A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[EarlyActs]

​ r/agnostic · Posted by u/HomemDasTierLists 12h ago Why is the existence of evolution commonly used to argument against theism or the idea of a creator, of design behind the entire universe?

The simple answer is that there is a depiction of creation week in Genesis, and since it has a logical flow, and nothing in it to suggest extended metaphor, we must say that theistic evolution conflicts with it. Apparently your experience suggests otherwise, but is it good to take a decade of experience and declare how millions of years have transpired? My experience and others suggests against evolution; the example of Black Dollies. The fish adapted to salt water in 3 weeks.

So while I think TE is a huge mistake, I also want to point out mistakes by YECs. I find that they are not familiar with the Hebrew vocab and word choice of their prize document, Genesis 1. (Except for the term 'yom' or day.) I find that they have reduced all that they are saying to such a trite form, that we are to think that nothing physical existed at all the moment before Gen 1:2, and they believe that to be a mere half-frame moment.

My view is that the term 'spreading out' (of the universe) elsewhere in Job, Isaiah, Psalms, can refer to a lifeless mass explosion somewhat before Day 1. I have not yet worked out the mechanics of how starlight arriving on earth on Day 1 computes backward to such a release. But the upside of this view is that the random, lifeless universe people see in their scopes now has a Cause (God); it's just not how our system was created (except the water-covered rock called earth).

When we first see or hear of the earth, it is water-covered and utterly dark. The expression 'darkness on the face of the water' was meant to say that no starlight had arrived and was not reflecting off of it. The Septuagint translators supplied another important detail that suggests duration: that 'formless' is actually 'submerged out of view.' So the land of earth was submerged for a while, as later verses detail, as does Ps 104.

These and other things suggest a duration to Gen 1:2. I edit a journal on this but am not allowed to name it here.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

FULL DISCLOSURE: As a Christian, I'm an old-earth creationist who accepts the evolutionary patterns of natural history while affirming and defending the biblical orthodoxy of redemptive history, including the belief that Adam and Eve were real people who lived roughly 6,000 years ago.

Why do people use evolution to argue against theism, or the idea of a creator, or design in the universe?

Invariably, people who argue that way do not understand either evolutionary science or Christian theology—or both. If you spend any amount of time arguing these issues with them, that truth will inevitably be borne out. There is nothing about evolutionary science that necessarily undermines or even challenges either theism or intelligent design. And, apart from the issue of Adam and Eve, I would say it doesn't pose any real threat to creationism generally, either. (However, it does flatly contradict young-earth creationism specifically, as do the facts of many other sciences.)

And it only poses a problem for the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve if they are held to be the first humans. If they existed as real people around 6,000 years ago but were not the first humans, there is no longer any conflict with evolutionary science.

 

[Sereni-tea]

So while I think TE is a huge mistake, I also want to point out mistakes by YECs. I find that they are not familiar with the Hebrew vocab and word choice of their prize document, Genesis 1. (Except for the term 'yom' or day.) I find that they have reduced all that they are saying to such a trite form, that we are to think that nothing physical existed at all the moment before Gen 1:2, and they believe that to be a mere half-frame moment.

A poor understanding of the Hebrew literary and cultural context of Genesis 1 has led to Christians adopting erroneous views of what the Bible does, and doesn't say, especially in regards to science and creation. Many have been taught that a particular position is what they must accept, otherwise they are destroying the authority of Scripture. This is not only foolish, but damaging, and many have left the church because of it, or won't even consider Christianity because they see it as ignorant and foolish. In light of this, it is imperative that we make sure that our understanding is as accurate otherwise we do not honour God.

Many educated and respected Christians hold a variety of views on Creation and we could learn a lot from each other, if we are willing to listen.

My view is that the term 'spreading out' (of the universe) elsewhere in Job, Isaiah, Psalms, can refer to a lifeless mass explosion somewhat before Day 1. I have not yet worked out the mechanics of how starlight arriving on earth on Day 1 computes backward to such a release. But the upside of this view is that the random, lifeless universe people see in their scopes now has a Cause (God); it's just not how our system was created (except the water-covered rock called earth).

Personnaly, I think trying to equate any Hebrew term or phrase as relating to modern ideas of science is not particularly fruitful. I believe that God communicated to the ancient Hebrews their language and culture so that they would understand His message. I do not believe He was interested in correcting their 'science', only their theology. We see this in many places in the Bible, not just in Genesis 1. To try to read modern scientific ideas into the text will distort what the text is actually saying.

When we first see or hear of the earth, it is water-covered and utterly dark. The expression 'darkness on the face of the water' was meant to say that no starlight had arrived and was not reflecting off of it. The Septuagint translators supplied another important detail that suggests duration: that 'formless' is actually 'submerged out of view.' So the land of earth was submerged for a while, as later verses detail, as does Ps 104.

Darkness and deep water were symbols of chaos to the ancients and is quite common in other ancient near easter creation accounts. I don't think it has anything to do with lack of starlight. But I do think the passage is quite clear about land covered by water as in verse 9 we have dry land appearing as God separates the water from the land.

 

[LeviR]

​

​ ​ ​ ​ r/agnostic · Posted by u/HomemDasTierLists 12h ago Why is the existence of evolution commonly used to argument against theism or the idea of a creator, of design behind the entire universe?

The simple answer is that there is a depiction of creation week in Genesis, and since it has a logical flow, and nothing in it to suggest extended metaphor, we must say that theistic evolution conflicts with it. Apparently your experience suggests otherwise, but is it good to take a decade of experience and declare how millions of years have transpired? My experience and others suggests against evolution; the example of Black Dollies. The fish adapted to salt water in 3 weeks.

So while I think TE is a huge mistake, I also want to point out mistakes by YECs. I find that they are not familiar with the Hebrew vocab and word choice of their prize document, Genesis 1. (Except for the term 'yom' or day.) I find that they have reduced all that they are saying to such a trite form, that we are to think that nothing physical existed at all the moment before Gen 1:2, and they believe that to be a mere half-frame moment.

My view is that the term 'spreading out' (of the universe) elsewhere in Job, Isaiah, Psalms, can refer to a lifeless mass explosion somewhat before Day 1. I have not yet worked out the mechanics of how starlight arriving on earth on Day 1 computes backward to such a release. But the upside of this view is that the random, lifeless universe people see in their scopes now has a Cause (God); it's just not how our system was created (except the water-covered rock called earth).

When we first see or hear of the earth, it is water-covered and utterly dark. The expression 'darkness on the face of the water' was meant to say that no starlight had arrived and was not reflecting off of it. The Septuagint translators supplied another important detail that suggests duration: that 'formless' is actually 'submerged out of view.' So the land of earth was submerged for a while, as later verses detail, as does Ps 104.

These and other things suggest a duration to Gen 1:2. I edit a journal on this but am not allowed to name it here.

The heaven and earth existed long before God formed it habitable as we now know it. All previous life had been extinct before Gen 1:1.

 

[David Lamb]

The heaven and earth existed long before God formed it habitable as we now know it. All previous life had been extinct before Gen 1:1.

If any life had been extinct before Genesis 1, that means there was death before sin and the Fall, which seems to be completely against what the bible says. Also, we read that God created the earth "in the beginning", not that He formed it into a habitable place for humanity long after He created it.

David Lamb

 

[LeviR]

If any life had been extinct before Genesis 1, that means there was death before sin and the Fall, which seems to be completely against what the bible says. Also, we read that God created the earth "in the beginning", not that He formed it into a habitable place for humanity long after He created it.

David Lamb

The Bible doesn’t tell us anything about the life that existed before the earth was formed as we now know it.
When it’s said in Gen 1:1 that God created……it does not mean “out of nothing”.
If created means “out of nothing”, I must ask, when man was created, was it out of nothing? No.
God created man from the ground. Just as God created the heavens and earth from what already existed.

 

[David Lamb]

The Bible doesn’t tell us anything about the life that existed before the earth was formed as we now know it.
When it’s said in Gen 1:1 that God created……it does not mean “out of nothing”.
If created means “out of nothing”, I must ask, when man was created, was it out of nothing? No.
God created man from the ground. Just as God created the heavens and earth from what already existed.

True, the bible clearly states that God made man out of the dust of the earth. It doesn't say that God made the earth, moon, sun, stars, animals, birds, plants, light, etc. out of pre-existing materials. And the bible tells us that God, through Christ, created all things, so the idea of Him using pre-existing materials for His creation is a non-starter:

“1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

 

[LeviR]

True, the bible clearly states that God made man out of the dust of the earth. It doesn't say that God made the earth, moon, sun, stars, animals, birds, plants, light, etc. out of pre-existing materials. And the bible tells us that God, through Christ, created all things, so the idea of Him using pre-existing materials for His creation is a non-starter:

“1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

The sun moon and stars existed long before the earth was created. The creating of the earth refers to the moving and separating of water. The earth had been surrounded by water before it was created.
Any life which existed on the earth before the creating of the earth, has long been extinct.
Creating simply means forming.

 

[David Lamb]

The sun moon and stars existed long before the earth was created. The creating of the earth refers to the moving and separating of water. The earth had been surrounded by water before it was created.
Any life which existed on the earth before the creating of the earth, has long been extinct.
Creating simply means forming.

Not according to the bible. Don't you believe the early chapters of Genesis to be true?

 

[LeviR]

Not according to the bible. Don't you believe the early chapters of Genesis to be true?

What do you mean “not according to the Bible”.
Gen 1:1 is a general statement telling us it was God who created the heavens and earth. What follows tells us how He created them.

 

[David Lamb]

What do you mean “not according to the Bible”.
Gen 1:1 is a general statement telling us it was God who created the heavens and earth. What follows tells us how He created them.

Yes, it tells us that He spoke and things came into being.

 

[LeviR]

Yes, it tells us that He spoke and things came into being.

The light from the sun, moon and stars would shine upon the earth when the water was separated and the dry land appeared.

 

[EarlyActs]

A poor understanding of the Hebrew literary and cultural context of Genesis 1 has led to Christians adopting erroneous views of what the Bible does, and doesn't say, especially in regards to science and creation. Many have been taught that a particular position is what they must accept, otherwise they are destroying the authority of Scripture. This is not only foolish, but damaging, and many have left the church because of it, or won't even consider Christianity because they see it as ignorant and foolish. In light of this, it is imperative that we make sure that our understanding is as accurate otherwise we do not honour God.

Many educated and respected Christians hold a variety of views on Creation and we could learn a lot from each other, if we are willing to listen.


Personnaly, I think trying to equate any Hebrew term or phrase as relating to modern ideas of science is not particularly fruitful. I believe that God communicated to the ancient Hebrews their language and culture so that they would understand His message. I do not believe He was interested in correcting their 'science', only their theology. We see this in many places in the Bible, not just in Genesis 1. To try to read modern scientific ideas into the text will distort what the text is actually saying.



Darkness and deep water were symbols of chaos to the ancients and is quite common in other ancient near easter creation accounts. I don't think it has anything to do with lack of starlight. But I do think the passage is quite clear about land covered by water as in verse 9 we have dry land appearing as God separates the water from the land.

What are the options for light on Day 1? If we go with you, we will have to find a magical or mythical source when the LXX rabbis were much more ordinary in handling the Hebrew to create a Greek version for the whole world.

 

[EarlyActs]

A poor understanding of the Hebrew literary and cultural context of Genesis 1 has led to Christians adopting erroneous views of what the Bible does, and doesn't say, especially in regards to science and creation. Many have been taught that a particular position is what they must accept, otherwise they are destroying the authority of Scripture. This is not only foolish, but damaging, and many have left the church because of it, or won't even consider Christianity because they see it as ignorant and foolish. In light of this, it is imperative that we make sure that our understanding is as accurate otherwise we do not honour God.

Many educated and respected Christians hold a variety of views on Creation and we could learn a lot from each other, if we are willing to listen.


Personnaly, I think trying to equate any Hebrew term or phrase as relating to modern ideas of science is not particularly fruitful. I believe that God communicated to the ancient Hebrews their language and culture so that they would understand His message. I do not believe He was interested in correcting their 'science', only their theology. We see this in many places in the Bible, not just in Genesis 1. To try to read modern scientific ideas into the text will distort what the text is actually saying.



Darkness and deep water were symbols of chaos to the ancients and is quite common in other ancient near easter creation accounts. I don't think it has anything to do with lack of starlight. But I do think the passage is quite clear about land covered by water as in verse 9 we have dry land appearing as God separates the water from the land.

You would make more sense if you came up with a metaphoric meaning for the submerged land.

It is really the simplest thing to demonstrate 1, pre-creation conditions and 2, that the pair of nouns Heaven and earth are confined to our local system plus a few objects that moved (were not static). Boorstins history of astronomical discovery is a good demonstration of that, from neighbor literature and theology.

In my journal which I can’t name here, I have simply worked out the logistics of a mass detonation prior to Day 1, which comfortably has the features found in 1:2 and the word choice about spreading out or stretching.

 

[EarlyActs]

The heaven and earth existed long before God formed it habitable as we now know it. All previous life had been extinct before Gen 1:1.

But starlight arrives on Day 1. That is a timestamp that connects a mass detonation with creation week.

I do not know why YECs think up imaginary sources of light for Day 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

If any life had been extinct before Genesis 1, that means there was death before sin and the Fall, which seems to be completely against what the bible says. Also, we read that God created the earth "in the beginning", not that He formed it into a habitable place for humanity long after He created it.

David Lamb

My view does not have life before Day 4 even though there is some lifeless time before it. There needs to be some for a mass detonation by God prior to our system being formed, with life.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, it tells us that He spoke and things came into being.

There is more to the literary form than that. It is a section heading, followed by pre-existing conditions, followed by new action.

Rabbi Cassuto found this through all the verbal narrative of Genesis 1–39.

 

[Sereni-tea]

What are the options for light on Day 1? If we go with you, we will have to find a magical or mythical source when the LXX rabbis were much more ordinary in handling the Hebrew to create a Greek version for the whole world.

The ancients did not understand that the light of day came from the sun - which is completely understandable since the light of dawn appears before the sun appears on the horizon and dusk remains after the sun goes down. The language in Genesis 1 is consistent with ancient beliefs about the cosmos.

 

[Sereni-tea]

You would make more sense if you came up with a metaphoric meaning for the submerged land.

In the text, God is ordering Creation and in doing so He separated waters above from waters below, and water and land.

It is really the simplest thing to demonstrate 1, pre-creation conditions and 2, that the pair of nouns Heaven and earth are confined to our local system plus a few objects that moved (were not static). Boorstins history of astronomical discovery is a good demonstration of that, from neighbor literature and theology.

What do you mean by 'local system'?
In ancient cosmology, there was a solid dome above the land on which the sun, moon and stars moved. The language of Genesis 1 is consistent with this. Again God was not trying to correct their 'science', He was correcting their theology.

In my journal which I can’t name here, I have simply worked out the logistics of a mass detonation prior to Day 1, which comfortably has the features found in 1:2 and the word choice about spreading out or stretching.

Why do you assume a modern idea of what 'stretching out' means? Why are you trying to fit modern science ideas into ancient cosmology?

 

[prism]

So while I think TE is a huge mistake, I also want to point out mistakes by YECs. I find that they are not familiar with the Hebrew vocab and word choice of their prize document, Genesis 1. (Except for the term 'yom' or day.) I find that they have reduced all that they are saying to such a trite form, that we are to think that nothing physical existed at all the moment before Gen 1:2, and they believe that to be a mere half-frame moment.

In reference to the 'principle of first mention', we see in the first mention of 'day', it not only mentions 'day' but also defines it, 'day = evening and morning'. There is no way you can squeeze millions of years out of 7 evenings or mornings. TE is a matter of compromising liberals trying to have 'intellectual respectability'.