Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Papparazzi]

If evolution is true, it means that there was a father and son in our family tree where god considered the father an animal and the son human.

Implications if evolution is true:

If the son had free-will, language, a conscience, rational thought, why couldn't the father have the same characteristics? If the son could pray to god, why couldn't the father? They were the same species after-all!

Implications if the bible is true:

The bible says humans are fundamentally different from animals and that humans were created in god's image. In Genesis 1:26, humans are given dominion over the animals. Humans are accountable for moral choices in a way that does not apply to animals. And humans have the unique capacity to communicate with god. Also 1 Cor. 15:39 says “All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another”.

Conclusion:

Unless you think the biblical distinction between human and animal is completely arbitrary, the bible and evolution cannot both be true

[jimwalton]

I'm trying to follow your logic, but it doesn't make sense to me. I am a conservative evangelical who believes in the reality of evolution, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the truth of the Bible. Let me try to deal with your premises.

> If evolution is true, it means that there was a father and son in our family tree where god considered the father an animal and the son human.

No. If evolution is true, according to the way I see it, when humanity evolved to a point where we were genuinely human (the genetic blending of Neaderthal and Denisovans evolving into homo sapiens), at that point Genesis 2.15 picks up the story, and two of the genuine humans are taken from among the rest of the population and placed in the Garden. The father was not an animal, but was homo sapien just like the son. Genesis picks up the story when the evolutionary chain is just human, nothing else.

> If the son had free-will, language, a conscience, rational thought, why couldn't the father have the same characteristics? If the son could pray to god, why couldn't the father? They were the same species after-all!

He did. They were the same species. They had free will, language, a conscience, and rational thought. Adam & Eve were chosen out from among the homo sapiens population as representatives of the human race. I'm not catching your drift, or possibly your drift is just incorrect.

> The bible says humans are fundamentally different from animals and that humans were created in god's image.

That we are in God's image doesn't make us fundamentally different. We are still biologically animals and part of the fauna evolutionary chain. The image of God in us pertains possibly to ensoulment and possibly to God giving us a particular task (to rule the Earth and subdue it). We have a moral and spiritual task, but that doesn't make us fundamentally different from the animals biologically (evolutionarily) speaking.

> 1 Cor. 15:39

Paul's point is what is obvious about different kinds of life: wheat doesn't look like a butterfly; a lettuce plant doesn't look like a strawberry plant; a chimpanzee doesn't look like a tiger; a dolphin doesn't look like a tilapia. That's all he's saying. God gives each a body the way He chose to do it, with the form He chose to give it. Paul is talking about the amazing variety of life forms. God treats His creation with integrity: each thing in its own order, each thing the way He made it.

> Conclusion: Unless you think the biblical distinction between human and animal is completely arbitrary, the bible and evolution cannot both be true

Therefore your conclusion is both misinformed and false. The Bible admits that human life and animal life are similar (both have "the breath of life"—a consciousness, so to speak, Gn. 6.17). In the Bible, humans are in the same category with animals in that we are sentient, conscious biological beings created by God with value. In that sense, we are no different from a cat, or a tree. We show respect for all living things. In another sense, however, we have the image of God, which gives us a different status than the rest of creation. I am separated from nature, yet related to it.

Therefore the Bible and evolution can easily both be true. But let's talk some more, OK?

[Loving the Ride]

Fellow Christian here. There is another scenario that doesn't seem to be accounted for.

God make the animals of all kinds, but Noah only took 2 of each Kind on the Ark. In other words, he didn't have to take both Horses and Zebras. "Kinds" probably relates to the "Family" level in the Animal Kingdom taxonomy that is used today.

Therefore, Christianity affirms that God them morphed all the species today from those "Kinds" that were saved. I think we need to avoid wasting time discussing that aspect of evolution. Abiogenesis is really the question,and I'm of the opinion that God created ex-nihilo (from nothing or clay).

Class > Order > Family > Genus > Species
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the comment and input. I'm one who doesn't believe the Flood was global, and so don't particularly think that any zebras, for instance, were destroyed in the Flood.

A larger issue that usually comes up in the evolution discussion is from Genesis 1 and the repetition on Days 5 & 6 about "according to their kinds." Commentators show that it doesn't necessarily mean "NO EVOLUTION!"

John Davis: "This does not require the separate creation of God of each species. It does require at least the separate creation of families within orders."

Victor Hamilton: "God’s creative design is that both the birds and fish will reproduce themselves 'according to their kind.' " (which, of course, accords with both YEC and evolutionary creationism, where mutations are always gradual)

John Walton: "The phrase 'according to their kinds' is a statement of how order reigns in the ways that creatures reproduce."

> Abiogenesis is really the question

I agree that abiogenesis is really the question, and that to date no scientist has been able to explain how abiogenesis really happened (though theories abound, and some scientists claim they are plausible). Obviously, abiogenesis is still a problem scientists haven't solved.

God creating ex nihilo doesn't negate the evolutionary process, however. Ex nihilo doesn't necessarily apply to how life started, but only to how the cosmos started. Hebrews 11.3 specifies that the universe was formed from nothing. The author is denying the eternity of matter, something current scientists also deny.

[Super Flood]

So you believe there were other people on the planet when Adam and Eve sinned? And Adam and Eve aren’t the sole ancestors of everyone?
Why do you believe the part about Adam and Eve being created out of dust as the first people is metaphorical but still believe in their literal existence?

Do you accept the genealogies in the Bible that trace back to Adam and Eve as being correct—that is to say, they lived less than 10,000 years ago? If so, that would mean the native peoples of the Americas weren’t genetic or cultural descendants. So how does the original sin of Adam and Eve have impact on them?

[jimwalton]

> So you believe there were other people on the planet when Adam and Eve sinned?

Yes. Adam and Eve were selected out from among the others (Gn. 2.15) to represent humanity, and for God to reveal Himself to (Gn. 2.17ff.) In similar fashion, Abraham was selected out from among others for God to reveal Himself to; Moses also, priests and Levites from among the rest of Israel, David from among his brothers, and the disciples from among the followers of Jesus. It's a common strategy God uses.

> And Adam and Eve aren’t the sole ancestors of everyone?

Possibly they were. There is an interesting theory published by Dr. Joshua Swamidass that says that computer models of genetics show that all humans genealogically converge on one couple in about 6000 or 7000 BC. (Meaning through this one couple we are all genealogically related, though not biologically related.) This could actually make sense to me. Before 10000 BC is pre-history. We start seeing evidence of civilizations and cities, along with things like agriculture, from 10000-6000 BC. But right around 6000 BC there is like an explosion of civilization, "technology," and population growth. 6000 BC is also a reasonable chronology for a large regional flood around 5000-4000 BC, the Tower of Babel at around 2500, and Abraham at 2000 BC. It actually somewhat fits. Then, obviously, it can still be true that Adam & Eve are not the first hominids, but they are the first that God reveals Himself to, and that Eve is the "mother" of all the living.

Another theory is posited by Dr. John Walton, saying that Eve is the "mother of all the living" in that she and Adam are representatives of the rest of future humanity because God has revealed Himself to them, and therefore all future generations are in that category. Walton says, "it does not demand a biological or genetic role as we can see from the similar statements in Genesis 4:20-21 where Jabal is 'the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock' and Jubal is 'the father of all who play stringed instruments.' Since these refer to archetypal roles not biological relationships, we can see that the terminology of biological relationship can be used in archetypal ways. This does not prove that Eve’s name does not indicate that all human beings came from her; it merely offers other reasonable alternatives from within the near context."

So there are a couple of possibilities here that allow for a variety of alternatives that are both true and make sense.

> Why do you believe the part about Adam and Eve being created out of dust as the first people is metaphorical but still believe in their literal existence?

Being created out of dust indicates the mortality of their nature, not their chemical or physical origins. "Dust" is a symbol of death (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14). It's not referring to the raw materials from which they were made, but rather a statement of their nature as mortal. Such a statement, then, doesn't require that they are fictional or only metaphorical. Adam and Eve, along with other humans, really existed and were mortal. It's one of the reasons they need a Tree of Life. The text is telling us that humans were created mortal.

> Do you accept the genealogies in the Bible that trace back to Adam and Eve as being correct—that is to say, they lived less than 10,000 years ago?

The genealogies are correct but not complete. They don't include every generation, and so we can't just do the math and come up with a date. Many ancient genealogies are also incomplete, as are many biblical genealogies. They don't try to include every generation the way we do.

So I accept the genealogies as historical, while at the same time knowing that they don't include every generation. After all, Jesus as a "son" of David. Matthew 1 has 3 sets of 14 generations, obviously not all inclusive. Genesis 5 has 10 generations from Noah to Adam, the "10" seemingly for a symbolic reason. The genealogy of Genesis 10 has 70 names, seemingly also symbolic. Some of them are individuals, some are people groups, and others are geographic designations. He's not trying to include every person in every generation. Genesis 11.10-32 shows Shem's lineage, again with the symbolic "10." Genesis 36 has Esau's genealogy, and some are clan names, some names are repeated, and the final names are kings of Edom. We can see how the biblical lists are meant to be historical accurate but not complete.

> that would mean the native peoples of the Americas weren’t genetic or cultural descendants. So how does the original sin of Adam and Eve have impact on them?

A & E's original sin is characteristic of all humanity. The point of the text is "Any human would have done the same thing." With A & E came the first accountability for it, because God had revealed Himself to them and God had warned them. Romans 5.13 tells us that people are not held accountable for what they could not possibly have known.

[Loving the Ride]

> I'm one who doesn't believe the Flood was global, and so don't particularly think that any zebras, for instance, were destroyed in the Flood.

Hi Jim, Long time no talk. I just realized that it was you. I hope you are doing well. I used to believe in a local flood too until I did more digging into geology. More and more evidence for the global flood is adding up every year as Geological science progresses. I think there is plenty evidence today to affirm the global flood, but it took me over 6 months to get there. I'm sure that was due to God's grace. This is a good resource: https://creation.com/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood

It sounds like we are mostly in agreement otherwise, so I'm not going to nitpick.

> Obviously, abiogenesis is still a problem scientists haven't solved.

I work in AI/ML/Analytics, and after working on some Computational Biology projects, it helped me realize that abiogenesis will never be solved via naturalism. Life defies the laws of physics (entropy) and mathematics. Life is made up of amazing nano-machines, perfectly optimal for their task. It's not haphazard. The Discovery Institute is a good resources and I highly recommend this overview by Dr. James Tour: https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

Theologically, I think it is also absurd to think that God would create Human beings from primates. Especially Mary and Jesus. Popular claims about similarities between Humans and Primates are way exaggerated. Pamela Aker has a good presentation about that and other mainstream exaggerations : https://youtu.be/c9KDMY3UUDs

> Ex nihilo doesn't necessarily apply to how life started, but only to how the cosmos started.

Agreed, but all the Church fathers are in agreement that animals were originally made that way. God poured out His grace on them, and I think that God's grace is the best way to get the truth. There is a great case to be made about how Darwinism has been the main weapon of our enemy. When people believe that they are animals, they start to act accordingly. When Communists in Russia and China first re-educated people, they didn't start with Marxism. They started with Darwinism. From there, they could break up families, break up human morals, break up marriages, and the most fundamental building blocks of God's creation.

> The author is denying the eternity of matter, something current scientists also deny.

Agreed. It's interesting how atheists will pick and choose what to believe, with or without evidence. As a former agnostic/atheist, I can confirm that it is a type of religion in practice.

[jimwalton]

> This is a good resource.

Wow, in 3 links you just gave me 3 hours of reading and watching. Um, I don't have that kind of time right now. Maybe I can get to it later.

> Theologically, I think it is also absurd to think that God would create Human beings from primates.

The Bible tells us that God created, but not how, how long it took, or what processes He used (other than speaking). A look at history shows us that God often and regularly uses processes to accomplish His will and to do His work. We look at the process of the covenant from Abraham to Moses to David to Jesus, and it's obvious that God has no problems using gradual processes over time.

I don't see what's theologically absurd about God guiding the process of evolution from primates to homo sapiens. Especially given that at a particular point in time He vested humanity with His breath of life to put humanity in a separate category. In ways we know we are just animals like the animals, but in another sense we know we are nothing like them. Theologically and biologically we understand how both can be true.

> Especially Mary and Jesus.

By this are you meaning that it would be demeaning to perceive Mary and Jesus as biologically similar to animals? Certainly, theologically we as humans are set apart (Gn. 2.7), as I mentioned above.

> There is a great case to be made about how Darwinism has been the main weapon of our enemy. When people believe that they are animals, they start to act accordingly. When Communists in Russia and China first re-educated people, they didn't start with Marxism. They started with Darwinism. From there, they could break up families, break up human morals, break up marriages, and the most fundamental building blocks of God's creation.

Agreed, in a sense, but just because it has been used as a weapon doesn't mean it's untrue. Christianity has been used as a weapon also, in some historically horrid and tragic ways.

> It's interesting how atheists will pick and choose what to believe, with or without evidence. As a former agnostic/atheist, I can confirm that it is a type of religion in practice.

Agreed.

[Loving the Ride]

> By this are you meaning that it would be demeaning to perceive Mary and Jesus as biologically similar to animals?

It's not the biological similarity, it's the conceptual design. I believe that our bodies reflect and represent God in mysterious ways. God has no form, but inFORMation itself has a type of form and I think that our body designs reflect that aspect of God. All of creation is made to reflect the Glory of God, especially our bodies. For example, the head is the highest part of mankind, with vision as one of it's higher functions has a lot of meaning. Our arms and legs represent the way that God gets things done. The way that we see only in one direction, I suspect has something to do with the Trinity. Jesus also called Hell Gehenna, and I don't think it takes much imagination to consider what part of God that is. There's a reason why Hell smells of sulfur and brimstone.

In other words, our Human bodies are a majestic creation of God's design, not an unguided product from animals.

> Agreed, in a sense, but just because it has been used as a weapon doesn't mean it's untrue.

Its fundamentals have been used against Christianity very effectively. The bad examples of Christianity are malpractice of the fundamentals, not fidelity.

> Maybe I can get to it later.

Certainly. I would love to hear what you think about it. No rush of course.

[Super Flood]

It’s clear you have put a lot of thought into your interpretation, and I respect that. I think it’s more reasonable than some interpretations I have seen.

> A & E's original sin is characteristic of all humanity. The point of the text is "Any human would have done the same thing." With A & E came the first accountability for it, because God had revealed Himself to them and God had warned them. Romans 5.13 tells us that people are not held accountable for what they could not possibly have known.

Doesn’t that make it a little harder to defend against the charge that God is responsible for evil? The normal defense is that God gave Adam and Eve free will and they chose to disobey. But if every human would have done the same thing, then that would seem to imply the cause of their disobedience rests in their God-given nature.