Theistic Evolution?

[Btodd]

Technically, Christian Evolution. Since there are millions of Christians that accept evolution as God's way of creating life, I want to understand how they view that in light of the Bible, and God's purported attributes.

Since evolution is based on random mutation (although acted on by a non-random process of natural selection), then did God have no idea that humans would develop? How could we have been made in God's image?

Or did he have a basic idea? Or did he actually know that humans would result? What about the cruelty and pointlessness of mutations (the recent child born with 8 limbs) in light of a loving, intelligent God?

What about morality? Did God 'place' that in our early biological ancestors, or did morality develop via evolution (as I currently believe), and God simply decided to do something about it by creating the Law (and then Grace)?

Even in the more metaphorical, more enlightened views of liberal Christians, I still cannot make sense of it.

Help, please.:)


Btodd

[godless dave]

I'm not a Christian, but I suspect that for the less irrational ones, "in God's image" doesn't refer to physical appearance. I imagine this god expected (or planned) that intelligent life would evolve somewhere in the universe he created.

[dacium2007]

The truth is they can't fit it together. Eve was made of a rib of adam. If you don't accept that, you can't accept that Jesus was 'reborn' or any other miracles. Eve can't come 'from a rib' if she evolved. In fact nothing to do with genesis makes any sense from an evolutionary perspective. The change to humans was a gradual change of a large population, at no point could there possibly have been just two humans (adam and eve).

So if they do believe in evolution, they have to throw out genesis, and if they are going to do that, they might as well just throw out pretty much everything, as without the miracles, there really is nothing left.

[MG1962]

I'm not a Christian, but I suspect that for the less irrational ones, "in God's image" doesn't refer to physical appearance. I imagine this god expected (or planned) that intelligent life would evolve somewhere in the universe he created.

Well I believe God created a shake and bake Universe - then sat back and when sentient life appeared, he took an interest. Given the luck required for an organism to progress for any length of time - I dont believe God KNEW we would be an upright hominoid, I dont think he cared either - He was seeking self awarness and intelligence.

Regardless of one's philosophy, to start the Universe from something the size of a basball, and end up with what we see today (13 billion years later) is truely amazing. Just to get a star to work is an amazing balance of two forces - In effect, gravity controling the annilation of matter - and from that - we get the building blocks of life

[MG1962]

The truth is they can't fit it together. Eve was made of a rib of adam. If you don't accept that, you can't accept that Jesus was 'reborn' or any other miracles. Eve can't come 'from a rib' if she evolved. In fact nothing to do with genesis makes any sense from an evolutionary perspective. The change to humans was a gradual change of a large population, at no point could there possibly have been just two humans (adam and eve).

So if they do believe in evolution, they have to throw out genesis, and if they are going to do that, they might as well just throw out pretty much everything, as without the miracles, there really is nothing left.

I dont agree - Lets say God decided to spill the beans to Moses about evolution. Virtually read him Darwin's text - How would Moses write it down, the language just did not exist 3000 years ago to convey such complex concepts - Maybe Genesis is the dumbed down toddler version
of the history of the Universe

[Wolverine]

I suppose the views of Francis Collins (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm) are about as "reasonable" as one could expect to see from an advocate. Though, that's really not saying much.

The very phrase makes me cringe, as does the theological shoehorning. Evolution is a biological model. It's neither theistic nor atheistic. How a theist chooses to square scientific theories/models with their faith is up to them, and IMO should be done without mixing scientific terminology together with the theological or philosophical.

[Furi]

Well I believe God created a shake and bake Universe - then sat back and when sentient life appeared, he took an interest. Given the luck required for an organism to progress for any length of time - I dont believe God KNEW we would be an upright hominoid, I dont think he cared either - He was seeking self awarness and intelligence.

Regardless of one's philosophy, to start the Universe from something the size of a basball, and end up with what we see today (13 billion years later) is truely amazing. Just to get a star to work is an amazing balance of two forces - In effect, gravity controling the annilation of matter - and from that - we get the building blocks of life

I know quite a few theists with those sort of beliefs, and they tend to be some of the most well reasoned peops, they but put down the Initial origins of the universe to an unknown power and then let science take its course

(paraphrasing) we just happened to be a by-product of a young gods physics paper, life evolved from a mouldy forgotten cup of tea, as he went about fixing physical phenomena to match his hypothesis, as He got his highest grade to date (B-) he is keeping it around for the coursework requirements and to see what evolves.

[triadboy]

Even in the more metaphorical, more enlightened views of liberal Christians, I still cannot make sense of it.

Help, please.:)


At this time in history, we are seeing the confluence of two rivers of thought - one dying; the other growing: That Old Time Religion and Modern Science (including evolution).

We see Old Time Relgion folks struggling to come to terms with the reality of modern scientific data. That mental struggle reveals itself in contorted explanations using modern scientific data to support ancient tales of wonder. It doesn't work.

[halofish2000]

I have read a couple different models regarding creation evolution but can hardly reconcile any of them although I am a christian. To put the earth's age at roughly 6,000 years makes not one bit of sense. Here's why... How long will it take for light to travel from the furthest star to reach the earth?
I may be a bit different from other christians but I read Genesis1 and think about the Babylonian stories and read Genesis 2 and I see the Lord God Jehovah creating man in his image. Any thoughts?

[MG1962]

I have read a couple different models regarding creation evolution but can hardly reconcile any of them although I am a christian. To put the earth's age at roughly 6,000 years makes not one bit of sense. Here's why... How long will it take for light to travel from the furthest star to reach the earth?
I may be a bit different from other christians but I read Genesis1 and think about the Babylonian stories and read Genesis 2 and I see the Lord God Jehovah creating man in his image. Any thoughts?

Thats the bit I dont get. The Bible doesn't begin. At 3.08am on 15 Oct 4000BC the Earth began. The idea of the 6000 year old earth was someone sitting down and doing the maths working backwards. I see nothing the Bible to say it has a linear construction. For all we know, from a totally fundementalist viewpoint, Adam and Eve could have lounged around the Garden of Eden for 3 billion years, before getting the hook

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm a member of a forum with a subforum dedicated to Theistic Evolutionists. If you'd like Btodd, I can cross post your question there and then link back to that thread here.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I think it's as simple as this:

Whatever science finds out that's what God did.:idea:

[skeptical]

I think it's as simple as this:

Whatever science finds out that's what God did.:idea:

Bravo. I wish all Theists thought like this.

[skeptical]

Technically, Christian Evolution. Since there are millions of Christians that accept evolution as God's way of creating life, I want to understand how they view that in light of the Bible, and God's purported attributes.

Since evolution is based on random mutation (although acted on by a non-random process of natural selection), then did God have no idea that humans would develop? How could we have been made in God's image?

Or did he have a basic idea? Or did he actually know that humans would result? What about the cruelty and pointlessness of mutations (the recent child born with 8 limbs) in light of a loving, intelligent God?

What about morality? Did God 'place' that in our early biological ancestors, or did morality develop via evolution (as I currently believe), and God simply decided to do something about it by creating the Law (and then Grace)?

Even in the more metaphorical, more enlightened views of liberal Christians, I still cannot make sense of it.

Help, please.:)


Btodd

I will briefly throw out an idea I have been playing around with.

Assuming a theistic God exists, and assuming it has reveled itself to humans, all one has to do is assume that science is the CURRENT mechanism for such revelation. If you are a Christian, Muslim or Mormon, then one has to, in principle, accept the idea of "continuing revelation", the only question is at what point does such revelation stop.

If one seriously allows for the methods of science to be a revelation for such God, then it is very easy to permit this to be mechanism of continuing revelation that God has chosen for its own inscrutable purposes.

By way of full disclosure, I am not a theist. However, I do think its a decent argument for why theists can reconcile themselves to science and its methods.

[slingblade]

Thats the bit I dont get. The Bible doesn't begin. At 3.08am on 15 Oct 4000BC the Earth began. The idea of the 6000 year old earth was someone sitting down and doing the maths working backwards. I see nothing the Bible to say it has a linear construction. For all we know, from a totally fundementalist viewpoint, Adam and Eve could have lounged around the Garden of Eden for 3 billion years, before getting the hook


Some people (she said carefully) manage it this way:

There's a passage that says: to God, a thousand years is like unto a day.

And it took 6 days to make the world. On the seventh, God rested.

So the earth is six thousand years old.

Of course, as soon as you realize Jesus died 2,000 years ago, you have to amend and say the earth is now something more than 8,000 years old. And some do this. But others don't.

It's bat-crap crazy, don't try to figure it out.

[MG1962]

I will briefly throw out an idea I have been playing around with.

Assuming a theistic God exists, and assuming it has reveled itself to humans, all one has to do is assume that science is the CURRENT mechanism for such revelation. If you are a Christian, Muslim or Mormon, then one has to, in principle, accept the idea of "continuing revelation", the only question is at what point does such revelation stop.

If one seriously allows for the methods of science to be a revelation for such God, then it is very easy to permit this to be mechanism of continuing revelation that God has chosen for its own inscrutable purposes.

By way of full disclosure, I am not a theist. However, I do think its a decent argument for why theists can reconcile themselves to science and its methods.

Works for me - The Catholic Church, of which I am a member, suggests that at this stage we can not know Gods grand plan, to claim otherwise lacks a certain sense of humilty.

Science is in the same boat - Every new discovery raises as many questions as it answered - Evolution for instance, as a concept is pretty much done and dusted. As a scientific principle we have the broad brush strokes of how how it all went down. We know more than we did 10 years ago, we undoubtedly will know more in 10 years time.

My biggest issue with theists who reject evolution, they can never explain to me how science on a day to day basis changes their lives, but in one specific example all science is wrong. Things like getting my brakes on the car fixed, or posting on an internet forum - Why are these all based in very sound scientific principles - but evolution cant be.

I will be honest, I dont know how life the universe and everything fit together with a grand concept called God, on the other hand I dont claim to, nor do I force this opinion on anyone.