Background
To some extent, evolution is a proven fact. We've seen bacteria evolve to be resistant to the medicine we apply to fight infections. We've seen Hawaiian crickets evolve a chirp-less variety to avoid a parasite which is drawn by the chirping noise of the non-evolved crickets. We've seen a plethora of other examples to suggest that evolution is a mechanism for driving the change of a life form over time.
While we have yet to observe the evolution of an entirely different type of creature, we have sufficient fossil records to support the theory that this has occurred in the past. We have even found animals with vestigial parts which appear to be left-overs from an evolutionary process, such as foot bones in a certain specie of whales. Ultimately, we have enough evidence to advance the theory that man is probably the result of evolution.
So God Created Man (and it was all downhill from there!)
I've often run into Christians that believe the evolution of man as well as God. To reconcile this, there have been all sorts of crazy ideas, such as: Genesis was not a literal account of creation. God influenced evolutionary processes to make man. Evolution occurred in accordance with God's plan, and the six days of creation actually represent billions of years because time is influenced by gravity, and gravity was much more intense as the universe was expanding, so what appeared to be one day was actually much longer, with each passing day taking less time as the gravity field strength was reduced.These are great stories, but the Bible does not permit that type of wiggle room in its interpretation. The Old Testament is very clear about how man was created. Although it is not often advertised, the New Testament also confirms this story of creation. Let's take a quick look at both, shall we?
In Genesis 1:24-31, the sixth day of creation is recorded. On that day, all creatures that walk on the ground were created, including man. In verse 24, God says “Let the land produce living creatures“, which almost leaves the door open for evolution, but we will find that door soon closed for man.
Genesis 2:4-25 repeats the account of the creation of man, but with greater detail. Genesis 2:7 specifically reveals how man was supposedly made; “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Adam did not come from anything prior but dirt and Holy breath. In fact, the name Adam is very close to the Hebrew word adamah, which means ground. You can not possibly interpret this as man was somehow the product of evolution. The Old Testament is clear on the matter.
This account is confirmed in the New Testament multiple times, and three of those times are fairly blatant. The first of the blatant accounts is in the family lineage of Jesus that Luke records in Luke 3:23-38, where the last two entries are “the son of Adam, the son of God.” The second is 1 Corinthians 15:45 where it states that “The first man Adam became a living being.” The third is 1 Timothy 2:13 where it states “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Strike three. Evolution is out.
So, if you are Christian, stop believing in evolution. If you can't do that due to the volume of scientific evidence and in the name of intellectual honesty, then stop believing there is a god, or, at least, stop believing in the God of the Bible. Because otherwise, you believe that God has lied.
I agree that theistic evolution seems like a compromise, and it definitely is from the traditional view, but it does not necessarily conflict with Christian theology. I have heard the argument that God "inserted" man into creation while the rest had evolved over the guided course of billions of years. Thus the "image bearing" human is kept separate from the rest of creation. This then allows for Adam to be a real person (not a representative character) and maintains the scriptures in the NT. Personally, it seems like a weak connection, but I can't deny that it kinda works.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a believer, I subscribed to the idea of a theistic evolution, but only with a superficial understanding. The more I study the Bible though, the more I find I have to side with the Young Earth Creationists to coincide with the Bible's Truth. But there's so much packed into Genesis 1 with so few words, it does lend itself to multiple interpretations. The big question to me with accepting theistic evolution is why? Why, if God knew the end product in His omniscience, would He instead use an iterative design process?
ReplyDeleteTWF:
ReplyDeleteWould not a seven-day creation instead of an instantaneous one also be considered iterative? That said, I'm uncertain what you mean by "knowing the end product in his omniscience". This seems as if it would not be an issue with simple foreknowledge as God's knowing something is based upon its existing. Minding I find the idea somewhat confusing and easily lending itself to Open Theism given the confusing nature of even an atemporal being inserting knowledge of the future into time and there being no issues. If it is necessary to go YEC though, I'm sure your aware of the varied sites devoted to that subject which have provided, to various extents, arguments I have found convincing.
May all be well with you,
Felix Zamora
Hello Felix,
ReplyDeleteWelcome back! Looks like you're starting "in the beginning..." Please excuse the relative roughness of these early posts, as they were at the very start of my blogging, and so were less refined.
I'm not sure I would classify the seven days as iteration per se...
I think we can actually better attribute it to the moon; the perceived order in the 28 day lunar cycle in 4 distinct phases (implicitly referenced in Genesis 1:14). That, and I would suggest that the author was also attempting to further emphasize the Sabbath by having even God Himself working six days and resting the seventh.
I'll leave you to decide if "author" or "Author" in the sentence above is more appropriate. ;-)
You said:
"That said, I'm uncertain what you mean by "knowing the end product in his omniscience". This seems as if it would not be an issue with simple foreknowledge as God's knowing something is based upon its existing. "
I suspect that depends on your model for God's omniscience as to whether or not my statement makes sense. Does God's knowledge of something depend on it existing? I could easily argue that is not the case.
From a temporal example, an engineer can design and know a product long before it ever becomes a manifest reality. One can only imagine how much more that is the case with God, for in order to create the physics of the universe to operate in such a precise manner, one would have to fully understand the concept before bringing it into being... unless you allow for God to make mistakes and actually learn from what He does, to change His mind and act more in our image, so to speak.
Then you have the prophesies, which, according to many Christian sources, speak of Jesus' sacrifice, forgiveness, and death on the cross long before crosses existed, as early as the first book of the Bible. Or how about Abraham's children, and the enslavement of their offspring long before they existed.
Of course, your interpretation of the underlying power of those prophesies makes a big difference. For example, did God cause the enslavement, and therefore knew it would happen because He was going to make it happen, or did He simply know it was going to happen because He could forecast out what would happen because He knew things as they were then so well? Or is it a mix of both?
These are all intriguing lines of thought which tons of actual and digital ink have been spilled on, but (by my estimation) ultimately hold little likelihood of being resolved, and little value in assessing the veracity of the Bible. Yet they are fun to ponder.
Anyway, I'll close with my conjecture that there is no such thing as an "atemporal" being, regardless of whether or not there is a God. Time, by definition, is a measure of existence. If there is any state which represents itself as being different from a previous state, then there has been a progression of time, because you have before and after. If it is possible for God to learn something, as you implicitly posit in your reply about God needing to have something exist before He knows about it, that represents a passing of time. It may be an entirely different scale than what we could perceive ourselves, but on some level, that difference is a chain of events, and a chain of events is marked by time.
Consider John 17:24
“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."
Love is a verb. God was performing an action, directed at Jesus. And that too implies time.
And, finally, my go-to Divine time reference is Revelation 8:1.