The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

O'Coonassa

asdasd wrote: »

What would they be apologising for?

A frosty reception lol The C of E are going to say sorry. Equally as daft as the Catholics apologising to Galileo IMO

Fanny Cradock

Lovethinking wrote: »

Are these two beliefs mutually exclusive?

No. They can happily co-exist and do so for countless Christians. Read up on theistic evolution.

AtomicHorror

Lovethinking wrote: »

Hi Folks,
I havn't read read the numerous posts on this thread so forgive me if I repeat someone elses point.
I believe that if we want to be scientific about how we got here (evolution or creation) then we must avoid the "leaps" of faith that are made by both sides.
Some evolutionists use the phrase "it took millions of years" when they want to make an improbable leap.
Some creationists may just quote bible verses or use the old "God works in mysterious ways" chestnut to make their own improbable leaps.

Why do you think the assertions regarding the time evolution took are an improbable leap? The rates at which reproduction, mutation and selection proceed are all well understood and directly measurable. The rate at which change occurred in organisms is measurable from the fossil record. There's no guesswork involved in this, no leaps. We're genuinely calling it as we see it.

Lovethinking wrote: »

If we get back to basics, then it all comes down to cause and effect.
The effect is "intelligent design" the cause must have been intelligent.

But the effect is not "intelligent design". We know this for a number of reasons. Firstly, when you look at intelligently designed objects we find that their traits tend to be optimised for certain tasks, and that they usually far exceed the minimum requirement for such tasks. Think the safety features of vehicles and the like. Secondly we see that the traits of designed objects are distributed throughout the pool of all designed objects based on utility. So we see the same basic wheel design in all objects with wheels be they wheels for vehicles or for stationary objects such as pumps, water mills, motors etc. Whilst you can categorise objects based on their traits, you can't generate a nested tree of relationships between them because, for example, a car manufacturer can take the design of a solar panel and make a solar car. Thus any attempt to make a tree that considers all traits fails because the branches converge at a very high frequency.

Life forms, by contrast to the above, are generally not optimised for survival but usually are just "good enough". Some organisms feature major design flaws such as we see in the vertebrate eyeball (retina is backwards resulting in a blind spot). Organisms generally appear to be structured in such a way as to permit them on average to survive to the point of reproduction. It's a bare minimum approach that suggests the action of natural selection, not active design.

Then there is the tree of life. All of the eukaryotic species (that just means organisms that have cells with nuclei) when arranged by their traits do form a nested tree structure. If they were designed, we'd expect to see examples where the designer thought "hm, smaller mammals would do better if they had a chitinous exoskeleton like insects have, I'll give them one". That sort of design decision would break the tree structure and show us that some interference had occurred. But we never see this.

All of the species that exist seem to form that subdividing tree pattern in their traits. If that were a design decision it would be like our car manufacturer saying "I want to build a solar powered car. But I'm not going to look at how solar panels are made at all, I'm going to design one from first principles based on some feature already in the car design." Now, this might actually result in a decent-ish solar powered car, but it's re-inventing the wheel (or rather, the solar panel), it will more often result in a design that is less good than the alternative and it is rather wasteful of design time and resources. Thus, a tree-like hierarchy in designed objects would actually be evidence of rather bad and haphazard design.

This is exactly what we see in life forms. For example, the eye has been "designed" from first principles at least three times, with no obvious benefit for any given design. Similarly, wings have evolved independently in three unique ways, and there's no real functional differences between the three designs. Why re-design them? Why not give to bats the same wing design seen in birds or pterosaurs?

Lovethinking wrote: »

The next step is to establish the source of the intelligence... was it an advanced alien? was it an all powerful God?..... perhaps both? (God's not from earth, is he)

As I've pointed above, if life has a designer it is not a very intelligent one.

Lovethinking wrote: »

I think the next logical question is the clincher.... did he care?

When you build organisms so that they have two kidneys but only one heart, the evidence suggests that either there is no designer, a negligent designer or a total moron.

Lovethinking wrote: »

Well, when I look around me I don't just see things that are practical and designed with mere purpose in mind... I see things that are beautiful that have me happy and smiling before I know it.
When I need to eat to acquire energy and the materials to regenerate my body cells... I don't just eat a pill or lump of goo with mere purpose in mind... I choose from a huge variety of tastes and smells and experience great pleasure in eating ...
This argument continues true for reproduction, hearing, touch, thinking etc...

Then finally, comes the subject of most songs, the thing that makes humans truly special.... that feeling from inside our chest cavity (and sometimes all the way into our stomach) ... we spend billions of hours between us trying to express it in words, in poems, books, songs.... and in actions
LOVE!!! whoever designed us, included love in our design... need I say anymore.

Your feelings are actually rather functional in evolution. You like a wide variety of foods because that's what makes you healthier than other people and thus more likely to survive and reproduce. You love because that forms social bonds which similarly benefit both you and those who share your genes. Humans in particular have benefited enormously from extending that altruism to a much wider social group, and it is likely to be one of the reasons why we are so very dominant on Earth. So in a manner of speaking you are right to highlight the importance of feelings. You are correct that we are not emotionless drones and machines of evolution, because that's not how evolution works. It uses love (in as much as a natural force can "use" anything) amongst other things, to drive your behaviour in beneficial ways. That's a simplification and suggests a teleology that isn't there but you get the idea.

AtomicHorror

Since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, just the emergence of variety in life, it doesn't directly conflict with the beliefs of most mainstream Christian churches.

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, just the emergence of variety in life, it doesn't directly conflict with the beliefs of most mainstream Christian churches.

Good point.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

Good point.

Thanks. We're probably going to have an almighty barney if they ever get abiogenesis working in a lab though :pac:

Though, tbh I think the modern RCC could probably adapt to more or less anything science can throw at them...

Overblood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No. They can happily co-exist and do so for countless Christians. Read up on theistic evolution.

Just read up on thesistic evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

From the first paragraph:

Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God created and employed to help life grow and flourish.

Do you know that 99% of species that have ever lived are now dead? Is that what god calls growth and... flourishment? (Is flourshment a word?)

Fanny Cradock

Overblood wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Explain this.

Overblood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Explain this.

Haha! You love doing that!

Overblood

Oops, thought I was in the Atheism Forum. I will unfix that.

Fanny Cradock

Overblood wrote: »

Haha! You love doing that!

I've had enough of you.

O'Coonassa

Overblood wrote: »

Do you know that 99% of species that have ever lived are now dead? Is that what god calls growth and... flourishment

I'd say it's a hit and miss process everywhere in the universe but what is inevitable, given the setup of this universe, is that sooner or later sentient creatures arrive and start wondering where they came from. The product is not the species or the body IMO but the consciousness.

Lovethinking

I was hoping that some of ye might be familiar with the conflicts that are involved in believing in both.
Such as:
1 The NT says that sin entered into the world through Adam and was taken away by Jesus... can you believe that Adam was the first man and also believe in evolution? If not, then why would the NT say this? would the abscence of of Adam's sin not make Jesus' death pointless?

2 The NT gives the Genealogy of Jesus back to Adam... why???

3 "God created man in his image"... how can you reconcile this with evolution?

Ye probably can think of even juicier conflicts yourselves?

Hence, I suppose, a side issue is whether you can claim to believe the NT while also claiming to believe evolution?

Lovethinking

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, but I think the question is meant to lead to a rational breakdown of the facts. To decipher what is and isn't consistant etc.

Thank you Jimitime.... that's exactly what I am hoping for... a discussion of facts and conflicts.

kelly1

Lovethinking wrote: »

1 The NT says that sin entered into the world through Adam and was taken away by Jesus... can you believe that Adam was the first man and also believe in evolution? If not, then why would the NT say this? would the abscence of of Adam's sin not make Jesus' death pointless?

I see two possible scenarios:

1. God created Adam's physical body from pre-existing material and "breathed" a spirit into him.

2. God took one existing evolved human and gave him a spirit.

As yet I'm undecided about which is true but my intuition tends towards the former i.e. that Adam is a special case in that he didn't evolve from lower creatures but was created direcly by God. If science can show than man did indeed evolve from other hominoids, I'm open to that and would have to go with option 2. Has the "missing link" been found? I don't know.

In both cases Adam was the first human to have a spiritual and immortal soul.

Lovethinking wrote: »

2 The NT gives the Genealogy of Jesus back to Adam... why???

Because all other creatures were mortal.

Lovethinking wrote: »

3 "God created man in his image"... how can you reconcile this with evolution?

This can only refer to Adam's spirit because God is spirit. God created Adam with preternatural and supernatural gifts that made him like God but obviously not to the same infinite degree.

O'Coonassa

kelly1 wrote: »

If science can show than man did indeed evolve from other hominoids, I'm open to that and would have to go with option 2. Has the "missing link" been found? I don't know.

Adam & Eve

Missing Link(s)

Fanny Cradock

Lovethinking wrote: »

I was hoping that some of ye might be familiar with the conflicts that are involved in believing in both.
Such as:
1 The NT says that sin entered into the world through Adam and was taken away by Jesus... can you believe that Adam was the first man and also believe in evolution? If not, then why would the NT say this? would the abscence of of Adam's sin not make Jesus' death pointless?

2 The NT gives the Genealogy of Jesus back to Adam... why???

3 "God created man in his image"... how can you reconcile this with evolution?

Ye probably can think of even juicier conflicts yourselves?

Hence, I suppose, a side issue is whether you can claim to believe the NT while also claiming to believe evolution?

Again, I would encourage you to read up on theistic evolution. (I sometimes don't like using Wiki articles for such things, but this one gives a detailed overview.)

My take on your questions are as follows.

1) Adam and Eve could either be representative of two individuals of a larger population or are representative of the population as a whole.

2) I don't read it as a complete genealogy.

3) I would think this speaks of a spiritual image rather than a physical image. I'm not sure why God would be overly concerned with the latter. Indeed, throughout the bible God seems primarily focused on the spiritual side of our existence, not on the physical.

There are most certainly people out there who could offer a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the relationship between Christianity and evolution. I would encourage you to seek them out.

For starters, you might be interested in listening to the views of Francis Collins on the matter. I haven't head the talk above, but I've read his book The Language of God (it's only OK) and I would imagine it it pretty much the same stuff again. It should provide you with a nice introduction to theistic evolution.

Lovethinking

with regard to 1.
So, are ye saying that there were lots of people, Adam was one of them, he sinned and they were all held accountable?
From what I have read... Adam sinned and henceforth passed on sin to his children, so there were no perfect people about, thereby creating the need for a perfect man ("the second Adam") Jesus to take that sin away
Surely, if there were lots of people, that hadn't sinned yet, they could have taken Adam's place.
What do you think Jesus died for?

With regard to 2. there are two genealogies within the four gospels... one of them traces Jesus back to Abraham and the other traces Jesus the whole way back to Adam.

With regard to 3. I can see that some of ye misunderstood my point.
I was not suggesting that we physically look like God... my focus was on the word "created"... I should have highlighted the word.
God created/made man in his image... i.e. how does that reconcile with evolution.
He took dust, blew the spirit of life into it and made a living soul
dust + spirit = soul

darjeeling

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, I would encourage you to read up on theistic evolution. (I sometimes don't like using Wiki articles for such things, but this one gives a detailed overview.)

The Wikipedia page depicts 'theistic evolution' as preoccupied with resolving differences between Biblical and geological time scales. It barely mentions the bigger problem of the reliance of evolution on internecine strife: without billions of years of conflict and struggle amongst our ancestors, we wouldn't have evolved. There's also the fact that evolution is a never-ending process, so there's no reason to suppose we're the ultimate goal. I'd be interested to hear how the various churches address these issues.

Fanny Cradock

darjeeling wrote: »

The Wikipedia page depicts 'theistic evolution' as preoccupied with resolving differences between Biblical and geological time scales. It barely mentions the bigger problem of the reliance of evolution on internecine strife: without billions of years of conflict and struggle amongst our ancestors, we wouldn't have evolved. There's also the fact that evolution is a never-ending process, so there's no reason to suppose we're the ultimate goal. I'd be interested to hear how the various churches address these issues.

I would argue that evolution is a finite process. An unlucky strike by an asteroid, our sun going nova or maybe a excruciatingly slow and cold death in a dying universe would and will put an end to evolution. On a personal level, I don't necessarily see a problem with the sanguinary nature of evolution or that it seemingly marches on and leaves us behind.

I wouldn't really think that the Wiki article is the best source to answer your queries and I've never encountered a single voice from the various churches that would address your queries.

darjeeling

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would argue that evolution is a finite process. An unlucky strike by an asteroid, our sun going nova or maybe a excruciatingly slow and cold death in a dying universe would and will put an end to evolution. On a personal level, I don't necessarily see a problem with the sanguinary nature of evolution or that it seemingly marches on and leaves us behind.

Asteroids won't stop evolution. Yes, the death of the sun or the universe would end it, but such events are reckoned to lie far off in time. As far as we're concerned, evolution has a long long way to run, and we don't know who or what will be around even a few million years from now.

People who take the young earth creationist position argue that death and suffering are consequences of man's rebellion from God, unknown in the prelapsarian world. One of the main creationist objections to evolution, then, is that death and a good deal of suffering are intrinsic to the process.

Evolution also does not select for a tendency to love your neighbours and enemies, and to turn the other cheek. It produces organisms hard-wired to compete to leave more descendents than their rivals.

The Church of England argument on evolution is that God lets the world make itself. I can't help thinking that the way in which it does so is at odds with the Christian message.

O'Coonassa

Although it'd be sad for our species it doesn't even matter if the ape from Earth doesn't make it IMO. There's a long while yet to the end of the universe and something from somewhere will surely make it through.

O'Coonassa

conlonbmw wrote: »

Come on, these deluded religious nuts do not need proof.

That's uncalled for conlonbmw, what you hope to gain by gratuitously insulting people?

TravelJunkie

Lovethinking wrote: »

with regard to 1.
So, are ye saying that there were lots of people, Adam was one of them, he sinned and they were all held accountable?
From what I have read... Adam sinned and henceforth passed on sin to his children, so there were no perfect people about, thereby creating the need for a perfect man ("the second Adam") Jesus to take that sin away
Surely, if there were lots of people, that hadn't sinned yet, they could have taken Adam's place.
What do you think Jesus died for?

With regard to 2. there are two genealogies within the four gospels... one of them traces Jesus back to Abraham and the other traces Jesus the whole way back to Adam.

With regard to 3. I can see that some of ye misunderstood my point.
I was not suggesting that we physically look like God... my focus was on the word "created"... I should have highlighted the word.
God created/made man in his image... i.e. how does that reconcile with evolution.
He took dust, blew the spirit of life into it and made a living soul
dust + spirit = soul

I'm a christian and sometimes I struggle with evolution, mostly because of people insisting its either one or the other. Before I started listening and reading these forums, I was happily able to believe in both. Out of my own understanding (just by reading the bible and knowing school level things about evolution) I could see that days aren't 24 hour (periods, as discussed by others). Also, I've always had the opinion that when God made Adam there was already 'human beings' on the planet. Why? Because in Gen 1 the account is that God is making man and in Gen 2 is the story of Adam. Kelly has a point - did God take an existing human being or did he create one? Doesn't matter really. The point is that Adam had a spirit, and spiritual needs and desires. We are all connected to God when we're born, it's just a matter of doing what has to be done to be / commune with him (ie. repenting, believing in JC, all the other Christian teachings).

Being connected to God (or having the need for the creator) also explains to me other religions. People that have never heard the christian message also feel the need to explain a creator, a divine supreme being. What's important is knowing the Truth (the way to salvation) or as others put it, the true religion.

TravelJunkie

iisn't the post above against the rules?

Galvasean

darjeeling wrote: »

Evolution also does not select for a tendency to love your neighbours

Actually in some cases it has. I've read studies posted both here and in A&A that show compassion for others is a trait shown in certain species of monkey (I believe it was Zillah and/or Atomic Horror who posted them).

darjeeling wrote: »

and enemies, and to turn the other cheek. It produces organisms hard-wired to compete to leave more descendents than their rivals.

That is true.

darjeeling

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually in some cases it has. I've read studies posted both here and in A&A that show compassion for others is a trait shown in certain species of monkey (I believe it was Zillah and/or Atomic Horror who posted them).

Evolutionary theory tells us these are these are special cases of serving the interests of ones genes: kin selection or reciprocal altruism.

seamus

darjeeling wrote: »

Evolutionary theory tells us these are these are special cases of serving the interests of ones genes: kin selection or reciprocal altruism.

Evolutionary theory deals generally with the biological, but social traits are not beyond evolution either. That is, in human terms it is generally more beneficial to be social than to not be social. The more social someone is, the more influence they have over others and therefore the higher the position they occupy in the pecking order. This in turn directly affects your liklihood of mating and passing on your genes.

Therefore in order to be sexually successful, it makes sense to be more socially aggressive than physically aggressive - killing competitors will not make you more popular and will not increase the number of females available for mating as simply winning over competitors does.

This is probably a side-effect of the human because the nature of our reproduction makes simply killing your competitors an endless exercise, and can incur a lot of collateral damage. In addition the nature of our genome means that we can't work within the traditional "harem" structure because mating with our children is not genetically beneficial. So it makes sense to have a number of genetically distinct pairs mating and interacting in a single social group.

Many species of animal will show similar traits where new males can compete for the top position, but won't necessarily be killed when they fail, instead they become part of the social unit, subservient to the leader.

Why would animals be nice to other animals to whom they're not related?

darjeeling

We risk going too far off topic if we go down the avenue of evolutionary theory. My point is that there is more to reconciling evolution and Christianity than Adam's genealogy and whether a Biblical day can be translated into a billion years. Here, I'm in rare agreement with creationism.

Lovethinking

Nobody seems to be interested in defining and discussing the actual conflicts between the NT and the theory of evolution....
The general concensus so far seems to be... "Evolution is fact", so if the NT contradicts it then the NT is wrong.
How do ye reconcile that with being christian? where did you learn about Christ?
Can we choose to believe in some of the things the NT says and then assume it's wrong if it contradicts something else that we believe... ? I think that might lead down a futile path.

Is there someone out there who wants to debate the conflicts... ?
While your opinions are welcome, I would much prefer a discussion based upon evidence and reason.
cheers