Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

[Poll]

Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis?


Yes. If "days"= millions of years.
  17% (4)
No. Adam/Eve did not evolve. Original sin is literal.
  47% (11)
Yes. Other explanation. Ultimately factual/historical.
  21% (5)
No.If Genesis is a fairy tale for uneducated, what isn't?
  13% (3)


Total Votes : 23
(last vote on : 10/25/2008 1:04:32 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message

Codegrazer -> Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/3/2008 10:01:18 AM)

My Bible Study group has been pondering this questiion, "Can evolution theory Allow for belief in a fundamentally Literal interpretation of Genesis?" Can one believe in modern evolution theory AND still ALSO believe in the Creation story of Genesis as being a basically factual account of how God created all things?

Thanks for your input!



DanJames -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/3/2008 12:53:01 PM)

I voted Yes because much of what we know about evolution is true. As far as the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor over millions of years? No, I don't think that Genesis allows for that.



Codegrazer -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/4/2008 8:46:41 AM)

Thanks DanJames. We are trying to get a handle on this from a Bible study point of view. Some feel it's a waste of time to study myths as absolutely everything then is strictly a matter of personal interpretation. Others argue for a literal interpretation (except where indicated otherwise such as Jesus' parables).

Our dilemma stems from the problem of upon what do we place our faith in the accuracy of the Bible. For example, if the first chapter of the first book in the Bible isn't a factual story how do we know what else in the Bible is or isn't factual? Did Moses REALY speak with God appearing as a burning bush? Did Jesus REALLY rise from the dead? Was Mary REALLY a virgin? Or are all these things first subject to scientific scrutiny and only those that pass the science test (for now) may be accepted as historical truths?

I imagine you have given this some thought before - can you help with this problem?



drmark -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/4/2008 9:33:01 AM)

Personally, I think a much better question is: Can the proper hermeneutical interpretation of Genesis allow for "Evolutionary Theory" as postulated by uniformitarian naturalists. That way, the correct emphasis is on God's Word as the sole Authority of the historical origins of the universe and life on earth. Otherwise, it seems to me that one is constantly trying to make Scripture fit the latest theoretical fad of fallible human "science".

quote:

Or are all these things first subject to scientific scrutiny and only those that pass the science test (for now) may be accepted as historical truths?

I imagine you have given this some thought before - can you help with this problem?
There is no problem, Codegrazer. Either one accepts the authoritative, inerrant historical account of origins as written by the divinely inspired amanuensis of the only Eyewitness to the events OR one accepts the unprovable "science" of fallible humans based on faulty assumptions and woefully incomplete observations. The starting point determines how one understands Genesis!



DanJames -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/4/2008 3:06:56 PM)

Right. I agree with Dr. Mark whole-heartedly. (except I had to look up amanuensis. I would have said "writer" because it's a more littler word.) As far as studying goes. I highly encourage it. I never even knew about the creation theory until someone introduced me to materials on it in a Bible study. My faith in God's word skyrocketed as I learned that evolutionary biologists don't actually have the death-grip on science that I once thought they had. Since then I have started an undergraduate degree in Biology and am studying to do research on stem cell technology, and I can assure you that nothing in my degree program has yet to convince me that evolution is as impenetrable as we are led to believe. To the contrary, I have found that living systems always point to their Creator. But it has shown me one thing, and this is my point: Nobody can know everything. Never be cocky about creationism because there's nothing to be cocky about. There is a lot to know, and many well-meaning people look like fools because they think they have a corner on science when they don't even realize how much of the Theory of Evolution and the topics surrounding the principle of Uniformitarianism is actually true. I was one of them.
I encourage you to get materials from Answers in Genesis. They are chock full of peer reviewed resources that would be excellent materials for your Bible study.



Codegrazer -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/5/2008 12:40:38 PM)

Thanks for that, DanJames and drmark.

Dan, you mentioned undergrad work. You may be interested in a DVD presentation that deals with the empirical, scientific problems of evolution theory in light of todays advanced microbiological knowledge (as opposed to the poor understanding Darwin, was working from). It's micro.101 level really (for high schoolers and entry level college classes I would say) so you may not get much new material from it but you may be able to use it to illustrate basic issues to fellow classmates, etc. Here's the DVD's site (but the DVD itself is probably cheaper at Amazon.com) http://prismmulti.com

Thanks again![:D]



DanJames -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/5/2008 12:56:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Codegrazer

Thanks for that, DanJames and drmark.

Dan, you mentioned undergrad work. You may be interested in a DVD presentation that deals with the empirical, scientific problems of evolution theory in light of todays advanced microbiological knowledge (as opposed to the poor understanding Darwin, was working from). It's micro.101 level really (for high schoolers and entry level college classes I would say) so you may not get much new material from it but you may be able to use it to illustrate basic issues to fellow classmates, etc. Here's the DVD's site (but the DVD itself is probably cheaper at Amazon.com) http://prismmulti.com

Thanks again![:D]

Sure, any time. I'm gonna check that DVD out. Good luck in your Bible studies, and thanks for the thread.



Codegrazer -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/5/2008 12:57:18 PM)

Thanks drmark. Darwin may not have known or believed in Satan but Satan knew and believed in Darwin!



unclemonkey -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/5/2008 4:49:34 PM)

TOE requires death BEFORE sin. If TOE is true then the Bible is a lie.

Thus my position that evolution is a lie straight out of the pits of hell.



drmark -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/5/2008 11:30:54 PM)

Hey, uncmonk, welcome back! I've missed you these past 6 weeks. But seriously, "a lie straight out of the pits of hell" is rather strong language, doncha think? I really doubt Darwin stayed up nights thinking about how he could deceive naive Christians with fantasies of finch beaks.



PolarBear -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/6/2008 1:38:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

TOE requires death BEFORE sin. If TOE is true then the Bible is a lie.

If that's your best argument, you've lost. Thanks for playing.



unclemonkey -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/6/2008 9:50:33 AM)

ORIGINAL: PolarBear
quote:

quote:

TOE requires death BEFORE sin. If TOE is true then the Bible is a lie.

If that's your best argument, you've lost. Thanks for playing.

Are you claiming TOE doesn’t require death before the existence of man, or that sin preceded man?

The Bible clearly states that death entered the world through sin. I.e. sin preceded death. Do you suppose the Bible is in error?



unclemonkey -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/6/2008 10:07:00 AM)

ORIGINAL: Drmark
quote:

Hey, uncmonk, welcome back! I've missed you these past 6 weeks.

Thanks for the welcome. I recon I will be popping in from time to time. I spend most of my computer time now keeping my church’s website updated. I am hoping to be able to start live-streaming the services before long.

quote:

But seriously, "a lie straight out of the pits of hell" is rather strong language, doncha think?

Well, Satan IS the father of all lies and TOE is one of his more successful ones. Besides, you have probably noticed that I am not a strong supporter of PC.



drmark -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/6/2008 10:47:52 AM)

quote:

Well, Satan IS the father of all lies and TOE is one of his more successful ones.
Satan may be opportunistic but you make it sound like Darwin was demon-possessed when he invented his origins fantasies. Perhaps we could steer this back toward the OP in a simple manner. Is there any essential Christian doctrine found in Genesis that is refuted by a "non-literal" interpretation of the Book? What about it, Codegrazer?



PolarBear -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/7/2008 3:20:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

Are you claiming TOE doesn’t require death before the existence of man, or that sin preceded man?

The Bible clearly states that death entered the world through sin. I.e. sin preceded death. Do you suppose the Bible is in error?

No. You're wrong in applying the Bible's idea of "death before sin" to animals. It says no such thing, at least not conclusively.

I'm not going to go through that all again though ...



unclemonkey -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/7/2008 9:29:56 AM)

ORIGINAL:PolarBear
quote:

No. You're wrong in applying the Bible's idea of "death before sin" to animals.

That is your unsupported opinion.

Do you suppose there was any sorrow in the original creation before Adam sinned?



Retrobyter -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/7/2008 3:46:49 PM)

Shalom, PolarBear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PolarBear

No. You're wrong in applying the Bible's idea of "death before sin" to animals. It says no such thing, at least not conclusively.

I'm not going to go through that all again though ...


Well, I will! Logical conclusions, however, support the "death before sin" for animals as well! Consider that, according to Gen. 1:29-30, all animals were created herbivores.

Gen 1:29-30
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
KJV

Thus, not a one of the dinosaurs ("terrible lizards") were meat-eaters! Despite all of the Hollywood hype, honest archaeobiologists will tell you the same.

For instance, the "terrible" T-rex had six-inch teeth, but they only sunk into the jawbone an inch! Had they tried to tear meat with those teeth, they would have ripped them right out of their mouths! The teeth, btw, were serrated and actually made better tools for stripping the leaves out of trees!

According to the Genesis account of the Flood (Gen. 6-9), meat eating was not allowed until after the Flood! (Gen. 9:1-5)

Gen 9:1-5
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
KJV

Certainly man was now allowed to eat meat, but God also implied that animals were also now allowed to eat meat, only they were to fear human life and be held responsible for killing human life.

Therefore, the Genesis account is INCOMPATIBLE with the basic tenets of Evolution since the theory has animal death at the "hands" of other animals implied in its very premise, "survival of the fittest!"

Retrobyter



Codegrazer -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/8/2008 1:24:21 PM)

quote:

Is there any essential Christian doctrine found in Genesis that is refuted by a "non-literal" interpretation of the Book? What about it, Codegrazer?


As a relative newbie to the theological implications of evolution vs. creation my take is less Hermeneutical and more reliant upon "common sense" in the sense that;

1) Given so many other "hard to understand" concepts in the Bible (even God and His nature, a virgin birth, Jesus' death and resurrection--and ours, prophesies, signs and wonders, the flood, etc.) why would God speak historically/factually about these "way out" ideas but determine that men could not grasp the fundamental concept of evolution and so He "needed" to substitute a myth instead of the "hard truth" in the instance of just the creation story only? If He didn't pull His punches when it came to "telling it like it is" regarding raising people from the dead, how hard is a basic description of natural selection compared to that, right? I just don't see a logical need for myth versus factual history telling here and, unlike elsewhere in scripture where myth, allegory and/or parable telling is in play, God does not say that the Creation account is anything but an historical account.

2) The fact that evolution theory is one of the very greatest stumbling stones for so many people to come to faith in the Truth of the Bible sounds way too much like something Satan wants and nothing at all like what the Lord wants - guilt by association?

3) I have heard arguments on the other side of the (following) issue but they all are so laboured and difficult to justify compared to a simple faith in the Truth of the Creation account in Genesis. That is, if there were no original sinners there would be no original sin and thus no ultimate need for Jesus' work on the cross.

But again, that's just my discernment without researching all the relevant scripture -- yet [sm=funny.gif]



drmark -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/8/2008 1:59:35 PM)

quote:

If He didn't pull His punches when it came to "telling it like it is" regarding raising people from the dead, how hard is a basic description of natural selection compared to that, right?
I'm sorry, Codegrazer, but you lost me here. Are you saying that evolution is no more than natural selection or that natural selection is not discussed in Scripture or something else?

quote:

The fact that evolution theory is one of the very greatest stumbling stones for so many people to come to faith in the Truth of the Bible sounds way too much like something Satan wants and nothing at all like what the Lord wants
Interesting point. But shouldn't it be that the Truth of the Bible should be the "very greatest stumbling stone" for people to come to faith in evolutionism? (Plus the fact that there's not one shred of scientific evidence to support it!)

quote:

That is, if there were no original sinners there would be no original sin and thus no ultimate need for Jesus' work on the cross.
Bingo! This is the exact doctrinal issue that I find so compelling for a "literal" interpretation of Genesis as well. I'm totally dumbfounded how self-described well-meaning Christians can show such Scriptural inconsistency by claiming the fact of original sin while denying the facts of creation week. It makes no sense at all!



cow451 -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/8/2008 3:02:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Codegrazer

My Bible Study group has been pondering this questiion, "Can evolution theory Allow for belief in a fundamentally Literal interpretation of Genesis?" Can one believe in modern evolution theory AND still ALSO believe in the Creation story of Genesis as being a basically factual account of how God created all things?

Thanks for your input!



The question itself is flawed. The Genesis is not a scientific text not matter how one wants to interpret it. Therefore the discussion about whether Evolution, Quantum Physics, Relativity or any scientific theory "allows" for a particular interpretation is nonsensical.



drmark -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/8/2008 3:47:01 PM)

quote:

The Genesis is not a scientific text not matter how one wants to interpret it.
This statement is flawed! Science comes from the Latin word scientia meaning knowledge. Science is simply systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. If we cannot trust the veracity of the knowledge presented in the Bible, what good is it other than fictional fantasy. As uncmonk is fond of quoting - "If you believed the OT, you would believe Jesus" (John 5:46 - my paraphrase).



cow451 -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/8/2008 5:12:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

The Genesis is not a scientific text not matter how one wants to interpret it.
This statement is flawed! Science comes from the Latin word scientia meaning knowledge. Science is simply systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. If we cannot trust the veracity of the knowledge presented in the Bible, what good is it other than fictional fantasy. As uncmonk is fond of quoting - "If you believed the OT, you would believe Jesus" (John 5:46 - my paraphrase).


A nice statement about faith but not about science. The Bible (as you interpret it) says it (the Bible) is true . Therefore the Bible is true. The origin of the word "science" is interesting, but not stretchable enough to make a religious text a science book.



drmark -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/8/2008 8:43:45 PM)

quote:

A nice statement about faith but not about science.
Nonsense! It takes minimal faith to accept the correct definition of "science". Indeed, it takes a whole lot more faith to accept the ever-changing theories of fallible humans as true knowledge when not a single person was alive to observe the beginning of life.

quote:

The Bible (as you interpret it) says it (the Bible) is true .
Sorry cow, it really doesn't require a lot of interpretation to read and understand the simple fact that God created everything in six days. Now, if you really want to see a major exercise in hermeneutical gymnastics, then try to make evolutionary theory fit the Genesis record.

quote:

The origin of the word "science" is interesting, but not stretchable enough to make a religious text a science book.
That's not what you stated in your first post, cow. Genesis is indeed "a scientific text" because it is written in the literary genre and context of historical narrative which clearly specifies factual knowledge relevant to the origins of the universe and life. I have never once claimed that the Bible can or should be made into a science book. However, not a single scientific fact has ever been shown to contradict Scripture which is certainly more than can be said for Darwinian fantasy!



unclemonkey -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/8/2008 10:42:50 PM)

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

The Bible (as you interpret it) says it (the Bible) is true .
How do you interpret “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” (2 Timothy 3:16a) then
if not as a clear statement that “The Bible is true”? Does God lie?

Genesis plainly states that ALL animals were vegetarian in the original creation, before it was marred by sin, yet TOE claims carnivores have existed as long as animals have existed. That is a clear contradiction between God’s word and evolution.



Codegrazer -> RE: Can Evolution Theory Allow for a Literal Genesis? (9/9/2008 10:15:49 AM)

quote:

The Genesis is not a scientific text not matter how one wants to interpret it.


Agreed, but so what? The Bible is not a biology text yet it tells us about Jesus' virginal conception. Like Creation, we are informed what, when, who and why BUT not HOW, biologically, that actually manifested. The Bible no more has to be a biology text to inform us of the immaculate conception than it has to be a text on hydrodynamics to tell us about Noah's flood.

Did I miss your point, Cow?



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI