DescentBB

I've been a bit surprised at the number of Christians on this forum (Foil, Kilarin, maybe Lothar) who don't have an issue with evolutionary thought. While I don't subscribe to any particular theory about scientific origins of the universe (this would require a lot of research time which I don't have), I've got some rather obvious questions that I wouldn't mind seeing answered.

First, if the universe was perfect before the first sin, then how would evolution be able to occur, since this obviously involves living things dying?

Second, at what point does a human predecessor become human, ala Adam and Eve? Where is the line drawn between pre-human and fully human? Are Adam and Eve real, or figurative? How do we determine this?

I'll probably think of more later, but I really hope I can get some answers out of you guys. I can't seem to find any websites based around this kind of thought, so you're my best resource.

heh FW, those are two points we've brought before. They were summarily dismissed as too eccentric and not being part of rational thought.

Well, I think I've mentioned this and consequently got ignored. I really want to see if anyone will give me some answers for once.

To the first one: you can't. As death wasn't introduced until AFTER the fall along with the knowledge of good and evil, evolution is not possible.


Second question. (refer to first answer)
There really is no gray area theologically even though there are a number groups that try to merge the two.

Adam and Eve were not Neanderthals. Scripture tells us that Adam was made in God's image. He was perfect.

Would that it were so simple.

Issues on theistic evolution from one Catholic's perspective.

hrm.. a lengthy but flimsy argument. From an apologist's point of view, it really is that cut and dry; but i know what you're saying dissent. Unless you really know you're theology, it's all to easy to slip on \"theistic evolutionism\". My wife is.. sorta. The problem is that she doesn't really understand the criteria and mechanics for evolution. She was thinking that adaption was evolution, which is not.

Ah, but evolution is about adaptation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evoluti ... ition.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

My fluid dynamics professor worked at a nuclear accelerator here in Chicago and he used to talk about evolution. As a scientist, he said evolution is undebatable...but he said he believed in god because evolution doesn't explain the existence of the soul.

I don't think they are exclusive of each other. To not believe that living things change naturally over time to adjust to their surroundings is asinine...but you are free to believe that there is a higher power that has put that engine into motion.

Zuruck wrote: I don't think they are exclusive of each other. To not believe that living things change naturally over time to adjust to their surroundings is asinine...but you are free to believe that there is a higher power that has put that engine into motion.

Very well put.

\"change\" through adaptation does not qualtify as an evolutionary step. No new genetic code was added.

Eh? But you don't get adaptation without changes in the genome.

x2 on Zuruck's quote.

Firewheel wrote:I've been a bit surprised at the number of Christians on this forum (Foil, Kilarin, maybe Lothar) who don't have an issue with evolutionary thought.

Why are you surprised?

I'm well aware of the popularity of the opposing "Young-Earth Creationist" viewpoint among Christians (I grew up and went to school in a culture immersed in it). However, it's not unusual to find Christians who see cosmological and/or evolutionary mechanics as good scientific models - in fact, most of the Christians I know do.

We are not the "minority" among Christians that most people think.

Firewheel wrote:First, if the universe was perfect before the first sin, then how would evolution be able to occur, since this obviously involves living things dying?

Second, at what point does a human predecessor become human, ala Adam and Eve? Where is the line drawn between pre-human and fully human?

From my own personal perspective, both of those questions arise from the usual misunderstandings/misinterpretations of the meaning of the creation account.

E.g. If you're looking in Genesis for a scientific/biological "line/point" to define humanity, or for a model of the universe, you've missed the point of the creation story entirely!

Despite all the attempts to interpret them as such, the creation accounts in Genesis were never meant to be seen as a scientific record... they were meant to point to something vastly more important: Who the Creator is, and why we were created!

Trying to read 'exactly how' and 'exactly when' into the Creation is akin to trying to derive a scientific theory about astronomical objects from one of the Psalms that refers to the stars and sky. You can try to do so, but you would be completely missing the real truth of the passage!

Firewheel wrote:Are Adam and Eve real, or figurative? How do we determine this?

Hehe, that question sounds a bit like the next standard argument from young-earth creationists: "How can you believe in God, if you don't believe Genesis?"

Again, they've missed the point entirely. Of course I believe in the absolute truth of the Bible - I couldn't call myself Christian if I did. I DO believe in the truth of the creation account - that God is/was the Creator, and created humanity in relationship to Him.

[As to whether Adam and Eve existed - I think so. They were not the first living creation on Earth, even according to Genesis, but they were the first to have "the breath of life" from God. I don't care if it's called a soul, or a spirit, or whatever. The point is not that they were the first creatures with a certain DNA type, but rather that they were the first to have a direct relationship to the Creator!]


I could go on and on about the subject of "origins"; good vs. misguided Biblical interpretation, good vs. junk science, and how I came to this view after being so immersed in the young-earth movement through my childhood...

... however, I'll just summarize my view:

My understanding of good science leads me to see the cosmological and biological models as our best current understanding of how the universe changed over time.

But more importantly, my faith leads me to try to understand our world through the eyes of an infinitely creative and loving God who desires a relationship with His most important creation, us.

To me, the scientific models of long-term change don't contradict God - they actually fit perfectly with my view of God's infinite patience and creativity!

I agree with most of what you said on Genesis - I remember Drakona wrote a great post to that effect on Genesis 1 a while back, which is definitely in line with other stuff I've learned good Biblical interpretation lately. The whole issue of things dying before sin came into the world seems like the biggest problem, though.

I think the whole origins debate is quite interesting, but since I regretfully don't have sufficient time to study up on it, I'd rather stay neutral than stick to one side or the other when I don't feel that I know enough on either side to make a decision.

Firewheel wrote:The whole issue of things dying before sin came into the world seems like the biggest problem, though.

I'm curious, what is it about your understanding of sin, that implies that nothing could physically die before the first sin?

I always imagined that things dying involved suffering... however, I read something recently relating to whether people would still eat in heaven or something similar, which seemed to suggest that there's nothing inherently sinful/painful/whatever about animals dying, especially if eating in heaven, imagery though it may be, is alluded to in the Bible. I can't seem to remember where I saw that, however.

Firewheel wrote:I always imagined that things dying involved suffering... however, I read something recently relating to whether people would still eat in heaven or something similar, which seemed to suggest that there's nothing inherently sinful/painful/whatever about animals dying, especially if eating in heaven, imagery though it may be, is alluded to in the Bible. I can't seem to remember where I saw that, however.

Hey, guess what! There are things called "fruits & veggies"

There are also things called incisors and canines. The basic shape of all our teeth indicate that we are omnivores and therefore meat is a part of our diet.

Oh and if we are truly made in God's image then he eats meat too.

OK, I suppose I could have chimed in on this earlier... but I only just now saw this thread... (sorry?)

Firewheel wrote:First, if the universe was perfect before the first sin, then how would evolution be able to occur, since this obviously involves living things dying?

Good question (IMO). If we accept that God created Adam and Eve, Is there a reason we must assume that it was after the creation of Adam and Eve that 'Man' evolved into the form we see today? How do we know that development didn't happen before Adam and Eve? We don't, and there is no information given that suggests how that came about. We don't know how God created Adam and Eve. We have no idea at what point God determined that what he created was 'Man'. The forming of the form of 'Man' may have happened as part of creating Adam. Maybe not. Don't know. I plan to ask when I get the chance (assuming I get the chance).

Firewheel wrote:Second, at what point does a human predecessor become human, ala Adam and Eve? Where is the line drawn between pre-human and fully human? Are Adam and Eve real, or figurative? How do we determine this?

I believe Adam and Eve are real. As for the line between 'pre-human' and 'fully human' ... I've always thought that we do not yet have enough understanding to be qualified to correctly answer that. However God is fully qualified to answer that. Obviously, he hasn't told us.

TechPro wrote:We have no idea at what point God determined that what he created was 'Man'. The forming of the form of 'Man' may have happened as part of creating Adam.
...
As for the line between 'pre-human' and 'fully human' ... I've always thought that we do not yet have enough understanding to be qualified to correctly answer that.

Hmm. Personally, I don't see the Genesis creation account (God creates man and woman, and puts the "breath of life" in them) referring to the physical form of humanity. I think it has less to do with DNA than with the soul/spirit/etc, so the physical form of "homo sapiens" may not have changed at all when God made Adam and Eve.

I know about one or two Christians that believe in the Adam-and-Eve theory. I know about one hundred Christians that don't.
Go figure.

TIGERassault wrote:I know about one or two Christians that believe in the Adam-and-Eve theory. I know about one hundred Christians that don't.
Go figure.

What do you mean by "Adam-and-Eve theory"?

Foil wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:I know about one or two Christians that believe in the Adam-and-Eve theory. I know about one hundred Christians that don't.
Go figure.

What do you mean by "Adam-and-Eve theory"?

The theory that Adam and Eve existed.

Of course, many (perhaps the vast majority) of Americans seem to think that \"being a Christian\" is going to church twice a year. It makes it a little bit more challenging to determine what Christians actually believe on this subject.

And then there are the Christians outside of America.

Zuruck wrote:Mbut he said he believed in god because evolution doesn't explain the existence of the soul.

That's probably because the soul does not exist. It's a figment created by the action of neurons in your head. When they stop working, you die. The end. Goodbye.

Mobius wrote:That's probably because the soul does not exist. It's a figment created by the action of neurons in your head. When they stop working, you die. The end. Goodbye.

That's a rather pitiful way to look at things. However, in your case, they might have started not working already... you might want to check your pulse occasionally to make sure you're not dead.

As far as evolution goes, it IS debatable, and more and more scientists who are non-Christians are starting to realize that the majority of life on our planet is too complex to have happened accidentally, even partially so. The fossil record doesn't support it, and neither does current biology or chemistry. Lee Strobel wrote an excellent book on the subject, called Case For A Creator in which he interviews several leading scientists, who give strong evidence for some form of intelligent creationism. Very good read, even if you don't want to believe it... there's some good information in there. You can read the user reviews for an idea.

Out in deep space where no probes have ever been there is a planet orbiting a medium sized yellow star. The planet is just the right distance and has just the right temperature. It has a blue sky, an atomosphere, oceans, and sounds of waves crashing on a beach. The sunsets are awesome and the sunrises are beautiful.

It is populated with a host of vegetation and life of all kinds with the exception of the life that would appreciate and enjoy the beauty of the sounds, sunrises and sunsets. Time goes on, the Sun grows old, and swells to such a proportion that the planet now orbits inside its host stars chromosphere. Burned to a cinder, and a few million years later, the star finally explodes.

What was the point? Nothing, except our life here on Earth is as pointless as that star system. It makes no difference what books you read because the end will be played out the same.

I may be depressed today, Mobius isn't that far off.

Bettina

Mobius would probably be depressed too, if he didn't have his VY Canis Majoris-sized ego on which to subsist.

Bet51987 wrote:What was the point? Nothing, except our life here on Earth is as pointless as that star system. It makes no difference what books you read because the end will be played out the same.

I may be depressed today, Mobius isn't that far off.

Bettina

I think you have arrived at the crux of the issue: denying the existence of the Transcendent eventually leads to nihilism. For me personally however, I don't feel compelled to make that denial.

To be honest, the statement that when man fell he brought the world down with him, so to speak, seems to me difficult to reconcile with any evolution before the fall - because it would require the prior existence of death. Considering death is pretty hard to consider \"good\" from God's perspective, it would seem there is something of a problem there.

Hence, I can't really accept the \"theistic evolution\" model myself - evolution after the introduction of sin, certainly. But not before.

That doesn't cause such a huge problem as it might seem, though, when you consider that \"micro-evolution\" is a pretty powerful tool for diversification. A few thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand - whatever it has been since then - years would be easily enough. Mankind has done practically unspeakable things to the various breeds of domestic animals in less than that time.

Bett, lets fly to the stars, eventually cure our mortality and become gods!

GODS! GODS I TELL YOU! MHUOAHAHAHA

De Rigueur wrote:I think you have arrived at the crux of the issue: denying the existence of the Transcendent eventually leads to nihilism. For me personally however, I don't feel compelled to make that denial.

Introducing more deities to attribute purpose to life is no more useful than introducing more people to attribute purpose to life. What can a deity do to add purpose to your life more than a human person can other than say it more loudly or more effectively enforce its version with punishment?

Jeff250 wrote:

De Rigueur wrote:I think you have arrived at the crux of the issue: denying the existence of the Transcendent eventually leads to nihilism. For me personally however, I don't feel compelled to make that denial.

Introducing more deities to attribute purpose to life is no more useful than introducing more people to attribute purpose to life. What can a deity do to add purpose to your life more than a human person can other than say it more loudly or more effectively enforce its version with punishment?

Strictly speaking, I said denying the Transcendent leads to nihilism (for the reasons Bettina alluded to.) However, even if you affirm the Transcendent, it is still possible to be a nihilist. I believe humans have that capacity. As Mill said, the individual is sovereign over his mind. (I also believe humans have the capacity for self-deception.)

Hey, I always figured religion was self-deception. You're right, Rigueur.

I never though of myself as a Nihilist, but in reflection, apparently that is what I am. My perception of the group is stained by the Big Lebowski, though...

Sirius wrote:death is pretty hard to consider "good" from God's perspective

People sometimes view death and pain as if they're such incredibly evil things, there's no possible way God could've intended them. I think that view is incorrect, at least when looking at the Christian God. God intended for all things on this earth to be temporary, which makes death entirely sensible. He intended this to be a short-term lodging to prepare us to live with Him. He even intended the planet to be temporary. And to quote many athletes, "pain is good"... pain is an electrochemical signal that tells your brain "don't do that again." There's nothing intrinsically evil about pain, any more than there's something intrinsically righteous about pleasure.

Lets look at this Adam and Eve construct again. What is being said since the disobedient duo ate the apple, theirs and all their descendants are doomed to a early death? So this concept now extends to the whole of all the planets in all the galaxies in the whole universe?
Original sin incorporated all living things intelligent? Something is not right here.

woodchip wrote: So this concept now extends to the whole of all the planets in all the galaxies in the whole universe?
Original sin incorporated all living things intelligent? Something is not right here.

That isn't what's said.

woodchip wrote:What is being said since the disobedient duo ate the apple, theirs and all their descendants are doomed to a early death? So this concept now extends to the whole of all the planets in all the galaxies in the whole universe?

That's what some people interpret the text to be saying. It's not what I think the text is saying, though.

I think death was around long before them, and that what's being spoken of in that passage is the corruption of character we often refer to as a "spiritual death". Since they were disobedient, they were cut off from their previous intimacy with God and became their own arbiters of good and evil, and they and everyone descended from them will therefore grow up with a degree of separateness from God.

This fits neatly into the New Testament idea of dying to sin, or dying to yourself, to become alive in Christ.

So does this mean that they would have eventually physically died anyway? Interesting idea, but why would the first humans mentioned in the Bible live for hundreds of years, yet degenerate down to only 70-100 years in the present if there wasn't some sort of physical decay as well?

The idea that death preexisted Adam makes sense in some ways, at least - such as animals designed to eat meat. It seems a bit silly to suggest that everything ate grass, until man's sin caused their teeth to change and force them to want to kill each other.

Lothar wrote:I think death was around long before them, and that what's being spoken of in that passage is the corruption of character we often refer to as a "spiritual death".

Exactly.

Taking "original sin" to mean "the very first physical death of anything in the universe" misses (and mis-interprets) the point of the passage!