Creation via Evolution

[micatala]

In the Transitional Fossils thread, the following two posts were contributed by dunsapy.

You do know that we are apes right?

Absolutely , not. We are a special creation, different than all other creation.
I even include scientists in that.

According to you every creature is a special creation.
Even a mouse is different then all the other creatures.
I guess with all your special creations you can't seem to come up with any explanation for all the data and similarities that make perfect sense in their environments. How do you explain all the extinctions?

Yes that is true. But man is totally different than all other 'animals'.
There is a huge gap between any apes than man. There are no in between's we see today , there should be millions of them.
The fossil record is consistent , that there are no in between fossils found for any of animals, including man. No wonder science says they will never prove evolution. You can't proof something that is unprovable.

His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.�—ROMANS 1:20.

I think this scripture is correct, it is inexcusable, not to realize there is a creator.
Why would this scripture even be in the bible , except that God knew , that there would be people that would so blinded as not to see it.
I use the word blinded because, scientists are not stupid people, so the only answer is that they are blinded. Science doesn't follow their own findings.

Given that these relate more to theological than scientifice arguments, I thought it would be good to start a thread on these issues.



Questions for debate are:


Is considering evolution as part of God's creative process inconsistent with the Bible?


Does accepting that evolution of life has occurred necessarily deny God's existence?



When Genesis describes man as being created in God's image, how should we or might we understand or interpret this?



Keep in mind that on the Theology Forum, the Bible can be considered authoritative. However, posters are free to argue for their own particular biblical interpretations.

[userr123]

Yes, scientists have stated that the cell is a tiny blob. I do not have the source with me at the moment but I'll be sure to get it to you as soon as possible.
Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

[Goat]

Yes, scientists have stated that the cell is a tiny blob. I do not have the source with me at the moment but I'll be sure to get it to you as soon as possible.
Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

Evolution doesn't say how it is.. and I am sure that your source is .. not a scientific source about what the cell is.

Evolution doesn't talk about abiogensis the same way that plumbers don't talk about how water came into existence.

[userr123]

Yes, scientists have stated that the cell is a tiny blob. I do not have the source with me at the moment but I'll be sure to get it to you as soon as possible.
Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

Evolution doesn't say how it is.. and I am sure that your source is .. not a scientific source about what the cell is.

Evolution doesn't talk about abiogensis the same way that plumbers don't talk about how water came into existence.

The only difference is, plumbers aren't trying to find an answer for the origin of life. Evolutionists try to say that life formed gradually and has no evidence of how the cell came to be (the cell being the foundation for the existence of life).

[GentleDove]

Is considering evolution as part of God's creative process inconsistent with the Bible?

Yes, I believe considering God created (even partly) plants, animals, and humans by evolution is inconsistent with the Bible. Because the Bible states that all of creation, including mankind, was created--fully formed--ex nihilo by the Word of God (not formed by evolution).

Your reading and interpretation of the Bible and particularly your literal interpretation of myths when it is consistent with you beliefs and judging other passages as metaphor when it doesn’t fit you beliefs isn’t consistent with the facts of evolution…

I don’t believe the creation of the world as presented in Genesis is a “myth.� That is your pre-supposition. My pre-supposition is that the Biblical account is true. There are no facts that contradict an historical interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

On the other hand, there are many scientific facts which contradict the evolutionary philosophy. Some problems with “evolution� include the irreducible complexity of living systems, the addition of previously non-existent information to life forms "gradually over time" encoded in DNA, the passing along of DNA in organisms with sex differentiation (sex differentiation is itself a problem with the evolution explanation of complex life forms), the tendency of genetic mutations to produce non-advantageous effects, the non-scientifically-testable tautology of the “survival of the fittest� idea, among others.

Facts are always interpreted by both creationists and evolutionists through their "grid" of pre-existing basic beliefs about the nature of the world and humans and supernaturalism and how we ought to behave and how we know things to be true. I wish evolutionists would be intellectually honest more often than they are and admit that evolution is a philosophy (or religion), not a scientific fact.

…and the history of this planet.

The only way to know the history of this planet for a fact is to be there at the beginning of history and observe its creation and the unfolding of history. Or know Someone Who was there Who is gracious enough to reveal it to people. Historical events, such as new life forms coming into being, are not scientifically observable or testable.

There is not need to insist anything be consistent with the Bible including the Bible with itself. You are imposing you beliefs onto the Bible.

It is your belief (at least relative to this particular instance) which you are trying to “impose� on me that consistency is not necessary.

The Biblical myth has God or the gods or heavenly beings creating out of chaos not out of nothing “ex nihilo�.

The account starts with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.(Genesis 1:1-5).

There is no mention of “gods� or “heavenly beings� or “chaos� existing before God started creating. It also clearly states that God spoke and creating a thing (“light�) into existence. Even though you clearly don’t agree that the Bible is true, you surely can agree that that is what it says.

The gods also created man out of the earth (nothing to suggest evolution is not the process). Plants spring forth from the ground, again nothing “ex nihilo�

What “gods,� I don’t know what you’re talking about; you might wish to take this up with pantheists or evolutionists, or whoever argues that gods (or forces?) created living things out of pre-existing earth. The Bible recounts God’s creation of, for example, all earthly plants through His spoken word in one day, which is not consistent with evolution. Also, the order of the Genesis account of various parts of creation is not consistent with the evolutionary account of the formation of living things (for example, the sun, moon, and stars being created after plants). I’m not saying you have to agree with the Bible, but that is what it says:
Genesis 1:9-13

The Word of God creating is not the same thing as the “Bible as the Word of God as the later is a metaphor for how Bible Believers see the Bible and it isn’t very Biblical.

If you have support for this claim I would be happy to read it.

It seems to me that the "theistic evolution" view is syncretistic, as byofrcs mentioned. The "theistic evolution" view came about as a syncretistic response to evolution, rather than a view that can be supported exegetically from the Bible.

Most of the Bible has been written as a syncretistic response to new situations and failed prophecies. Nature and evolution don’t need to be “supported exegetically from the Bible� and to demand such is unreasonable and silly.

The first sentence quoted above is an unsupported claim. Regarding the second sentence quoted above, I don’t know why you are saying that I “demanded� that “nature and evolution� “need to be supported exegetically from the Bible.� And then tell me such a demand is “unreasonable and silly.� This is a case of attacking a straw man.

Does accepting that evolution of life has occurred necessarily deny God's existence?

I believe it denies the LORD God of the Bible, and substitutes a god who “evolved� his creatures. It “makes God a liar� by contradicting His written revelation, replacing it with the "word" of man (humans).

It doesn’t make God a liar any more then your insistence that a collection of writings by one group of Christians insisting the Bible of God’s Word makes God a liar.

I’ll be honest; I don’t understand this sentence.

The Bible is not the same thing as God or God’s Word, it is a metaphor.

Didn’t you just say I interpreted Scripture as literal when it suited my beliefs and interpreted it as metaphor when that suited my beliefs? I think it’s interesting that atheists and evolutionists want the Bible to be metaphorical when it comes to things like creation and literal when it comes to things like “the four corners of the earth� (Rev. 7:1) must mean that the Bible is literally claiming that the earth is flat and has four corners or referring to a “sun rise� (Ecc. 1:5) means the Bible is claiming that the sun literally revolves around the earth.

Thanks for sharing your belief that God’s Word is a metaphor for the Bible. (I think that is what you were saying.)

You make the Bible and God lie by claiming anything that disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible also disagrees with God: it disagrees with your reading and interpretation and they interpretations have evolved over the millennia and the NT itself is many an invention and reinterpretation of the Hebrew writings.

These are interesting claims. They seem to spring out of your belief that evolution is a fact, and your possible belief that humans can read a book and make it mean anything by the "magic" of interpretation. The Bible is quite clear in it's historical-grammatical context in most cases. It's just that unbelievers don't like what it says, and reject it based on "what's right in their own eyes" (Prov. 21:2) which they use as their standard, and by which they attempt to judge the Bible.
Do interpretations “evolve� the same way living creatures do? (just joking)

When Genesis describes man as being created in God's image, how should we or might we understand or interpret this?

As the God of the Bible is not material, I don’t think we can read “image� and think in terms of materialism. I believe when Genesis describes man as being created by God in His image, it means that humans were created by God (at least before the Fall), different from the animals, able to have a personal and meaningful relationship with God and other human beings, capable of morality, worship (reflecting God's glory), and thinking abstractly (non-materially).

Depending on which passages you read. In some places God like’s the smell of burnt offering which suggest smell and a nose, very none spirit, very material. God walks in the cool of the day, eats with Abraham, and wrestles with Jacob, shows Moses His Butt and other material manifestations. The concept of God evolved to a spiritual conception later and shows us just how ideas change over time.

God is spirit (Jn 4:24a) and, at the same time, He has no problem affecting, creating, manifesting, or incarnating materially. God also uses metaphor to reveal his nature to His people. Isaiah 31:3 is an example which shows God is Spirit, contrasting “men and God, flesh and spirit�, but speaks of His power metaphorically as “stretching out His hand.�

Again you are reading more into the idea of humans being created in the image of the gods then the Bible states.

In the Bible, God gave moral laws to humans and holds us morally accountable. He tells us by precept and historical example what such abstract concepts as love and justice are. God is orderly and consistent and causes His creation to operate this way as well for health, life and blessing. He did not do so for chimpanzees, for example. How would an evolutionist account for non-material things such as self-sacrificial love, morals, laws of logic, and laws of mathematics?

[Cathar1950]

Yes, scientists have stated that the cell is a tiny blob. I do not have the source with me at the moment but I'll be sure to get it to you as soon as possible.
Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

Evolution doesn't say how it is.. and I am sure that your source is .. not a scientific source about what the cell is.

Evolution doesn't talk about abiogensis the same way that plumbers don't talk about how water came into existence.

The only difference is, plumbers aren't trying to find an answer for the origin of life. Evolutionists try to say that life formed gradually and has no evidence of how the cell came to be (the cell being the foundation for the existence of life).

All we need is something that could become a cell. As we look at such things as virus and bacteria and the ability to use RDA and or DNA we can see all the building blocks in nature. All you need is change and time. There was lots of time and everything changes. Little changes can add up.

Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

We can see the parts and that is evidence.
We see change and that is evidence too.

I see it as either God did it or God didn't and evolution what was done or there is no God and evolution is what was done.
If the Bible is really the Word of God and not just some vague metaphor as it seems and has to be right by definition then if evolution is against the Bible you must be reading, interpreting or misusing the Bible as an authority.
I suggest this is a better possibility then evolution is a bad idea and you have something as a better explanation about things you can't know and don't have evidence that isn't negative.

[Goat]

Yes, scientists have stated that the cell is a tiny blob. I do not have the source with me at the moment but I'll be sure to get it to you as soon as possible.
Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

Evolution doesn't say how it is.. and I am sure that your source is .. not a scientific source about what the cell is.

Evolution doesn't talk about abiogensis the same way that plumbers don't talk about how water came into existence.

The only difference is, plumbers aren't trying to find an answer for the origin of life. Evolutionists try to say that life formed gradually and has no evidence of how the cell came to be (the cell being the foundation for the existence of life).

No, that is a straw man. Biologists who discuss evolution say that life changes over time, not 'formed gradually'. You are mixing up changing with forming... and this is an equivocation.

[userr123]

Yes, scientists have stated that the cell is a tiny blob. I do not have the source with me at the moment but I'll be sure to get it to you as soon as possible.
Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

Evolution doesn't say how it is.. and I am sure that your source is .. not a scientific source about what the cell is.

Evolution doesn't talk about abiogensis the same way that plumbers don't talk about how water came into existence.

The only difference is, plumbers aren't trying to find an answer for the origin of life. Evolutionists try to say that life formed gradually and has no evidence of how the cell came to be (the cell being the foundation for the existence of life).

No, that is a straw man. Biologists who discuss evolution say that life changes over time, not 'formed gradually'. You are mixing up changing with forming... and this is an equivocation.

Ok if evolution states that life changes over time, that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

[userr123]

Yes, scientists have stated that the cell is a tiny blob. I do not have the source with me at the moment but I'll be sure to get it to you as soon as possible.
Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

Evolution doesn't say how it is.. and I am sure that your source is .. not a scientific source about what the cell is.

Evolution doesn't talk about abiogensis the same way that plumbers don't talk about how water came into existence.

The only difference is, plumbers aren't trying to find an answer for the origin of life. Evolutionists try to say that life formed gradually and has no evidence of how the cell came to be (the cell being the foundation for the existence of life).

All we need is something that could become a cell. As we look at such things as virus and bacteria and the ability to use RDA and or DNA we can see all the building blocks in nature. All you need is change and time. There was lots of time and everything changes. Little changes can add up.

Either way, evolution still has no evidence of how the cell came to be.

We can see the parts and that is evidence.
We see change and that is evidence too.

I see it as either God did it or God didn't and evolution what was done or there is no God and evolution is what was done.
If the Bible is really the Word of God and not just some vague metaphor as it seems and has to be right by definition then if evolution is against the Bible you must be reading, interpreting or misusing the Bible as an authority.
I suggest this is a better possibility then evolution is a bad idea and you have something as a better explanation about things you can't know and don't have evidence that isn't negative.

The only problem with that is that change could not occur if it never existed in the first place. Even if you say that bacteria or virus cells (prokaryotic cells) could change or evolve in to eukaryotic cells (any other cell), the prokaryotic cell would of had to already exist (but there is no evidence of how the cell came to be). According to irreducible complexity, the different parts of the cell would not of been able to change or evolve because it would not be able to sustain life without the other parts of the cell working together.

[Goat]

that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

Oh gosh here we go again. I wish for ONCE some creationist would come up with a new point that hasn't been answered 1000 times already.

First of all, it has been shown over and over again that the concept of irreducibly complex is not evidence against evolution, because of two factors. First is the fact that Behe totally ignore the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later removed. The second factor is being able to take other structures and reuse them for other purposes.

Now, let's look at the 'missing organ' .. does a 'half an eye' mean that it is totally useless? No, it does not. It could be useful enough to get by, but over generations increase efficiency.

Then, of course, there is the evolution of hte inner ear, where we have fossil evidence of it evolving in structure from the jaw bone.

Here is just one article on that, I can give many more if you want.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fos ... -in-action

If you want to know some science, you should actually learn about it in a biology class, and not off the web from creationist sites.

[userr123]

that mean there had to be a more simple form of that life in order for it to change. The only problem is that there is a such thing called irreducible complexity. This means that the organism is at it's simplest and most basic form to where it can still survive. The problem there is that it still has many organs that it uses that are not previously anywhere else and couldn't of "changed" from anything else. And if it were missing one of these organs, it would not be able to sustain life and therefore would die off before it could evolve into something different.

Oh gosh here we go again. I wish for ONCE some creationist would come up with a new point that hasn't been answered 1000 times already.

First of all, it has been shown over and over again that the concept of irreducibly complex is not evidence against evolution, because of two factors. First is the fact that Behe totally ignore the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later removed. The second factor is being able to take other structures and reuse them for other purposes.

Now, let's look at the 'missing organ' .. does a 'half an eye' mean that it is totally useless? No, it does not. It could be useful enough to get by, but over generations increase efficiency.

Then, of course, there is the evolution of hte inner ear, where we have fossil evidence of it evolving in structure from the jaw bone.

Here is just one article on that, I can give many more if you want.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fos ... -in-action

If you want to know some science, you should actually learn about it in a biology class, and not off the web from creationist sites.

The problem with your "eye theory" is that you already started out with half of an eye. Where did that half come from?? You're saying that one structure can be used for many different purposes in different organsims. Problem with that is how was that structure formed? Example: If you look at the flagella of a cell, you notice that it is a complex machine with many different parts in order to make it function. None of these parts are found anywhere else except in the flagella. Where did they come from?

I am currently in high school and I actually AM taking a biology class. But we learn about biology through a biblical world view (not evolution). I didn't learn any of this from web sites...
Here is a lecture my biology teacher gave to a group of folks that he also presented to us in class (be sure to watch the whole thing. enjoy):