Adam and Eve vs. the Theory of Evolution

[CrowCross]

Catholics and most other Christian denominations that do not share your beliefs.

There are hundreds of Christian denominations each with varying differences in beliefs, so if you want to believe that your denomination has ONLY true belief, go for it. However, you might want to keep in mind that most of those hundreds of other denomination are not fundamentalist and likely do not agree with you. In other words they are not required to believe that a literal reading of Genesis or that evolution or other sciences are evil. For us it is not an issue of faith or morals. I am not trying to stop you from believing that the Christians who don't share your beliefs are destined for the hot place.

View attachment 436​

We're speaking of evolution...which the bible doesn't teach.

 

[Illuminator]

The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Find out what Catholics believe about it.

www.catholic.com

 

[Frank Robert]

We're speaking of evolution...which the bible doesn't teach.

Why would you expect a religious book to teach any science?

My point was that Catholics and many other Christian denominations do not consider science including evolution to be a issue of faith or morals. Please do not take my clarifying what Catholics believe as a suggestion in any way or manner that you or others should modify your beliefs because of what they or other denominations believe. Christian denominations have differences but all share the same core beliefs that Jesus is our savior and that we should keep his commandments, "love God, love your neighbor." Keep in mind that the Samaritan is also your neighbor.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Are you claiming God nudged along the creation of the animals using evolutionism?

No, I am claiming that the theory of evolution neither includes nor excludes God, because questions about God are outside the competence of science, which is limited to the natural world. I mean, that's exactly what I said. You might be surprised to learn that what I claim corresponds exactly with what I say.

On a related note, my evolutionary view DOES include God, because it is a theological position—and I'm pretty sure that theology is competent to field questions about God.

You......or do you believe God created Adam on day 6 from the dust.

I think there might be some reading comprehension issues at work here. I said, "Cite, not just name"—and what did you do? You merely named, with zero citations. That is precisely what I was trying to avoid.

I wish I could force people to read what I take the time to write.

If you think that I am one of those people, then "please link to a post" where I have tried to make the Bible conform to a godless form of evolution (i.e., "a false atheistic-driven evo-ism"). And please include a quote from the post which shows that. (The quote will prove your point and the link will prove that it was me and allow everyone to verify your claim.)

And good luck, by the way. I believe the Bible conveys redemptive history, which began only a few thousand years ago, whereas natural history began several billion years ago. That means trying to make the Bible conform to evolution is pretty much the last thing I would ever do.

NOTE TO READERS: I am on the fence when it comes to whether Adam was created by God de novo or ex existente (i.e., born to parents). I lean toward the latter view right now but, thanks to S. Joshua Swamidass, I am open to the former view (but not yet convinced). By the way, don't listen to those creationists who say that if someone was born then they were not created by God.

Would you prefer side instead of rib? The bottom line is, the Bible says Eve was made from Adam, NOT evolutionism.

Look, it was your interpretation that said rib. I was simply pointing out how that is inconsistent with a literal interpretation. You go ahead and keep believing it was a rib.

If there was no literal Adam ...

Who said there wasn't?

 

[CrowCross]

No, I am claiming that the theory of evolution neither includes nor excludes God, because questions about God are outside the competence of science, which is limited to the natural world. I mean, that's exactly what I said. You might be surprised to learn that what I claim corresponds exactly with what I say.

On a related note, my evolutionary view DOES include God, because it is a theological position—and I'm pretty sure that theology is competent to field questions about God.

Then how does it include God?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Then how does it include God?

Allow me to begin by reasserting that I'm talking about my own view. Not all evolutionary creationists or even all Christians will necessarily share this view (and I suspect that very few do).

As someone who adheres to Reformed covenant theology, I embrace covenantal apologetics (presuppositionalism). So, my view includes God in the most radical fashion, namely, as the axiomatic presupposition of my biblical worldview. That is to say, the foundation of all my reasoning, beliefs, and knowledge is located in the presupposition of the triune God and his revelational activity with man as his covenant creatures.

Given that all of creation is covenantal in character (including the cruciform nature of reality), all human reasoning, beliefs, and knowledge are analogical in nature; they are inherently covenantal activities of either obedience or rebellion. (Human knowledge is analogical because it is a reflection of God's knowledge but remains limited and derivative. We can understand aspects of truth and reality analogically, but we cannot fully comprehend them as God does.)

This presupposition is necessary to make sense of any human experience. Without it, one cannot account for logic, knowledge, morality, and the intelligibility and uniformity of nature (science). Consequently, rejecting this presupposition leads to incoherent absurdities or contradictions (if every attempt to borrow intellectual capital from the Christian worldview is disallowed).

It is with this presupposition in place that I hold evolutionary creationism as a theological model for understanding the science and history of evolution from within a biblical worldview, holding that natural processes are orchestrated by God's ordinary providence in accordance with his good pleasure and the purposes of his will. I affirm that God, as the creator and sustainer of all reality, answers why anything exists at all, that man as imago Dei answers why we are here, that the fall answers why there is human sin and suffering, and so on.

NOTE: The cruciform nature of reality emphasizes that the redemptive work of Christ on the cross extends far beyond a mere historical event or religious observance. Instead, it serves as the axis around which the entire cosmos revolves.

 

[CrowCross]

It is with this presupposition in place that I hold evolutionary creationism as a theological model for understanding the science and history of evolution from within a biblical worldview, holding that natural processes are orchestrated by God's ordinary providence in accordance with his good pleasure and the purposes of his will. I affirm that God, as the creator and sustainer of all reality, answers why anything exists at all, that man as imago Dei answers why we are here, that the fall answers why there is human sin and suffering, and so on.

Yes, we don't know Gods mind or means...yet we do know some of it though it is limited. A reflection as you put it.
But, God has spoken in His Word, that is told us what He did yet not going through all of the details.
When one reads the bible especially the opening of Genesis it becomes very apparent that God didn't use the process that is called evolution, or descent with modification to bring about plants, animals and mankind.
In other words the theological model of evolutionism isn't compatable with the Word of God.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

When one reads the Bible, especially the opening of Genesis, it becomes very apparent that God didn't use ... evolution ... to bring about plants, animals, and mankind.

I don't find evolution in Genesis, either—because it marks the dawn of redemptive history, not natural history.

In other words the theological model of evolutionism isn't compatable with the Word of God.

I tend to agree. My view, however, definitely is compatible with scripture. But then I am an evolutionary creationist, not a theistic evolutionist.

 

[prism]

But then I am an evolutionary creationist, not a theistic evolutionist.

Does that mean your 'creationist' view evolved? or was spoken into existence?

 

[CrowCross]

I don't find evolution in Genesis, either—because it marks the dawn of redemptive history, not natural history.

Natural history began with day 1. In fact one might say supernatural history brought about natural history.
The bible as you aid

I tend to agree. My view, however, definitely is compatible with scripture. But then I am an evolutionary creationist, not a theistic evolutionist.

What is an evolutionary creationist?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Natural history began with day 1 [in the Genesis creation account].

That is an idea imposed on the text, not drawn from it. We could both make the case that redemptive history began there, but nobody has ever managed to make the case that natural history likewise began there. It is a very popular assumption, but it is not an exegetical conclusion. I invite you to be the first to make that case, drawing it from the text through historical-grammatical exegesis.

What is an evolutionary creationist?

A creationist is someone who believes that the universe, and particularly our world and its biodiversity, is the creation of God (creatio ex nihilo) who sustains it every moment by the word of his power (creatio continua). Evolution is a scientific explanation of the origin of species by descent with modification from a common ancestor. An evolutionary creationist, then, is someone who affirms both.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The dichotomy here is a problem.

There are more options than "literal Genesis" and "evolution."

 

[CrowCross]

That is an idea imposed on the text, not drawn from it. We could both make the case that redemptive history began there, but nobody has ever managed to make the case that natural history likewise began there. It is a very popular assumption, but it is not an exegetical conclusion. I invite you to be the first to make that case, drawing it from the text through historical-grammatical exegesis.

In the beginning...."natural history began"

A creationist is someone who believes that the universe, and particularly our world and its biodiversity, is the creation of God (creatio ex nihilo) who sustains it every moment by the word of his power (creatio continua). Evolution is a scientific explanation of the origin of species by descent with modification from a common ancestor. An evolutionary creationist, then, is someone who affirms both.

You do see the contradictions? Or, does God switch back and forth? Eve was formed from Adams side, who was also a special creation formed from the dust of the earth.....no evolutionism involved.

The bible doesn't say ..."from the animals I made man"

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In the beginning...."natural history began"

That part inside quotation marks is not in the text. Try again, please.

Using historical-grammatical exegesis, make the case that natural history began in Genesis 1.

You do see the contradictions?

There are no contradictions, as now highlighted by your inability to demonstrate any. More to the point, there CAN'T be any contradictions because we're dealing with two categorically different things, (1) the theology of creation in Genesis 1, which pertains to redemptive history, and (2) the science of evolution, which pertains to natural history (the origin of species).

Eve was formed from Adam's side, who was also a special creation formed from the dust of the earth. No evolutionism involved. The Bible doesn't say, "From the animals I made man."

Again, as I said in my original post, "Eve represents a problem for the theory of evolution only if she and Adam were the first humans to exist on Earth." The Bible doesn't say they were (so we are free to assume they weren't), and there is ample evidence saying they were not (so we have good reason to think they weren't).

You are correct, the Bible doesn't say, "From the animals I made man." That's because the Bible discloses redemptive history. Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

 

[CrowCross]

That part inside quotation marks is not in the text. Try again, please.

Using historical-grammatical exegesis, make the case that natural history began in Genesis 1.

Why try again???? That would be the beginning of history.

There are no contradictions, as now highlighted by your inability to demonstrate any. More to the point, there CAN'T be any contradictions because we're dealing with two categorically different things, (1) the theology of creation in Genesis 1, which pertains to redemptive history, and (2) the science of evolution, which pertains to natural history (the origin of species).

Gen 1 does not pertain to redemptive history...as Adam hasn't fallen yet.
Secondly, the bible doesn't express evolutionism as a method of creation.

Again, as I said in my original post, "Eve represents a problem for the theory of evolution only if she and Adam were the first humans to exist on Earth." The Bible doesn't say they were (so we are free to assume they weren't), and there is ample evidence saying they were not (so we have good reason to think they weren't).

The bible does say they were the first. I'd dig out the verses but I'm getting bored of arguing this with you as you continue to lapse back into already refuted points.

You are correct, the Bible doesn't say, "From the animals I made man." That's because the Bible discloses redemptive history. Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

The creation account isn't redemptive history. As I have already pointed out to you that portion of history begins after the fall.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Using historical-grammatical exegesis, make the case that natural history began in Genesis 1.

I'm not sure what you mean by natural history, but it's not hard to make a case from Genesis 1 that the creation took a long time.

Chapter 1 confirms that there are two acts of creation. First, matter was created in an unformed chaotic state (v.2). Afterwards, it was formed and shaped over a period of time. The idea that everything was created by fiat in a fully formed state is refuted immediately in the first chapter of the Bible.

Now, there is certainly room to argue about how long that period of formation lasted... Are those seven 24 hour days? Or 7 ages of the earth? Is the progression a poetic device meant to demonstrate an indeterminate period of time? I lean towards that last one. You may come to different conclusions, but all those options are at least defensible. That isn't the same thing as evolution per se, but it also doesn't rule out evolution.

No, the problem of reconciling an old-earth viewpoint with Scripture isn't Genesis 1; it's the chapters that come afterwards. A literal Adam & Eve precludes evolution, and is hardly reconciled with any other old-earth viewpoint.

-Jarrod

 

[3 Resurrections]

Again, as I said in my original post, "Eve represents a problem for the theory of evolution only if she and Adam were the first humans to exist on Earth." The Bible doesn't say they were (so we are free to assume they weren't), and there is ample evidence saying they were not (so we have good reason to think they weren't).

You might want to consider the statement in Genesis 2:5. "...And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." Two verses, later in Genesis 2:7 we have, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." So, no man at all on the planet to till the ground until Adam was formed of the dust of that ground.

This beginning of the race of men from Adam and Eve on this planet almost 6,000 years ago does not necessarily mean that this planet came into being at the same time. I believe that the ancient earth "became without form, and void", and was recycled during Creation week to make it fit for the new race of humanity and other living creatures to dwell upon it. What it was like before that Creation week has not been revealed to us. Our eternal God was creating things from eternity past, and we are certainly not the first of His creative acts, nor will we be the last of His creative acts. If it were important for us to know about those other previous creative acts, God would have told us.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm not sure what you mean by natural history, but it's not hard to make a case from Genesis 1 that the creation took a long time.

Chapter 1 confirms that there are two acts of creation. First, matter was created in an unformed chaotic state (v.2). Afterwards, it was formed and shaped over a period of time. The idea that everything was created by fiat in a fully formed state is refuted immediately in the first chapter of the Bible.

You do know that no biblical 6 day literalist would say the earth was created fully formed. The process Jesus used took several days....NOT...eons.

Now, there is certainly room to argue about how long that period of formation lasted... Are those seven 24 hour days? Or 7 ages of the earth?

The bible says 6 days separated by evening and morning....even the Ten Commandments says six days then a day of rest.
X-tra biblical text from the early believers...such as Barnabus speak of time periods that also presents a literal 6 day creation period.

Is the progression a poetic device meant to demonstrate an indeterminate period of time? I lean towards that last one. You may come to different conclusions, but all those options are at least defensible. That isn't the same thing as evolution per se, but it also doesn't rule out evolution.

Many use this so-called long time periods to justify a biblical evolution....which contradicts the bible.

No, the problem of reconciling an old-earth viewpoint with Scripture isn't Genesis 1; it's the chapters that come afterwards. A literal Adam & Eve precludes evolution, and is hardly reconciled with any other old-earth viewpoint.

The bible presents a literal Adam and Eve...via a process that doesn't include descent with modification.

-Jarrod

 

[CrowCross]

You might want to consider the statement in Genesis 2:5. "...And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." Two verses, later in Genesis 2:7 we have, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." So, no man at all on the planet to till the ground until Adam was formed of the dust of that ground.

There is also....1 Cor 15:45....Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

As well as...The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

What those who claim Adam and Eve were not the first humans always do is try to destroy where the Word of God says they were the first humans....NEVER presenting a verse that says they were preceded by others. (a population)

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

You do know that no biblical 6 day literalist would say the earth was created fully formed. The process Jesus used took several days....NOT...eons.

That's isn't obvious to me at all. I've met and talked with quite a few folks who have held precisely that view.

The bible says 6 days separated by evening and morning....even the Ten Commandments says six days then a day of rest.

Indeed. That's probably the best argument for the 24-hour creation week.

You asked for a grammatical-historical defense, yes? Historically, Deuteronomy was written before Genesis and the 10 commandments are particularly important theological points. Grammatically, Genesis 1 shows signs of having been edited for the purpose of arriving at a 7-day creation week (there are 8 acts of creation in the 6 days). A fair conclusion is that Genesis 1 was authored in such a way as to support the commandment, which came first.

The bible presents a literal Adam and Eve...via a process that doesn't include descent with modification.

That's debatable. Grammatically, Genesis has clearly been compiled from other works as evidenced by the in-text citations of those other works (toledoth statements). If one were to evaluate each section independently of the others, then it isn't obvious that Adam & Eve are literal.

Historically, there is a literary form attested in other cultures of this time period and region (Ugarit, Assyria, Babylon, etc) called the Eponymous Ancestor tale. This form closely corresponds with the stories of Adam & Eve. That sort of story uses figurative characters in those other cultures, so it is a fair hypothesis that this is the case in the Biblical story as well.

-Jarrod