamolies are explained by the entrance of sin and death via the one man Adam and are not the by-products of a failed experiment of an organism to "evolve" into a "higher life form".

You are absolutely correct about one thing.
I admit that my view presupposes a literal view of the words of the Genesis account of creation and that is actually the point.

To me theistic evolution is a Christian compromise with the philosophy of the rulers of this world, a compromise which has brought many true believers under it's wing.

I suppose it is within the realm of possiblity that I am wrong, but I'll have to hear it from the Lord Himself in the day when we all gathered to Him.

HankD

 

Gold Dragon,

yes, I understand that too......so when did we "get a soul" then? If we "evolved" from a lower life form, when were the humans finally human enough for God to place a soul in there?

Major dittoes, HankD.

 

Hank you are right on the spot.Darwinial and theistic evolutionist boggle my mind.I used to get into these discussions but ended up found them to be a waste of energy.You are to be commended for your patience and grace.

 

Hank,

Yes that was a good post.

You're probably right - there is not likely going to be any meeting of the minds on this one. I don't really like this debate anyway. The last thing I ever want to do is to give a stumbling block to any other believer who might see things differently than I do.

If I had to give a summary statement on my problem with the YECers stance it would relate more to the arguments for the YEC stance rather than the YEC stance itself.

Obviously no on was around then to be able to empirically determine whether the earth is old or young!

But I have no problem at all with the YEC stance or with a YECer choosing to believe the Bible over science.

My problem is with those who assert that there are no credible scientific reasons to doubt a young earth or no theological reasons to doubt a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-11 when clearly there are. Even if one chooses not to accept the old earth stance or the allegorical interpretations (both of which have many adherents) one should not deny that they exist.