Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

Hank

It is all related as part of the discussion. Admittedly, some of it is more difficult to reconcile than others. But as Paul implied, it is most important that we get along and show Christian attitudes even as we disagree and discuss.

 

Doug,

I wish to thank you for your spiritual support. It means a lot to me.

 

I'de vote for this but what does the Lord think?

There are problems such as the question concerning death entering the universe through "Adam", Jesus endorsing "male and female" creation, Adam being called a real, specific and identifiable person in the NT, etc, etc...

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]So, I take it this is addressed to fundamentalist YEC’s who take the Bible more “literally” than most Christians. Just as a point of distinction, not all “fundies” are Christian (not that you said they were) – there are also the conservative Jews, Muslims, JW’s, Moonies, etc. As a Christian YEC myself, I can only speak from that perspective – and only from my own thoughts of that perspective. I fully recognize that the majority of even conservative Christianity is comprised of theistic evolutionists where the long geological ages are considered basically correct and macro-evolutionary common descent is agreed upon as being true but not possible without God’s directing intervention (R.C. Sproul, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, etc. who are all outstanding Christians appear to hold that conviction). Some are progressive creationists (Hugh Ross, etc.).

Man is, in one sense, only one of God’s creations. But man was created apart from the other creatures and was given an eternal soul that survives death and the capacity to reason and to not only communicate with God but to commune with God as He made us special, “in His image” (which is not physical as “God is a spirit”). We were created special by God – both conservative Christian camps would agree on that. I will address only the conservative Christian perspectives on evolution as some of the more liberal views deny virtually every major doctrine of Christianity (the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, the unique deity of Christ, the miracles of God, Christ, the apostles, etc.) to the point they are really no longer Christian at all (regardless of what name tag they profess – Bishop Spong being a prime candidate that comes to mind as well as most of the “Christians” in the Jesus Seminary).

What is the difference ultimately to my Christian faith between creation taking seconds or days and billions of years – very little, actually. I began my Christian experience as a theistic evolutionist (I was an atheist before that). I could go back to that theistic evolutionary position without major repercussions to my Christian faith - but my hermenutics would suffer :^D . My faith rests in the person of Jesus Christ for whom I think there is a wealth of reasonable evidence (not proof) of His existence, His deity, and His resurrection and ascension.

Theistic evolution does not directly impact the basic truths and doctrines of Christianity. The hermeneutics of how one interprets the Bible certainly affects other doctrines (such as eschatology for example). But the question is, from a YEC perspective, couldn’t God communicate His truth to us reasonably clearly about our origins? If we evolved, He could have told us that (not necessarily using that word), but He didn’t. He told us He made Adam “from the dust of the ground”, not from some pre-existing creature. If the “dust of the ground” is just an analogy (as all creatures are essentially physically made from the elements of the earth) that could be reasonable. But then we get to Eve, who was neither born nor created at the same time as Adam but made by some form of miraculous genetic cloning/engineering from a piece of Adam’s side. That’s a little harder to allegorize and harmonize with evolution.

Then we get to the problem of sin. God made everything “good”. Theistic evolutionists believe that the death spoken of in Genesis after man fell was only the spiritual death of man as physical death had already existed for hundreds of millions of years. YEC’s disagree.

God made man and woman to procreate along with all the other living things (so, no, sex was not the temptation in the garden). God made the plants to be food for all the original animals and for man (no carnivores originally). But everything changed when sin entered the picture. Man was originally placed in charge of the creation – to tend to it as well as subjugate it. God was the “landowner” but placed the “management” of the property in the hands of man. But Eve and Adam blew it (as well as Lucifer/Satan). They introduced sin into the earthly realm of reality while Satan introduced sin and rebellion into the Heavenly kingdom. We are not sure whether Satan’s rebellion happened either before tempting Eve or if this earthly event was part of the act of rebellion of Satan that led to his expulsion from God’s spiritual heaven along with a third of the angels that rebelled with him. But, regardless, man “fell”. He could no longer commune with God, his spiritual connection to God was broken – he died spiritually that day and began the process of physical deteriorative aging and death also that very day. The creation changed – violence and death were introduced. The nature of man was changed so that he was and is conceived and born by nature rebellious towards God. It was because of this, the absolutely hopeless predicament of man to be able to commune with God or win His favor and was sentenced to die physically also, that God provided a way for eternal life, hope, love, and peace. The fall of man made the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ a necessity if any person was to be declared justified and clean before a righteous, Holy, and just God. It is because of Christ we also have the possibility of the “new birth” – the spiritual birth which is capable of communing with God. It is because of Christ that we will be resurrected in incorruptible physical bodies and that the world, the entire physical creation, will be renewed without the stain of sin.

Certainly certain forms of death existed before sin. Plants were given as food – but that means that plants had to die. Similar arguments could be made for microbes and possibly insects, etc. But I am not sure where the dividing line stops. There is a clear Biblical indication that blood has a part in the defining role of what God refers to as a living creature as differing from other creations which are alive but are sacrificial even before the fall – existing as something akin to a complex bio-chemical wind-up toy robot. I can't say for certain where the line is drawn by God as He didn't reveal that as far as i have been able to discern, but certainly all vertebrates are alive and ate plants before the fall of man.

But the OT prophecies about the kingdom of God use illustrations like wolves laying down with lambs, children playing at the den of an asp without harm, etc. In other words, the pictures that God gives us of a restored kingdom (whether literal or not) is one without carnivores and without death and violence. From a theological perspective (putting the standard geological and evolutionary interpretations aside for a moment) is it therefore unreasonable to assume that the kingdom that God originally created, the one He called “good” was anything much less than the restored kingdom prophesied? If that is true, then what we have in the fossil record is mostly a result of cataclysms which happened after man fell as the fossil record is a testimonial largely of death, disease, violence, and even carnivorism. From that standpoint, the Biblical expositionalist would ask whether or not the actual evidence can be re-interpreted to fit within the YEC framework. Obviously, the YEC’s would say yes.

I do believe that much of the YEC basis for their position of a young earth is theological in nature. But I also believe that there are enough anomalies appearing in the strata to keep that position (as well as “flood geology”) alive and well for some time. I also believe that the creation vs. naturalistic evolution issue is one which extends far beyond the age of the earth.

I believe that ID theory (Intelligent Design) is neutral towards the time questions as well as the identity of the designer and therefore the idea of an intelligent designer is one that transcends many theological ideologies. I believe that the Biblical God is a reasonable deduction from ID but it is not the only deduction possible.


&gt;After all, in the literal Genesis, Adam was created first THEN
&gt;had the spirit breathed into him. Why not have evolution make
&gt;him first, THEN have the spirit breathed into him? What's the
&gt;difference?

It is a matter of what the Biblical text actually says (in context as well as compared to all other Biblical scripture) vs. whatever esoteric interpretation I wish to place on the text to say.

 

Brett,

Who said there was no metaphor in the Bible? A true metaphor is when a spiritual reality is compared to a physical reality in order to illustrate the spiritual. For example,

"Heaven is God's throne and earth is his footstool."

No one that I know of believes God has feet or that He props them up on the earth while He sits in the heavens. No one I know of thinks that the prophet meant to say that God had feet which He props on the earth. This is simply a metaphor intended to illustrate the magnitude and majesty of God.

By stark contrast, when the Bible says that the sun rises and sets, there is not one thing "metaphorical" about it. It is a statement of fact based on our observation of the sun in the sky. Now you may want to say this is a scientific error but you cannot honestly say this is a metaphor because there is nothing metaphorical about it.

Therefore, if the biblical writers intended by these statements to convey the idea that the sun moves around the earth, then they were simply wrong. So don't patronize them and absue them by trying to claim they were speaking metaphorically. Just come on out and admit that you believe the were in error.

By the same token, anyone who reads Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as well as Exodus chapter 20 know that the "six days" of creation were intended as six days of creation. You know this is not metaphorical and the only reason you say it is metaphorical is so you can continue to feign faith in the Scriptures and maintain your standing in the church.

In other words, you use the cloak of "metaphor" to avoid telling the plain truth which is that you think Moses was in error about the creation.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark,
Steady on brother, lets try and stay loving and gracious here. I think Brett's a good bloke and is sincere in his beliefs. I think you should allow for that

Brett is not avoiding telling the truth he's being honest in his belief Moses was using metaphor.

Talking then of literalism, St John when talking about Revelation states "behold the bride of the lamb" when talking about the Church. So you saying the Church is literally a bride ? Otherwise are you avoiding the plain trure that you think John was in error about the Lords revelation ?

See the mess that arises ?

I don't like saying this Mark but unfortunately I , and several other evangelical Christians I know have observed how ungracious some YEC's can become. It doesn't do them any credit to behave like that.

Lets remember ( on both views of this debate ) the line from the movie 'Topgun'....

best wishes to you all , God bless and have a great weekend.

 

I farmed an 80 acre farm for 15 years.
Grazing cattle eat the blades of the meadow grass which does not kill the plant.
In fact when we wanted to revitalize a meadow we put a few cattle on it to graze for a while.

When you eat an apple, you do not kill the tree.

Also, we don't know all the details of the nature of life and the maintenance of it (and there seems to be some need because Adam and Eve ate fruit).

We do know that death entered the world via Adam.
Personally, I believe it was universal:

Romans 8
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

HankD

 

So you are saying that the death of living tissue is not death? The cells of that tissue are alive by our standards are they not? There certainly is life on a cellular level. When ingested, these cells would die. Bacteria would die. But, these are not the same as the living creatures with the breath of life and with blood.

We do not see life as God sees it and I cannot help but wonder if certain forms of life are seen by God in the same way we would view cybernetic engineered structures that mimic living organisms but are not alive.

I agree with the statement that the Bible seems to indicates there was no death of living creatures before Adam's sin and I cannot see any part of the fossil record as being part of the history of the world before Adam's sin. I am a YEC and believe in the "plain" reading of the Bible. I would also agree that is because of Adam's sin that all of creation now suffers.

 

I don't believe that there was death before Adam.
He must have known intellectually at some level what it was or God would not have warned him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I can't give an answer to your valid objections about bacteria and cell death. Perhaps it is so but perhaps we are missing some additional unrevealed information.

HankD

 

.

This is a true case of metaphor where one thing is compared to another. The Lord's faithful compared to a bride. That is what metaphor is, when one thing is compared to another for the sake of illustration.

So tell me, if by the sun "rising and setting" the Bible was using a metaphor - to what was the "rising and setting" being compared? What spiritual truth is illustrated by saying that the "sun stood still" in the sky?

The only mess here is for those who say that a statement which was historical or scientific is "metaphorical." [Snipped out by moderator for personal comments]
Mark Osgatharp

[ October 29, 2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Major B ]

 

Perhaps parable would be a better word - although I don't see what the point is of arguing semantics, since you know what we mean regardless of whether the word "metaphor" is being used incorrectly.

 

Brett,

There is no parable or metaphor or anything of the sort involved. Moses thought the earth was created in six days. Jesus thought Adam and Eve were the first human beings from whence we all came. The people who don't believe it just don't believe it.

The application of the terms metaphor and parable to the creation account is nothing other than an attempt by some evolutionists to maintain a facade of respect for the Scriptures. At least some evolutionists are honest about the matter and just say, "The Bible was wrong."

And for the record, I really don't know what you mean by calling the creation account a metaphor or parable or any such thing. When viewed as a parable or metaphor, Genesis becomes meaningless drivil. By contrast, a true parable or metaphor brings a truth to life. Like when Peter spoke of false teachers in terms like,

"Clouds without water" and

"The dog is returned to his vomit."

Now there is a metaphor on which I can really get a grasp.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Hank, I also do not believe there was death before Adam's sin for most of God's creation (with the exceptions I noted). I think as a general statement, it is fine and I think that is the way it is used in scripture. When we read that "all in Bethany (or some other city) came out to see (or do such-and such)" does that mean that every single man, woman, and child in the city did this? No. A careful study of the Biblical use of the word "all" shows that "all" is sometimes not "all" literally but may be "all" representives, etc. By saying that, I am not arguing for the allegorical method of reading the Bible. Most conservative "literal" Bible scholars would agree with what I've said.

It's just that we need to be careful sometimes about making universal statements that non-believing atheists, etc. will pounce on as a flaw when dealing with them. Therefore when I see something like that (especially when it may be a statement I have myself used in the past), I try to put my 2 cents in and make the person think about what is actually said in scripture. I believe that Adam and Eve died spiritually after eating the fruit as this was a direct disobedience of God. I also believe that they began their physical decay leading to death at that moment. I also believe that, because of their relatively uncorrupted genes, the people then did literally live for almost a thousand years (I do read Genesis in the plain sense, not allegorically).

I am sometimes just overly nit-picky over the overuse of an otherwise good generality. Sometimes we place our own view of how we interpret what is said over and above what is actually said. My point about the death of plant cells and bacteria would, to me, indicate that OUR (man's) view of what is "living" is different from God's. It is my understanding that God places mammals and vertebrate animals with blood and the "breath of life" in the category of living creatures - and therefore they would not have died if Adam had not sinned. Men could not originally eat animals... nothing with blood in it. We are also told, very plainly, that animals were also given the herbs and plants as food. Therefore, what we have in the fossil record is from catastrophy(s) of a later date, not prior to Adam's existance and fall. I agree completely with you there. But it also suggest that there are different categories of life in God's eyes and that the life of individual cells and plants are not considered by God to be on the same level as animal and human life. So general statements that "there was no death before Adam" is true but just be aware of the little specks that both non-believers and old-earth allegorists will sometimes hone-in on to trip you up. I am not trying to do so. Part of my motive was also to possibly get some feed-back to further the qualifications as to what God appears to see as "living" physically.

Sometimes we creationists can overreach what is actually stated which leads to wrong interpretations and dogma such as the pre-Copperican view of the earth's position relative to the sun, a concept of a flat earth, racial bigotry, etc. I am not saying that the Bible actually teaches any of these things, it does not. I am saying that, historically speaking, the Bible has been mis-quoted and misused to provide a basis for all of the above wrongful views.

If we introduce the concept of spiritual life, the concept of what is living again changes as even man is considered to be spiritually dead without spiritual rebirth by the Holy Spirit in Christ.

Are there allegories in Genesis? Yes, of course. But I do not think the use of allegorical paralles changes the physical reality. Example - after Adam sinned, God killed an animal and clothed Adam and Eve so they would not be naked. Now that should bring a host of scriptures to mind about the substitutionary death of an innocent creature for sin (and, yes, if God had not killed the animal as payment of Adam's sin in the similar manner as the Levitical offerings, I believe God would have struck down Adam and Eve that very day). I think also of the parable of Jesus where the person tried to come into the feast with his own garments instead of those which were provided by the lord of the house. But in being a parallel allegory there is no reason to doubt that Adam and Eve's sin was literal, the death of the animal was literal, etc.

Blessings in Christ,
Steve

 

Steve, a very good dissertation and for the most part I would agree.

I still hold a reservation concerning the definition of death according to the Scripture.

You seem to indicate that "death" means "death" for a blood possessing life entity (nephesh) and yes I agree.

Personally I see it as extending beyond to plant life and yes even non-animate matter in that the universe is continually progressing (or de-gressing) into chaos sometimes called "entropy".

The Romans 8 passage says as much with the added benefit that the sons of God will one day reverse this decline.

Here I would disagree with Mark. To not accept the literal 6-day creation but to say that one believes even in a theistic evolution as the means that God used to create man would not disqualify one from a real salvation experience.

But there would be (in my mind) a conflict as there was in mine 40 years ago when I was saved.

I was Catholic by birth and an agnostic-atheist by choice when I was saved while doing a tour in the USAF. It took 2 years but I eventually left the Church of Rome (which accepts theistic evolution as a valid choice of human origins) and their theology and origins of life theories.

I guess I am young-earth (if I am understanding that phrase) in that I believe in a 6-24 hour day creation of the universe and Adam (and Eve some unknow amount of time later).

In those two years a scouring of the Word of God brought me to the convictions I now hold, I dealt with the conflicts by acting upon what I believe/believed the Word of God teaches.

"The just shall live by faith".

To incorporate theistic evolution into one's faith to me does not invalidate that faith because God still is glorified for his creation.
There will be conflicts however.

Personally, concerning creation and Adam and Eve, I chose to resolve the conflict on the side of the literal content of Genesis rather than the "theories- i.e. evolution/Big Bang" of man which change every generation or so.

HankD

 

Mark post #939

[snipped by moderator for personal comments]

[ October 29, 2003, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Major B ]

 

Mr. Osgatharp -

Perhaps you have never read our FAQ page that outlines the duties of the moderators. Perhaps you did not read the user agreement nor the posting rules when you first submitted your application to this site.

You, however, in pressing the submit button specifically agreed to the following terms of use:

If you do not agree with an editing of one of your posts, you are free to complain to any of the site administrators.

You have been granted free bandwidth on a high traffic message board and have been given a wide amount of latitude in your speech. Now, with a single editing of a non-relevant insult in one of your 940 posts, you are going to try to tag us as "speech police?"

It is my personal opinion that you owe an apology to those whom you deliberately try to offend and to the moderator who, on a volunteer basis, upholds the rules of this site.

There are a myriad of message boards on the web where you can post, but few would allow you to go as uncensored as we have. Another alternative is that you can start your own message board and allow or deny the postings of your choice. Finally, you could stop posting altogether. The choice is of course your's, but as long as you are posting on this site the moderatorship will uphold the rules to which you agreed and attempt to maintain a good witness for Christ and they will have the full support of the administration.

 

Clint,

I might take your criticism a little more seriously were it not abundantly clear that personal attacks from the left are freely tolerated. For example (and these example are from this thread alone):

Mark Osgatharp

 

Hi travelsong. You said; "Can you give me one single doctrinal reason why I should be compelled to interpret the Genesis creation account as a literal six 24 hour days?" Gen. 1: 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31. The evening and the morning are described as a Day in each of these verses. The word day is the hebrew word "yowm" which means a literal 24 hour period. Furthermore, the phrase "evening" (hebrew "ereb") means "evening, night, sunset." The word "morning" (hebrew "boqer") means "morning, end of night, coming of daylight, coming of sunrise." So, it is self-evident that the creation account records a literal 24 hour day. The Bible is its own best interpreter. Best. latterrain77.

 

Mark,

Did you really think there wouldn't be a reaction after you call many of your fellow Christians "unsaved" and "heretics" merely because they disagree with your theology?

 

Brett,

Sure I expected a negative reaction to my theological assertions and I can live with that. My only reason for pointing out these quotes is to show that personal attacks from theological left are tolerated.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Your attacks were tolerated for quite awhile, too until a moderator called you out for questioning the salvation of others. There's been no real difference in behavior here between "the left" and your group - simply a difference in the enforcement of the rules. I don't necessarily condone that, though. But still, you weren't exactly afraid to let loose with the personal attacks, so why are you now complaining about being attacked yourself?