Can evolution bring about nxt things!

[PetriFB]

I ask you all to answer honestly to the next thought!

How accident in other words evolution have the ability to next kind of things:.

How is possible, that evolution develops eye which sees, woods which hears, heart which upkeep body's life, person who has emotional life and ability understands many matters. Person which has been built extremely miraculously with all mechanism of his/her.

[harvey1]

The Scriptures are describing a chain of life, beginning in Genesis 1:1 with "God created" which if we remember from other conversations on the board is "Elohim bara [the form of "created" meaning "out of nothing"] the heavens and the earth". After this, he describes the order of how each thing brings forth its fruit- after its own kind, and... "whose seed is in itself," not out of nothing or out of something not originally intended to "bring forth" by a natural process.

Notice, though, God commanded the earth to bring forth P, and P equals "things that produce after their own kind." This doesn't tell us how earth brings forth P. And, there is certainly no argument that P does produce after their own kind. Even within evolution there is no dramatic jump of variation from one generation to the next. What there are, though, are generations where things do change ("These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created").

Also, since the latter parts "trees bringing forth fruit, and fruit bringing forth..." If we know that these processes happen, not by evolution but by direct genetic processes without need of modification though change occurs, why do we have the need to inject some kind of evolution in the process?

Mainly because it is the earth that is doing God's work of creation, as the scripture states. Therefore, what other earthly process (or natural process) can account for the creation of life? Creationism is based on the notion that the creation of kinds are supernatural creations, not the earth doing as it is commanded (in contradiction to what Genesis clearly states). In addition, Genesis specifically mentions the earthly process using the same word as used to bring about human families: generations. So, there is a physical connection implied in this word as is required for one earlier generation to bring about the next generation. Immediately after saying that creation happened over generations (in vs 2:4), the scriptures state that it happened "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." This is a figure of speech meaning that these generations took place over a very long period (e.g., "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" II Peter 3:8 ).

I'm speaking here from the text itself. Better yet, and more directly, why, if in the bulk of the chain of life God describes a process which involves direct descent, would we assume that he meant something different for "let the earth bring forth?" If we correctly applied Occam's Razor, would we not simply say that since the Author has assigned basic agricultural values to the bulk of the variables in the chain, that His intention for parts which fit the same pattern of the chain in every day life, should follow that same format?

However, the scripture states God commanded the earth to bring forth Day 3. It is not merely God creating Day 3 and then commanding the earth to follow this process in some kind of agricultural process. The main issue is one of agency. God is commanding the following agencies to do God's bidding, namely: light, atmosphere, oceans, earth, sun and stars. The only creation in Genesis 1 where God does not pass the buck is with the creation of man. God is stating as creating man. Let me quote the Contempary English translation of Genesis 1 which I think is a much more clear rendering of the agency assignments in Genesis:

In the beginning God
created the heavens

and the earth. The earth was barren,

with no form of life; it was under a roaring ocean

covered with darkness.

But the Spirit of God was moving over the water.


God said, "I command light to shine!" And light started shining. God looked at the light and saw that it was good. He separated light from darkness and named the light "Day" and the darkness "Night." Evening came and then morning--that was the first day.

God said, "I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it." And that's what happened. God made the dome and named it "Sky." Evening came and then morning--that was the second day.

God said, "I command the water under the sky to come together in one place, so there will be dry ground." And that's what happened. God named the dry ground "Land," and he named the water "Ocean." God looked at what he had done and saw that it was good.
God said, "I command the earth to produce all kinds of plants, including fruit trees and grain." And that's what happened. The earth produced all kinds of vegetation. God looked at what he had done, and it was good. Evening came and then morning--that was the third day.

God said, "I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years. I command them to shine on the earth." And that's what happened. God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night. He also made the stars. Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth, to rule day and night, and to separate light from darkness. God looked at what he had done, and it was good. Evening came and then morning--that was the fourth day.
God said, "I command the ocean to be full of living creatures, and I command birds to fly above the earth." So God made the giant sea monsters and all the living creatures that swim in the ocean. He also made every kind of bird. God looked at what he had done, and it was good. Then he gave the living creatures his blessing--he told the ocean creatures to live everywhere in the ocean and the birds to live everywhere on earth. Evening came and then morning--that was the fifth day.

God said, "I command the earth to give life to all kinds of tame animals, wild animals, and reptiles." And that's what happened. God made every one of them. Then he looked at what he had done, and it was good.
God said, "Now we will make humans, and they will be like us. We will let them rule the fish, the birds, and all other living creatures."

Further, if we look historically at most texts describing processes, we find that parts which follow a chain and a pattern but are not explicitly defined, generally don't need to be as they are a part of the greater pattern which is made clear. Those parts which differ (as in if we were to assume evolutionary processes) are virtually always explicated for us. We should expect to see something about the earth not having seed already and yet, bringing forth anyway.

But, this is mentioned twice in the Genesis account:

The earth was barren, with no form of life (Gen. 1:2)

the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth(Gen. 2:4-5)

What these two verses demonstrate is that there was an earth, but there was no living thing on earth (i.e., consistent with God commanding the earth to get busy with the process of being an agent of God's will...), and that God is the cause of processes (e.g., raining) that will allow life to come into existence on earth. Notice, Gen. 2:5 states that reason that there were no herb or field is because earthly processes had not yet been caused to exist yet. This implies a natural process for the creation of life according to the Genesis account(s).

In short, it is a wide and deep stretch to suggest that God between the lines of Genesis spoke of evolution. The text itself says "In the beginning God", and from the earth which He created, it brings forth fruit, after a process which He ordered, after its kind. Why should we think that he created the entire earth, but not the little seed to bring forth greens?

Notice, though, each verse where God commands each thing it is God giving creative agency to that thing to be part of the creation as if God did it as a personally act:

I command the earth... The earth produced... God looked at what he had done

This is important for understanding Genesis since it is only man that is a personal act for God. All the other acts are acts of other agencies (e.g., light, atmosphere, oceans, earth, sun and stars). That is, God specifically does not command the earth to bring forth man:

God said, "Now we will make humans..."

So, I'd like to see a reply to how Genesis can be consistent with creationism when it speaks so strongly about God giving agency over to stuff to bring about God's will. The last agency that God gives in Genesis is to man, and this agency is giving man dominion over the world. That's what Genesis is, it's the story of God giving agency to things on each day of Creation. How could it be any more clear?

[micatala]

Very interesting points harvey. Certainly this interpretation seems quite a reasonable way to reconcile scripture with what we know about the history of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth.

I can see nikolayevich's question as legitimate. Why should we read between the lines?

I will not that there are quite a few places where we need to read between the lines in scripture, and there is even precedent for God expecting us to read between the lines.

Consider John Chapter 6. There, Jesus is talking to the crowds about 'he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood,' etc. The crowd takes him quite literally (not reading between the lines). In this case, Jesus fills in the lines by noting that 'my words are spirit and they are life; the flesh counts for nothing.'

This passage not only illustrates that it is sometimes necessary to go beyond the 'literal words' to understand what God is saying, but also that what is important about man is not his biology, but his spiritual nature.

Why should Christians make such a big deal about insisting on a literal 6-day creation, or even a supernatural creation of life on earth, given this passage, not to mention the analysis that harvey has provided?





I will also point out that the passage in Genesis relating to the 'dome of the sky' cannot in any reasonable way be taken literally, certainly not in the same way that the early Hebrews would have understood it. It seems to me the only reasonable interpretation is a metaphorical one.



If this passage is clearly not a literal description of the creation of the sky, why would we take the rest of this chapter as literal?

[harvey1]

Why should we read between the lines?

I agree that your example was a fitting response. However, let's not forget that in ancient Hebrew--the language in which Genesis was written--there is a severe limitation on the number of Hebrew words that were extant at the time.

[Cathar1950]

I think micatala you make some interesting points. Why take one part literally and try to reconcile it and not another part that does not lend itself to a more general and speculative interpretation.
Inherent in The above explanation was an attempt to make sense out of the passages and defend them against unbelievers and critics. Why the need to even reconcile any of the story to modern physics or biology?
They were stories and myths so what is being attempted here? Proof that it is right and God's word? Even if it all fit perfect would that really prove it was God's word and was perfect and correct as is assumed by the defence and explanations. The people of Summer knew about the progression of the Zodiac 6000 years ago. It take what, 3600 years or maybe only 2600
to go from one to the other how did they know? Well they did so are we to believe everything they believed or knew.
It seems like it is being used like tarot cards or runes.
Or maybe that crazy 8 ball.

[harvey1]

The above explanation was an attempt to make sense out of the passages and defend them against unbelievers and critics.

No, it wasn't. It was an argument that shows the Genesis story flow as God assigning creative agency to bring about the creation. As it turns out, the Genesis author(s) took the appropriate path if one were to try and defend the text against unbelievers and critics, but that's not what I was trying to argue.

Even if it all fit perfect would that really prove it was God's word and was perfect and correct as is assumed by the defence and explanations.

The meaning can be interpreted however one chooses, however if the question is whether creationism as understood by biblical creationists is correctly interpreted in Genesis, then I think the answer is that it is not correctly interpreted by the context and words of Genesis.

[Cathar1950]

The meaning can be interpreted however one chooses, however if the question is whether creationism as understood by biblical creationists is correctly interpreted in Genesis, then I think the answer is that it is not correctly interpreted by the context and words of Genesis.

I feel compelled to agree with you.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
Why should we read between the lines?

I agree that your example was a fitting response. However, let's not forget that in ancient Hebrew--the language in which Genesis was written--there is a severe limitation on the number of Hebrew words that were extant at the time.

Interesting. Knowing next to nothing about the Hebrew language, I was not aware of this. I wonder, did they even have a word close to even the general meaning of 'evolution'?

Certainly, language is inherently limiting, and the language one uses can profoundly effect the ideas and thougths one can express. The same, of course, is true of a person's world view. Given the ancient Hebrew world-view, I think the author of Genesis actually did a fine job in producing a 'creation narrative.'

One final comment on 'reading between the lines.' I think it is worth pointing out that, for example with the Copernican controversy, we often would never think to read between the lines without an 'extra-biblical' reason to do so. Certainly, 17th century Christians would not have thought to reinterpret passages relevant to the 'moving of the earth and sun' were it not for the theory put forward by Copernicus and the evidence provided by Galileo, Kepler, and others.

[harvey1]

One final comment on 'reading between the lines.' I think it is worth pointing out that, for example with the Copernican controversy, we often would never think to read between the lines without an 'extra-biblical' reason to do so.

But, is there a reason not to read between the lines? For example, the Catholic bible includes the book of Wisdom:

For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place. For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land. (Wisdom 19:18-19)

Certainly, 17th century Christians would not have thought to reinterpret passages relevant to the 'moving of the earth and sun' were it not for the theory put forward by Copernicus and the evidence provided by Galileo, Kepler, and others.

True, but I think my breakdown of showing how God assigned agency to earth, oceans, sky, etc., to God's bidding is enough to justify that Genesis endorses a methodological naturalism of God's actions in nature. I thought it was interesting that Rabbi Yehuda in the Middle Ages (I think) had interpreted the Hebrew "nephesh chayyah" (as in Adam became a living soul) as man having had a tail which was removed. In 1876 Naphtali Lewy sent a Hebrew transcript to Darwin showing that Genesis supported evolutionary theory if you read the Hebrew correctly. Darwin had this document translated, but said nothing more than at a reception of the Origin of Species that: "even an essay in Hebrew has appeared on it, showing that the theory is contained in the Old Testament!" (Charles R. Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin: Including an Autobiographical Chapter. Edited by his son, Francis Darwin. (London: John Murray, 1897); and ------, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. Edited by his granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow (New York: W. W. Norton, 1958)).

Well, it's not a completely infallible theory, but it is interesting...

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
One final comment on 'reading between the lines.' I think it is worth pointing out that, for example with the Copernican controversy, we often would never think to read between the lines without an 'extra-biblical' reason to do so.

harvey:
But, is there a reason not to read between the lines? For example, the Catholic bible includes the book of Wisdom:

No, I'm not saying there is a reason to not read between the lines, necessarily, nor that there is no reason to read between the lines, only that in some cases many or most people would not think to do so on the basis of the text alone. The Copernican controversy is one instance of this.

ANother might be the 'end times.' An early follower of Jesus who was reading the NT (assuming it was available to him or her in somewhat the form as we have it now) would probably have seen no reason to include the idea of a 'church age' that is common in many current Christian theologies. THis person, based on the text, would probably have concluded that Jesus was coming back within their lifetime.

True, but I think my breakdown of showing how God assigned agency to earth, oceans, sky, etc., to God's bidding is enough to justify that Genesis endorses a methodological naturalism of God's actions in nature.

I would not disagree. One of my biggest problems with many creationists is there insistence that methodological naturalism implies the metaphysical. They typically do not put it this way, and typically want to apply this argument only to evolution, but it is implied in many of their statements.