A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

[John Bauer]

Would you hold, then, that Adam and Eve were the first humans via special, direct creation, ...

Personally? No. That view is held by some—I think Swamidass in his book explained it as a possible position—but I've never seen any reason to adopt it.

There are theological reasons to hold that Adam and Eve historically existed, and approximately 6,000 years ago, but it matters not theologically whether they were specially created or had parents—yes, I've taken into account Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22—and there is not a single doctrine in all of Christian theological orthodoxy that requires them to be the first humans.

That is, therefore, my position at this point: They historically existed and lived 6,000 years ago in a world populated by millions of people, and were born to parents like everyone else. (I could be persuaded that they were specially created directly by God, but nobody has convinced me yet.)

... and not evolved from prior primates?

Again, populations evolve (e.g., humans), not individuals (e.g., Adam and Eve).

Would you agree that while there is evolution in a sense within the species, they never changed into a distinct different species?

No, I would not agree with that. Speciation has been observed—genuinely new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species. Again, "evolution in a sense within the species" can, as a result of accumulated divergent change along separated lineages, eventually become different species (e.g., certain cichlids in a volcanic lake in Nicaragua, certain salamanders in southern California, and so on).

 

[John Bauer]

Seeing it is one author, the Holy Spirit, with one intention (To point to Christ), this is what I mean by constancy in revelation. That would not be outside orthodoxy.

That is, in fact, a very orthodox position—and one that I likewise affirm.

If that is what you meant, then let's revise and revisit your question:

"How does Scripture having one author (the Holy Spirit) with one intention (to point to Christ) lead one into theistic evolution?"
​

It doesn't.

See, I didn't come to accept evolutionary processes because of anything I read in Scripture. However, I also didn't come to accept reproductive processes because of anything I read in Scripture. So, I fail to see where this line of inquiry was supposed to lead. It's not as if I hold to solo scriptura. There are more sources of truth than Scripture, which is the final authority and the rule of faith and life.

I would contend that theistic evolution is outside orthodoxy, seeing that the theory of evolution is quite recent, even after the Puritans (about the same time as the dispensationalists). So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Did you just suggest that being quite recent is what proves that it's outside orthodoxy? Or did you start to make a point about it being outside of orthodoxy but trail off into a point about it being quite recent, with the two points being unrelated?

My opinion is that spiritualizing the text leads one down all kinds of rabbit holes.

I don't know what "spiritualizing the text" is supposed to mean, here, thus your opinion isn't clear.

And we both believe the Old Testament prophecies were literally fulfilled.

 

[John Bauer]

Is it accurate to say that you're an advocate of theistic evolution?

No, it's not. But I have been tolerating the label so far because the issue hasn't been relevant to anything we're discussing.

I am a proponent of evolutionary creationism, and identify as an evolutionary creationist.

Yes, there is a real and substantive difference.

Curious, brother: Have you heard of and listened to Stephen C. Meyer?

I certainly have. I own several of his books, and have listened to many presentations by him and interviews with him. I was heavily into intelligent design when I was exploring Hugh Ross and his version of old-earth creationism.

And Meyer continues to be relevant, so I like to keep up with him from time to time (along with Fuz Rana).

 

[prism]

See, I didn't come to accept evolutionary processes because of anything I read in Scripture.

How did you come to accept evolutionary processes, if not by Scripture?

 

[JesusFan]

Personally? No. That view is held by some—I think Swamidass in his book explained it as a possible position—but I've never seen any reason to adopt it.

There are theological reasons to hold that Adam and Eve historically existed, and approximately 6,000 years ago, but it matters not theologically whether they were specially created or had parents—yes, I've taken into account Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22—and there is not a single doctrine in all of Christian theological orthodoxy that requires them to be the first humans.

That is, therefore, my position at this point: They historically existed and lived 6,000 years ago in a world populated by millions of people, and were born to parents like everyone else. (I could be persuaded that they were specially created directly by God, but nobody has convinced me yet.)



Again, populations evolve (e.g., humans), not individuals (e.g., Adam and Eve).



No, I would not agree with that. Speciation has been observed—genuinely new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species. Again, "evolution in a sense within the species" can, as a result of accumulated divergent change along separated lineages, eventually become different species (e.g., certain cichlids in a volcanic lake in Nicaragua, certain salamanders in southern California, and so on).

orthodox Christianity though always affirmed that Adam and Eve were the first Humans, special and divine creation of God , do you take genesis to be a literal historical account or bible myth or metaphor then?

 

[JesusFan]

Personally? No. That view is held by some—I think Swamidass in his book explained it as a possible position—but I've never seen any reason to adopt it.

There are theological reasons to hold that Adam and Eve historically existed, and approximately 6,000 years ago, but it matters not theologically whether they were specially created or had parents—yes, I've taken into account Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22—and there is not a single doctrine in all of Christian theological orthodoxy that requires them to be the first humans.

That is, therefore, my position at this point: They historically existed and lived 6,000 years ago in a world populated by millions of people, and were born to parents like everyone else. (I could be persuaded that they were specially created directly by God, but nobody has convinced me yet.)



Again, populations evolve (e.g., humans), not individuals (e.g., Adam and Eve).



No, I would not agree with that. Speciation has been observed—genuinely new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species. Again, "evolution in a sense within the species" can, as a result of accumulated divergent change along separated lineages, eventually become different species (e.g., certain cichlids in a volcanic lake in Nicaragua, certain salamanders in southern California, and so on).

There have been observed changes and variations within species, but NO evidence of a species changing from one to another

 

[JesusFan]

No, it's not. But I have been tolerating the label so far because the issue hasn't been relevant to anything we're discussing.

I am a proponent of evolutionary creationism, and identify as an evolutionary creationist.

Yes, there is a real and substantive difference.



I certainly have. I own several of his books, and have listened to many presentations by him and interviews with him. I was heavily into intelligent design when I was exploring Hugh Ross and his version of old-earth creationism.

And Meyer continues to be relevant, so I like to keep up with him from time to time (along with Fuz Rana).

Are you saying that God created life forms originally on earth, then laid back and allowed evolutionary process to them take over?

 

[John Bauer]

How did you come to accept evolutionary processes, if not by Scripture?

The same way I came to accept the heliocentric theory: education. Once I understood it, I was like, "Of course. That makes sense." (This was after first settling the Genesis question, which was the biggest obstacle to accepting evolutionary history.) I have consumed a lot of books, articles, documentaries, debates, and presentations. Nearly a third of my personal library is comprised of books on origins—from creation to evolution, from theists to atheists—not to mention the bookmarks in my web browser.

 

[John Bauer]

Orthodox Christianity, though, always affirmed that Adam and Eve were the first humans, special and divine creation of God.

For most of its history, yes. That is true. And for nearly as long it also held that the earth was the center of the universe, and greatly resisted the heliocentric model.

Do you take Genesis to be a literal historical account or bible myth or metaphor then?

It depends on the section of Genesis. Some material is straightforward historical narrative, other sections use liturgical structure, or archetypal patterning, or genealogical architecture. Responsible exegesis involves discerning these literary modes and the function each serves. Genesis is a composite work employing multiple literary modes to advance one theological agenda: the covenantal history of the seed line through which God executes his redemptive decree. The controlling framework, then, is redemptive-historical narrative, and the subsidiary modes serve that larger agenda.

There have been observed changes and variations within species, but NO evidence of a species changing from one to another

That is false. I indicated just two examples where we have evidence of precisely that.

Are you saying that God created lifeforms originally on Earth, then laid back and allowed evolutionary process to them take over?

No. I am a Christian, not a deist.

 

[prism]

The same way I came to accept the heliocentric theory: education. Once I understood it, I was like, "Of course. That makes sense." (This was after first settling the Genesis question, which was the biggest obstacle to accepting evolutionary history.) I have consumed a lot of books, articles, documentaries, debates, and presentations. Nearly a third of my personal library is comprised of books on origins—from creation to evolution, from theists to atheists—not to mention the bookmarks in my web browser.

For some reason I'm not impressed
I only hope you didn't come to Christ that same way...
1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:20-21 KJV
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:25-28 KJV
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: [27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

1 Corinthians 2:12,14 KJV
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[John Bauer]

For some reason I'm not impressed

Irrelevant. It was intended not to impress you but to answer your question.

I only hope you didn't come to Christ that same way.

Certainly not. (Nobody does.)

 

[prism]

Irrelevant. It was intended not to impress you but to answer your question.

Fine, I just didn't expect a brag-fest to come of it.

 

[JesusFan]

The same way I came to accept the heliocentric theory: education. Once I understood it, I was like, "Of course. That makes sense." (This was after first settling the Genesis question, which was the biggest obstacle to accepting evolutionary history.) I have consumed a lot of books, articles, documentaries, debates, and presentations. Nearly a third of my personal library is comprised of books on origins—from creation to evolution, from theists to atheists—not to mention the bookmarks in my web browser.

There is still NO evolutionary explanation for the very origin of life though

 

[JesusFan]

For most of its history, yes. That is true. And for nearly as long it also held that the earth was the center of the universe, and greatly resisted the heliocentric model.



It depends on the section of Genesis. Some material is straightforward historical narrative, other sections use liturgical structure, or archetypal patterning, or genealogical architecture. Responsible exegesis involves discerning these literary modes and the function each serves. Genesis is a composite work employing multiple literary modes to advance one theological agenda: the covenantal history of the seed line through which God executes his redemptive decree. The controlling framework, then, is redemptive-historical narrative, and the subsidiary modes serve that larger agenda.



That is false. I indicated just two examples where we have evidence of precisely that.



No. I am a Christian, not a deist.

There cannot be species changing, as that would require external force to accommodate the required Dna alteration in the basic code itself, which no evolutionary process could perform

 

[EarlyActs]

For some reason I'm not impressed
I only hope you didn't come to Christ that same way...
1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:20-21 KJV
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:25-28 KJV
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: [27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

1 Corinthians 2:12,14 KJV
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Corinthian docs had everything to do with Judaizers in the regions Paul ministered in, and nothing to do with settling the question of modern conventional uniformitarianism. Not many people believed in an atheist U'ism in Paul's time.

U'ism cannot be true because of the combined evidences of design and of the cataclysm (the world we see out our window was majorly affected by the latter). It does not necessarily take the Spirit to accept this; da Vinci called the human hand a miracle. A leading British geologist in the 90s at U Swansea said that cataclysm forces have been found everywhere on earth, though he denied Genesis' narrative.

What helps on those is to sort out your definition of God to start with, in the same sense as the old professor in LION, WITCH & WARDROBE: 'what are they teaching in schools these day?' If exhibit A is infinite, yet also can talk to humans in their language(s), what's to prevent Genesis 1 from being true--a true account as well as a true custody of an account from Adam, verbally, down to Joseph, in written form?

 

[JesusFan]

Fine, I just didn't expect a brag-fest to come of it.

Evolution cannot answer the question on how life originated, nor what is the purpose of our even existing?

 

[JesusFan]

The Corinthian docs had everything to do with Judaizers in the regions Paul ministered in, and nothing to do with settling the question of modern conventional uniformitarianism. Not many people believed in an atheist U'ism in Paul's time.

U'ism cannot be true because of the combined evidences of design and of the cataclysm (the world we see out our window was majorly affected by the latter). It does not necessarily take the Spirit to accept this; da Vinci called the human hand a miracle. A leading British geologist in the 90s at U Swansea said that cataclysm forces have been found everywhere on earth, though he denied Genesis' narrative.

What helps on those is to sort out your definition of God to start with, in the same sense as the old professor in LION, WITCH & WARDROBE: 'what are they teaching in schools these day?' If exhibit A is infinite, yet also can talk to humans in their language(s), what's to prevent Genesis 1 from being true--a true account as well as a true custody of an account from Adam, verbally, down to Joseph, in written form?

How about the Holy Spirit Himself inspired Moses to record truth down to us in the Pentateuch?

 

[prism]

The Corinthian docs

Are you referring to God's word?

The Corinthian docs had everything to do with Judaizers in the regions Paul ministered in,

You seem to be hung up on Judaizers, as you turn each conversation towards them.

and nothing to do with settling the question of modern conventional uniformitarianism.

Sorry, I don't recall bringing up the question of modern conventional uniformitarianism.

U'ism cannot be true because of the combined evidences of design and of the cataclysm (the world we see out our window was majorly affected by the latter). It does not necessarily take the Spirit to accept this; da Vinci called the human hand a miracle. A leading British geologist in the 90s at U Swansea said that cataclysm forces have been found everywhere on earth, though he denied Genesis' narrative.

Again, off-topic.

What helps on those is to sort out your definition of God to start with, in the same sense as the old professor in LION, WITCH & WARDROBE: 'what are they teaching in schools these day?' If exhibit A is infinite, yet also can talk to humans in their language(s), what's to prevent Genesis 1 from being true--a true account as well as a true custody of an account from Adam, verbally, down to Joseph, in written form?

C.S. Lewis believed that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity and that God could have used it as a tool for creation... I don't.

I believe Genesis 1 is true. Don't you?

 

[CrowCross]

The same way I came to accept the heliocentric theory: education. Once I understood it, I was like, "Of course. That makes sense." (This was after first settling the Genesis question, which was the biggest obstacle to accepting evolutionary history.) I have consumed a lot of books, articles, documentaries, debates, and presentations. Nearly a third of my personal library is comprised of books on origins—from creation to evolution, from theists to atheists—not to mention the bookmarks in my web browser.

When one performs a "fact check" of evolution against the bible evolutionism fails despite what those who believe in what the "science" of evolutionism teach.

The same science that brings you evolutionism but under a different "occupation" tell us a man who died on a Roman cross, beaten, whipped, nails hammered into him, a spear thrust through his side...then after rigor-mortis would have set in along with the pooling of any blood left in his body...could not possibly have risen from the dead on day 3. Therefore the bible is false concerning the resurrection of Christ Jesus and Christianity is nothing but a myth.

Some of these same "scientist" following a narrative tell us the earth could not have been flood with water at the time of Noah yet the biblical fact check...as well as well documented scientific evidence demonstrates other wise.

The book of Genesis tells us how mankind fell, received a sin nature and the need for Christ Jesus to die and resurrect to atone for the sin of mankind...yet the same "scientist" claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen.

The problem or issue easily becomes....when did mankind fall into sin? How did mankind fall into sin?
Once again the fact check of the bible tells us how....and the theo-evo crowd says, the bible doesn't explain how....it couldn't have happened that way so it but be allegorical. You even said it in an above reply to #JesusFan

It depends on the section of Genesis. Some material is straightforward historical narrative, other sections use liturgical structure, or archetypal patterning, or genealogical architecture.

For some reason this logic applies to Genesis and the creation but not the account of Christ Passion. Despite the scientific claims that both are scientifically impossible.

We often see people pick and choosing what man tells them to pick and choose concerning biblical truth and advancing only what they need to advance.

 

[JesusFan]

Are you referring to God's word?

You seem to be hung up on Judaizers, as you turn each conversation towards them.

Sorry, I don't recall bringing up the question of modern conventional uniformitarianism.

Again, off-topic.

C.S. Lewis believed that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity and that God could have used it as a tool for creation... I don't.

I believe Genesis 1 is true. Don't you?

Those who hold to evolution are basically accepting the theory of it as being factual, despite no evidence to support it, and the revelation from God in the bible against it as being true