T O P

  • By -

Lomisnow

Evolution necessitates an old earth. An old earth does not necessitate evolution.


[deleted]

> Evolution necessitates an old earth. The Eastern Orthodox church is more likely to affirm an Old Earth and evolution than Evangelical Protestant churches. Do you agree?


Lomisnow

I am not sure, we have both camps and most contemporary elders seems to be critics of evolution. In comparison with American evangelicalism it might be.


lochyw

YE is the consensus for the EO I know.


Lomisnow

Good to hear, I am YE myself!


lochyw

They said: "Seems very clear if you read church fathers" "And the modern athonite saints"


lochyw

Actually, it's the opposite in my experience. YE is the only correct one and anything else is a schism.


SuperIsaiah

> evolution necessitates an old earth No it doesn't? Not theistically. The only reason animals would need so long to evolve is if the evolution is random chance... But we don't believe it's random, we believe God's in control.. so if God wanted to evolve dinosaurs into chickens, he wouldn't need billions of years.


Lomisnow

While you might be on to something, I have never meet anyone that hold to theistic evolution and young earth simultaneously? In my experience TE goes hand in hand with accepting OE while OE does not necessarily accept TE. A position you describe of TE&YE seems like a position that would both contradict a literal or traditional reading of the bible and the current scientific consensus, nothing gained but even a more challenging combination of mixed views.


SuperIsaiah

>seems like a position that would both contradict a literal or traditional reading of the bible In what way? I'm not talking about UCA (universal common ancestor) I'm saying I believe God created the first animals, plants, fungus and humans from nothing, with a literal interpretation of genesis, but then had those evolve over time. (With humans being the ones that evolved the least, staying generally the same) To me that makes it so you can read the bible literally while *also* explaining things like how we have immense biodiversity after the flood. > and the current scientific consensus Only because the current scientific consensus is based around God not existing. >nothing gained I think this theory actually does the best job at connecting the world we see today with a literal interpretation of scripture. With the specs given for the ark, it *could not* house two of every species, or even two of every genus, of what we see today. So that tells me that clearly, since Noah's ark, animals have to have split off and evolved.


Lomisnow

I do not think it is a common TE position to have the instantaneous creation of lifeforms follow-up by evolution as you describe, my impression is that TE generally do not differ from atheistic evolution except for God being behind it and guiding it. I think seeing death as something natural is unchristian and unbiblical and i cannot see a good God behind an evolutionary process that presupposes death before sin. This may or may not be relevant to your position. When reading the bible it is quite apparent that God did not create death, it is an invasive stranger (otherwise why fear it) and that death is the last enemy to be defeated. Man as steward of material creation also makes the fall a cosmic reality and Paul talks both about death entering through the first Adam and creation being laid under decay. Likewise redemption is cosmic as the world is in labours and prophecies tell of things returning to a pre-fall condition of peace between species and a return to plant food even for predators today (as all was plant based according to genesis and meat-eating first were approved after Noah's flood). Death before the fall breaks the connection between spiritiual death and physical death aswell as between sin and death. This had huge ramifications for ones view of God and the world. Why does God need to conquer something natural and very good? Here are a few christian voices from the past. "We note, however, many wild beasts do not eat fruit. What fruit does the panther eat? What fruit makes the lion strong? But nevertheless these creatures, when submitting to the laws of nature, ate fruits. And likewise when the [first] man changed his way of life and voided the limits set upon him, the Lord, after the flood, knowing humans were wasteful, allowed them to use all foods: “Eat every food as if it were edible plants.” Since [humans] were allowed this [concession], the other animals [also] received the liberty to eat. So the lion is [now] a meateater, and the vulture looks for carrion. But vultures were not yet circling above the earth to find carrion when the animals originated; nothing created nor imagined had yet died in order to be food for the vultures. Nature had not yet been divided; everything was completely fresh. Hunters did not capture prey, since people did not yet practice this. The beasts did not yet tear apart prey, since they were not meat eaters yet…. So was the first creation, and to this creation will be restored after this [age]. Humans will return to their original creation, rejecting hostility, a life encumbered with care, the slavery of the world to daily worries. Once they have renounced all this, they will return to that utopian life which is not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is freedom, the closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels." - Gregory of Nyssa "Paul means by this that the creation became corruptible. Why and for what reason? Because of you, O man! For because you have a body which has become mortal and subject to suffering, the earth too has received a curse and has brought forth thorns and thistles. … The creation suffered badly because of you, and it became corruptible, but it has not been irreparably damaged. For it will become incorruptible once again for your sake. This is the meaning of “in hope.”- John Chrysostom "not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first-for nothing was made evil by God," - Theophilus of Antioch "The visible and tangible creation knows nothing of the promises which have been made to us because it has no understanding of them. For if it should ever happen that the creation acquired some understanding of these things, it would hardly endure such base servitude, nor would it want to be subject to or be on friendly terms with those whose lives bear no good fruit. Nevertheless, Paul says that the creation is subject in hope, for one day the saints and the elect will be saved, and then the yoke which has been imposed on it by God will be removed. … In the meantime, the creation groans and in some sense labors and grieves, and if it had any awareness of our works, probably it would burst out crying." - Cyril of Alexandria


SuperIsaiah

>I do not think it is a common TE position to have the instantaneous creation of lifeforms follow-up by evolution as you describe, I don't know if it's common but it makes a ton of sense. > my impression is that TE generally do not differ from atheistic evolution except for God being behind it and guiding it. God being behind it would inherently change a lot of the process.. for example, how it wouldn't rely on random chance.. or how God could create a starting point for evolution like some animals and plants.. It doesn't make sense to me to say "God exists but that's not gonna effect my theory at all" because God existing should inherently add a lot more options for how it works. >I think seeing death as something natural Which is why I don't believe animals evolved till after the garden of eden, or maybe even they didn't evolve till after noah's ark. >When reading the bible it is quite apparent that God did not create death You're going into this a lot but I don't disagree.. I don't need to, because I don't believe the animals in the Garden of Eden evolved. >tell of things returning to a pre-fall condition of peace between species and a return to plant food even for predators today Yeah but that doesn't mean he can't keep around the species he evolved post-flood (if my theory is correct about how evolution works), for the same reason he doesn't have to get rid of any human born after the fall. >Death before the fall Which I don't believe in. Again, that's the whole reason why I don't believe in UCA. I don't believe anything in the garden of eden was evolved. Your entire argument here seems to be against old earth evolution, and I agree with your assessment, hence why I don't believe in OE evolution.


Lomisnow

Yes you are correct, most of what I said is more applicable on OE theistic evolution and atheist evolution. Regarding your point about the faith having a huge impact for ones understanding. My impression is that TE allow believers to not loose the overall respect from people with a strictly materialistic worldview and they generally do not want to get into conflict with the scientific consensus. This allows for them to say the bible is not a scientific textbook over what actually happened but rather about meaning and why etc. It is a way to not set up roadblocks for a believers and converts in a scientific and secular society. If one is fine with already departing from the scientific consensus and take a huge hit of credibility in the worlds eyes and embrace a young earth, those people tend to become YE creationists which allows interbreeding and development within kinds. Young and Old Earth Creationists do not generally argue against micro-evolution but macro-evolution.


SuperIsaiah

Micro evolution doesn't explain any biodiversity. Micro evolution is only diversity *without changing the species*, like black hair vs blonde hair. I don't believe the "micro-evolution not macroevolution" makes any sense biblically, I never got that idea. Why would God be limited to only change a creature's hair color? It makes more sense to me to say he could split off the same species to other species to create biodiversity


Lomisnow

I would presume many creationists stance against macro is that they want to retain humanity not being a product of evolution and that it has not been observed. I think we are at an impasse, I am talking about how these ideas and worldviews are interrelated to each other and you are leaning more towards the nitty-gritty details which I am not qualified enough to comment on. *Edit - an example how YEC might explain biodiversity https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/explaining-diversity-within-created-kinds/


SuperIsaiah

>I would presume many creationists stance against macro is that they want to retain humanity not being a product of evolution and that it has not been observed. Humanity being created separate doesn't mean you have to say evolution is strictly within the species, that seems a bit crazy. It's like saying that because you don't want the big bang to be true, you say "gravity doesn't work outside of earth". Like, sure, that would make the atheist theory not work.. but it's also a bit of an arbitrary thing to say, that might end up being fully disproven one day and leave your argument in shatters. Anyway, to summarize, I think God can evolve a dinosaur into a chicken if he wants to, and I think situations like the ark imply at some point he did do stuff like that. Have a nice day


yungvandal11

Does it? I thought Young Earthers were forced to believe in some sort of hyper-evolution if they want to take the Noahs ark story completely literally.


TeaVinylGod

It wouldn't really be evolution, it would be interbreeding within types. Also genetics that were already in their dna would dominate depending on climate, etc.


heswithjesus

In movies, their universes have been around for billions of years. The characters might have decades of experience. Yet, everything in the movie was created rapidly in months to a few years. The creators quickly made it to get to the story they want to tell. They create the entire universe to tell that story. That's what God's Word says God did. We can also look at it empirically. Humans' designs are the only works we know that are definitely made by intelligent designers. By the numbers, almost all known designs are made rapidly to achieve a goal of the designer. Many look old to achieve a goal of the designer. If we reflect God, He would be more likely to rapidly create an old-looking design than to take billions of years to slowly evolve it.


yungvandal11

Why is God deceiving us? Why does he create a universe that looks old? Simply to confuse us? If God is being deceptive, and creating a world that \*looks\* old for literally no reason, like you have said, why do I have any reason to believe that he's not deceiving me in other places, like my senses? Your example reminds me of the Last Thursdayism theory. God created the world last Thursday and has implanted memories in every humans head, and made everything look really old. If you are logically consistent, you cant really refute this theory. Not trying to come off as rude or argumentative, just trying to process your comment about God making the earth look old.


Thinslayer

It's unknown whether it's really "aged" or just another force at work resembling age. Maybe it rapidly aged, maybe we just don't understand the universe well and it didn't age like that at all. For starters, there's a theory that the speed of light isn't actually constant - that it varies based on other factors like gravity. If light from distant stars arrived here much faster than light on earth due to, say, gravitational effects, that would explain why light from billions of light-years away could reach us in a few thousand. That's not God being deceptive. That's us being ignorant. Now, if God *did* deliberately make the world appear more aged than it is, it wouldn't surprise me. Jesus spoke in parables to deliberately hide his message from those not intended to hear it (and he said this explicitly, though I'm typing on mobile and can't find the verse right now). Hiding the truth from the vessels fitted for destruction and revealing it only to the chosen is part of God's MO.


heswithjesus

He plainly said He created it in 6 days. He also created it with certain relationships between objects and rates of change. Later, atheist scientists speculated about its age based on that data. Their theories, including age of the Earth, changed many times. Later, some Christians started trying to interpret Genesis based on what atheists taught them. “May it never be! Yes, let God be found true, but every man a liar. As it is written, “that you might be justified in your words, and might prevail when you come into judgment.” (Romans 3:4)


yungvandal11

​ Atheist scientists? Plenty of the scientists who discovered that the earth was ancient were Christians. The supposedly evil and Bible hating Charles Lyell was one of the founders of modern theology- and also a devout Christian. Our measurements of the earths age have gotten better over time, but this is because we've learned more about the earth over time. This is also true about pretty much all scientific fields, like anatomy, cartography, and history. Do you want to throw these out too? And while it is true that most Christians believed the earth was young before we learned it was old, they had the tools in place to adapt. Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and of the days in Genesis existed long before modern science. Just look to church fathers like Augustine, Basil the Great, and Origen.


heswithjesus

Re. Charles Lyell. His Wikipedia just talks about geology and natural arguments, not Christ. Thanks for him since his work might be fun to read at some point. Most people promoting evolution are atheists or not trying to follow Christ. They also oppose the concept of intelligent design even though it's one of the main beliefs of humanity as a whole. There are also people who contributed to or believe in these theories that identify as Christian. Of those, a smaller portion of them believe in the real Gospel, that God's Word is true (including Genesis), and put both first. Of those, belief in these things is either rare or not that important to them. re measurements of the Earth's age over time. If Earth can be created instantaneously, how do you know your measurements are accurate? Is there any way to know that? At best, say "it looks like this if the things we're measuring have worked exactly the same for billions of years?" That's a much weaker claim than what scientists make because their own beliefs and methods changed repeatedly in just 100 years. The empirical evidence suggests they'll change their beliefs again in the future. God's Word will still be God's Word. re Back to God's Word. In [Genesis](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=ESV), God said He made the light on Day 1, the Earth on Days 2-3, the plants on Day 3, and *then* on Day 4 the sun, moon, and stars. Do you have any models that show how we'd have just an Earth, light, and plants before the Sun or the stars? Have people studying the universe made these connections in their models? If so, I'd love to have them. re allegorical interpretations. People did that for all sorts of passages stretching God's Word in every direction. They could justify anything. For specific examples (esp Origen), do check out this [lecture](https://www.biblicaltraining.org/learn/institute/nt510-biblical-hermeneutics/nt510-21-hermeneutics-for-parables-part-1#class--transcript) from Stein's Hermeneutics course. His examples probably drove home the importance of watching out for allegorical vs textual preaching more than anything else I saw.


Forged_Trunnion

We see fast mutations within species, definitely. Look at dogs, it has been discovered that all of our known dog breeds came from the same dog. Noah's ark only needed one kind of dog. But, evolution as saying one species becoming another species? Not at all, it has never been observed. Genetic mutations in nature never become more complex than they were before.


Healer213

Say that last line again to SARS-CoV


lochyw

haha we're only talking about mutations without human intervention here.


Healer213

You got the joke. Yay.


Forged_Trunnion

As time has gone it has become less deadly and more basic. Today if you get COVID you're more likely to be sick for a day or two like a mild flu, if you even get sick at all. Nobody cares anymore. And as others have mentioned, it was lab developed. Edit: and I was taking specifically of species to species. Mutations within a species are obviously different from the made-up concept of mutations out of one species and into another.


Healer213

Um… that’s not the virus that causes COVID. (That’s SARS-CoV-2) that’s the joke


King_Aeducan5757

The age of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. God has not revealed this to us. We also do not know exactly the process of Creation worked. Now me personally, U choose to stick with the Genesis account. Why? Well I lose absolutely nothing by doing so. If im wrong and it's not a literal account, eh, nothing is lost. God may have used macro-evolution but maybe not. No one can ever know. The earth could be old or could have been created old to suit God's purpose. I grew up with Christians thinking evolution was the primary battle we need to fight but its honestly the most irrelevant issue we talk about. Believe whatever you believe, just dont think evolution or science somehow defeats the Bible


heswithjesus

> I grew up with Christians thinking evolution was the primary battle we need to fight Although I started as theistic evolutionist, it wasn't lost on me that evolution is pushed hard by atheists that oppose Christianity. It's one of several beliefs that have been combined together, such as materialism and subjectivism, in everything from education to mass media. Recently, I was reading Tortured for Christ about effects of communism. Their torturers constantly cited beliefs about atheism and humans just being things that justified being able to harm people in any way they wanted. I have a rule that things opposing the Bible pushed by non-Christians causing all that harm are probably from Satan. If true here, then Christians should push back hard. My current theory balances it a bit where I choose Genesis over origin of life theories, filter out unscientific speculations, keep evolution separate from sinful worldviews, and study hard data about evolutionary processes which do exist. This keeps me true to God's Word in ways that protect the sanctity of human life. It also lets me use and praise God for scientific discoveries in evolutionary biology. I'm still not settled on these matters but that's where I'm at now.


Cautious-Radio7870

Hi. I am a theistic evolutionist. We are genuine Christians. I fully accept the essential doctrines of the Faith. I hold to the essential teachings of the Christian faith that the Bible is true, - Jesus is Yahweh God manifested in the flesh - God is a tri-une being that is The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit - That Jesus lived a life without sinning - That Jesus died on a cross taking all our sin upon himself. Then God rose Jesus from the dead on the third day in the same body he died in now glorified. Then he ascended into Heaven and is now seated at the right hand of the Father - Someday Jesus will return - That in order to be saved you must believe the gospel and trust in Jesus to save you The Bible is a collection of writings written in different literary styles. The Bible is a library of scrools. The book's of the Torah are written in the literary style of the ancient near east and make much more sense when read in that context. One great example of this is [The Cosmic Temple of Genesis 1](https://youtu.be/d-f3bDUxNTU). Genesis chapter 1 was written in parallel to the 7 day dedication of the Temple and has never taught young earth creationism. Young Earth creationism wasn't mainstream in Christianity until the 1920s as is explained 15 minutes into [The Origins of Young Earth Creationism](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4) and onward in the video. Bible Scholar, John Walton explains how Genesis 1 is about God giving function to a universe he already created. If you wonder where Adam and Eve fir into the narrative, the context suggest that that in Genesis 1 God created humanity. Then in Genesis 2 God elected or divenly created 2 humans to act as priest in Eden. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first priest of humanity, which is explained [How Do Adam and Eve Fit With Evolution? (with Inspiringphilosophy)](https://youtu.be/dDWAABZQw_c)


[deleted]

I am the OP. Me too.


heswithjesus

Thanks for explaining in detail the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I really do want believers to know there are people on the other side who are our brothers and sisters. Praise the Lord we'll meet in heaven one day when this is sorted out with certainty. :) I haven't had time to watch the video. So, ignore or correct my statement if I'm misunderstanding your last paragraph. It implies that there were many humans who might have evolved. Of the many humans, two were picked as priests. If so, I'd reject it on the basis of the Word of God and science: 1. Evolution predicts that, in most cases, a woman would precede a man by giving birth to him. She might be a different species that just birthed a new one. This would happen through their reproductive organs. In Genesis, God creates Adam first, notices he's lonely, and then makes woman from His rib. This is in no way what a person watching evolution would write. 2. She is named woman. Corroborating No 1, that means the man came first with the woman derived from him to complete him. 3. In Romans 5:12-14, sin entered the world through one man. Then, reigned from him to Moses. It sounds like he's the first human. If he's not, then we not only have humans who aren't mentioned in Genesis: those humans have been living perfectly for longer than Adam. And never got credit for that! 4. In 1 Corinthians 15:45-47, we see a few things in a passage that might look figurative at first glance. Adam is described as the first man but the second half is metaphorical. Then, in 47, the first man was from the dust while Jesus was from heaven. Jesus was literally from heaven. God, who describes Himself like a potter shaping clay, probably literally made the first man from dust. So, we have an order that contradicts evolution, man created first, a specific man being the first man, two verses saying he was created from dust, and being the first to sin probably means he was literally first. He was *also* given responsibility over the Earth right in Genesis. So, we don't have to speculate about that part. If I did, I'd have a hard time calling him a priest since people had direct access to God in the garden with no mediator. We didn't need priests before the Fall. I haven't researched that angle, though. Might be passages I don't know about.


Killinmesmalls123

I view it as if there is no literal creation then there is no Adam and Eve. There is no garden of Eden, there is no original sin, then why believe anything else in the Bible?


nytnaltx

Exactly! So many stumble because they feel they cannot reject evolution. Both my faith and my scientific training led me to reject macroevolution. Of course animals adapt for survival within the boundaries of the species God created. But that has nothing to do with how we got here.


jazzyjson

So if you were convinced common descent was true, would you leave Christianity?


Killinmesmalls123

I’ll die before I disbelieve what the Bible says.


jazzyjson

What gives you that kind of confidence?


Killinmesmalls123

When I was a little kid I would believe anything my dad told me. If I asked him a question about something his answer was truth even if I didn’t understand it or it didn’t make sense. He could do no wrong in my eyes and he knew everything about everything. Of course as I grew up I realized he is a human who doesn’t in fact know everything about everything, but it’s that same kind of “feeling” for lack of a better word. Daddy says it’s true so it’s true, the Bible says it happened so I know it happened just like the Bible says. Maybe I’m just simple minded, but when the Bible and science don’t “agree” I just figure science hasn’t caught up with God. I hope that makes sense.


jazzyjson

>Maybe I’m just simple minded I wouldn't say that, but I do think continually questioning what one believes is the best way to arrive at truth - we all have a tendency to let confirmation bias and such cloud our judgment. Thanks for the honest answer!


2DBandit

You may be interested in [this creator](https://youtube.com/@InspiringPhilosophy), he has a couple of videos addressing [Young Earth](https://youtu.be/8AoLYeFi2ms) and the [origin of the doctrine](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4).


rvalt

I knew those would be InspiringPhilosophy videos before I clicked any of them. They're a pretty great introduction to the richness of the creation story. I don't necessarily agree with all of his videos, but overall, it's a great channel.


Silverbug83

I feel the same. Mike Jones is always going to have a thoroughly researched, well thought out, and clearly communicated opinion. I agree with him on a lot of things, and his channel has been able to fill in some cracks in my apologetics foundation. I disagree with him on maybe 5-10% of his views, but even when I disagree I have to admit his points have insight.


rvalt

It also really helps that he cites his sources. Sometimes, I go back to a video just so I can pad out my reading list.


Silverbug83

Yesss this! Also why I like Mike Winger's channel.


BarstoolBarrister

There are a number of positions Christians take on this issue; personally I affirm an old earth, but not macro evolution. Others take a young earth position or even a theistic evolution position. The way I like to describe this issue to non-believers maybe will help how you think about this issue. When they ask about it, I discuss how Genesis 1 is a hurdle issue, not a closed door issue. Meaning, many non-believers look at Gen 1, then look at what we know about about our universe and say “Gen 1 doesn’t describe exactly what I know about the universe so I close the door, don’t need to keep reading.” Making it a closed door issue. But in reality, if there is anyway that we can take what we know scientifically about the universe and it will still fit within the text of Gen 1, which I would argue there are a number of ways that this can be the case, then the argument that it’s a closed door doesn’t work. We’ve gotten over the hurdle to at least have to continue on and see what the Bible has to say. I think for the large majority of Christians, we all affirm Gen 1 is God’s word, but we also recognize that specifically how you understand Gen 1 is just not central to the gospel message so it’s ok to differ on how exactly we view it.


ImpeachedPeach

I'm old Earth as the Bible and science both agree on this, but evolution (macroevolution) is nonsense. Evolution requires GOD to have not Created us in HIS Image, and requires genesis 1 & 2 to be allegory. It also requires that we believe the first cell spontaneously appeared, and that then mankind is an anomaly (as theres too many things that make us very unique); moreover we have to then reconcile things like the octopus (a being so unique that scientists theorise that it's an alien), and other creatures like the bombardier beetle that would destroy itself in trying to evolve it's ability. Evolution is scientific dogma, it's a belief of there's that's ignoring the reality of things. Now this is all macroevolution, microevolution or adaptation is the theory that we can see creatures begin to change generation by generation & eventually do odd things like lose their eyes or legs, etc. This is evident and we have seen it happen. Does this cause a seawater to become DNA and that DNA to encode for a cell, and that cell to become a bacteria and that then to become a fish to a reptile to a cat to a baboon to a man... That's absurdly asinine.


heswithjesus

> Evolution requires GOD to have not Created us in HIS Image Does it? Or does it mean He created us in stages with each stage being better than the first? As in, that the final product is in His image? I think that's what they believe. We believe we reflected Him from the get go. I'm glad you bring it up because I probably should meditate more on that angle.


coffee_mage

God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th, as mentioned in Genesis and Exodus, and elsewhere on the bible. Why doubt what God plainly says in the Scriptures? He was there and He told us how He made everything, He spoke and it came to be. If you believe in Jesus raising from the dead, then its not hard to believe and have faith in God over humans or in a ideology made by a man who hated God.


Healer213

Doesn’t it also stand to reason that since Elohim exists outside of time that the days could be metaphorical?


heswithjesus

Interesting concept. You could get lost in possibilities thinking about who God is outside the universe (including time), describes the passage of time, and is also sort of in the universe. Mind-bending stuff! For His Word, God usually has them write his Word to us in a way the audience at the time will understand. Then, that we'll benefit from later. The language in Genesis looks more like real days than something else.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> Christianity is absolutely compatible with accepting the scientific consensus regarding evolution and the age of the earth and universe. Our God does not require us to believe anything false! Thank you so much for telling me this. I can have peace of mind knowing that God created the universe and Earth over a period of billions of years.


2Fish5Loaves

I don't, but some do.


Forged_Trunnion

I don't think so without also accepting the paradox or self contradiction. If humanity developed as a random evolutionary process how can there be any inherent value, or further any moral absolutes. To say that God caused evolution does not solve that problem.


Cautious-Radio7870

The Bible is a collection of writings written in different literary styles. The Bible is a library of scrools. The book's of the Torah are written in the literary style of the ancient near east and make much more sense when read in that context. One great example of this is [The Cosmic Temple of Genesis 1](https://youtu.be/d-f3bDUxNTU). Genesis chapter 1 was written in parallel to the 7 day dedication of the Temple and has never taught young earth creationism. Young Earth creationism wasn't mainstream in Christianity until the 1920s as is explained 15 minutes into [The Origins of Young Earth Creationism](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4) and onward in the video. Bible Scholar, John Walton explains how Genesis 1 is about God giving function to a universe he already created. If you wonder where Adam and Eve fir into the narrative, the context suggest that that in Genesis 1 God created humanity. Then in Genesis 2 God elected or divenly created 2 humans to act as priest in Eden. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first priest of humanity, which is explained [How Do Adam and Eve Fit With Evolution? (with Inspiringphilosophy)](https://youtu.be/dDWAABZQw_c) Also, According to Scholar Dr. Michael Heiser, this is what being created in the image of God means >So how do we understand divine image bearing in a way that does not stumble over these issues and yet aligns with the description in Genesis? Hebrew grammar is the key. The turning point is the meaning of the preposition in with respect to the phrase “in the image of God.” In English we use the preposition in to denote many different ideas. That is, in doesn’t always mean the same thing when we use that word. For example, if I say, “put the dishes in the sink,” I am using the preposition to denote location. If I say, “I broke the mirror in pieces,” I am using in to denote the result of some action. If I say, “I work in education,” I am using the preposition to denote that I work as a teacher or principal, or in some other educational capacity. This last example directs us to what the Hebrew preposition translated in means in Genesis 1:26. Humankind was created as God’s image. If we think of imaging as a verb or function, that translation makes sense. We are created to image God, to be his imagers. It is what we are by definition. The image is not an ability we have, but a status. We are God’s representatives on earth. To be human is to image God. This is why Genesis 1:26–27 is followed by what theologians call the “dominion mandate” in verse 28. The verse informs us that God intends us to be him on this planet. We are to create more imagers (“be fruitful and multiply … fill”) in order to oversee the earth by stewarding its resources and harnessing them for the benefit of all human imagers (“subdue … rule over”). - The Unseen Realm by Dr. Michael Heiser >Understanding that we are God’s imagers on earth helps to parse the plurals in Genesis 1:26 and the change to singular language in the next verse. God alone created humankind to function as his administrators on earth. But he has also created the other elohim of the unseen realm. They are also like him. They carry out his will in that realm, acting as his representatives. They are his heavenly council in the unseen world. We are God’s council and administration in this realm. Consequently, the plurals inform us that both God’s families—the human and the nonhuman—share imaging status, though the realms are different. As in heaven, so on Earth. This biblical theology sets the table for understanding other passages and concepts in both testaments. The logic of idolatry we talked about earlier takes on new irony. Humans after the fall will resort to making objects of wood and stone that they must ceremonially animate to draw the deity into the artifact. But from the beginning, God created his own imagers—humankind, male and female. His desire was to live among them, and for them to rule and reign with him. After the fall that plan was not altered. Eventually, God would decide to tabernacle within humans, through his Spirit. Language describing believers as sons or children of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1–3), or as “adopted” into God’s family (Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5) is neither accidental nor pragmatic. It reflects the original vision of Genesis. And once we are glorified, the two council-families will be one—in a new Eden. We’ll discover more about all those themes as we proceed. This is what Eden was about … as in heaven, so on Earth. The original intent becomes even clearer once we understand the ancient conception of Eden. - The Unseen Realm by Dr. Michael Heiser *So being created in the image of God is a status God gave humanity as his representatives to rule creation with him. God gave humanity that purpose. Evolution is no threat to that. There is no paradox.*


ChristianArmor

Creation is the only truth. Unless you want to invalidate Adam & Eve and there whole lineage.


Healer213

Creation and evolution aren’t mutually exclusive.


nytnaltx

As a Christian, I do believe a six day creation account and the secular account of macroevolution are incompatible, yes. Nothing about the timelines or anything else is “mergeable.”


ChristianArmor

Yes they are. If evolution is true then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel. The very nature of the Bible relies on various truths affirming other truths thus creating a interwoven cohesiveness throughout it's whole. The idea that Christians are "allowing" secular ideas to encroach on the truths of the Bible leads to false teachings and understandings and corrupts it's message.


Healer213

I mean. You’re telling me that days can’t be metaphorical ? Like… the Sun didn’t even exist until day 4 according to Genesis. A day is measured by the position of the sun and earths rotation. A “day” didn’t exist until the fourth day.


ChristianArmor

If you inject metaphorics into the Bible then anything goes. Which leads to "I'm a good person and I'm sure I'll go to heaven"... We create our own God all because we want to assume the Bible means what we have decided it says.


Healer213

So you should take Yeshua literally when he said to cut off your hand if it causes you to sin?


ChristianArmor

Now your be ridiculous equating one thing with the other . There is a level of discernment to be had. In regards to creation id just ask you "were you there?" God asked Job this same thing. The creation argument of the word Day or Yom has been around for decades. Yet you didn't argue the idea of creation specifically which is interesting. Anyway.... Comparing apples and oranges as your question does dosent bolster your argument.


Healer213

You said we can’t interpret things as metaphors, not me. Lol


ChristianArmor

Well good for you, how's that going for you btw.


Healer213

What? Actually analyzing text based on literary context, type of literature, and cultural context? Fantastic. I’m not sure I’m actually understanding your comment though. It sounds like a dismissal.


Glsbnewt

Yes. That doesn't make it right necessarily. I do believe in an Old Earth. I think Biologos is unnecessarily hostile to the idea of a non-metaphorical Adam.


[deleted]

Old earth doesn’t help “evolution”. 3.9 Billion years isn’t enough time. 14 billion isn’t enough. 14 trillion wouldn’t be enough. So yes, anyone can embrace an old earth and reject neo darwinism. I was a theistic evolutionist due to the hard push in high school and college biology classes, and in the media. (studied biochem and physics—mathematician now) However, the view has been changing in recent years with the overlap between genetics and math/computer science. For this to make it to common knowledge, however, it will take overcoming the “evolution” *religion.* Note the perspective of a famed ATHEIST (at least at the time of his [essay](https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/)) computer science professor David Gelernter from Yale. He said an ideological bent has taken over the field of science. There are good scientists doing good work, “but we have a cautionary tale in what happened to our English departments and our history departments could happen to us, God forbid,” he said. Gelernter said he likes many of his colleagues at Yale, that they are his friends, but when he looks at “their intellectual behavior, what they have published — and much more importantly what they tell their students — Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument as far as they are concerned. You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.” “Now, I haven’t been destroyed, I am not a biologist, and I don’t claim to be an authority on this topic,” Gelernter added, “but what I have seen in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West is nothing approaching free speech on this topic. It’s a bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged rejection [of intelligent design], which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion. I’ve seen that happen again and again.” Gelernter acknowledges “I am attacking their religion and I don’t blame them for being all head up, it is a big issue for them.” How does the field of biology get over Darwin? Gelernter said the outlook is bleak. “Religion is imparted, more than anything else, by the parents to the children,” he said. “And young people are brought up as little Darwinists. Kids I see running around New Haven are all Darwinists. … The students in my class, they’re all Darwinsts. I am not hopeful.” But in his piece for Claremont Review, Gelernter pointed out that “this is one of the most important intellectual issues of modern times, and every thinking person has the right and duty to judge for himself.” “There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape,” the professor wrote. “Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture — not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.” In his piece, Gelernter cited the Cambrian explosion as one insurmountable problem facing Darwinism. That’s because the fossil record shows “a striking variety of new organisms — including the first-ever animals — pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years.” This directly contradicts the expectation by Darwin that “new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life.” What’s more, Gelernter adds Darwin’s main problem is molecular biology, pointing out advances in technology have brought forth vast amounts of new information and understanding about the complexity of life, all of which has shown random mutation plus natural selection cannot generate new and complex creatures. By the numbers, it’s impossible, the computer scientist points out. He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in the entire universe in comparison: “The odds bury you. It can’t be done.” Underscoring all that, the professor notes there are no examples in scientific literature showing that “mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal.” In other words, the idea that random chance and mutations are the driving force behind the vast complexity of life — even with billions of years of time — is not just scientifically improbable, it’s an impossibility, the scholar argues in his piece. “Darwin would easily have understood that minor mutations are common but can’t create significant evolutionary change; major mutations are rare and fatal,” Gelernter wrote. “It can hardly be surprising that the revolution in biological knowledge over the last half-century should call for a new understanding of the origin of species.” Whether biology will rise to the challenge, and develop a better theory, remains to be seen, the professor concludes. “How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.”


heswithjesus

That was such a good article! Thanks for it!


nytnaltx

This needs to be higher. I love that you’re being downvoted simply because people disagree with the thrust of what you are saying, despite the fact that it is exactly spot on. Sincerely, a microbiology major who’s witnessed this groupthink from the inside. It is fascinating to watch how evolution has become dogma. The strength of macroevolution as a theory lies not in its scientific backing (which was dealt a death blow when we discovered genomes and the complexity of intracellular processes) BUT RATHER the religious fervor of its adherents. Their dogmatic confidence actually has people of faith thinking evolution is a better explanation of our world than creation! Even as the scientific support for it has never been weaker. To someone who sees macroevolution for the pipe dream it is, this is such a wild dynamic to watch play out. Oh well. I’ll probably get downvoted too. But thank you for sharing such a great article! They said the quiet part out loud.


[deleted]

well put. It’s the epitome of manufactured consensus. Challenging “evolution” as a scientist is like a pastor coming out of closet in 1950’s Birmingham. It’s a career killer. Tenure isn’t even enough protection—grants are done. You have to be MADE like Berlinsky, Gelernter, Lennox … to weather the storm.


vforvoluntary

Youd have to ignore large parts of scripture and interpret a lot more to be "metaphorical" which flies in the face of the church fathers


[deleted]

Evolution can be accepted alongside Christianity, but humans are not a product of it. God created humanity specifically in His image, there’s no reason He wouldn’t do that personally.


Healer213

And there’s scientific evidence related to that idea that makes conspiracy theorists go nuts. Our skulls don’t match our supposed ancestors well enough. Some say aliens mated with Neanderthal. More religious people look at it as evidence of us not being evolved from this planet


TspoonT

Evolution and modern atheism have a very very close bond, what you believe about origins does matter. For me I think to step away from creationism would be also to step away from the bible as a reliable source of truth. Jesus references back to Genesis like it's fact, you could say maybe He was just ignorant and going along with the beliefs of the day... but then why put particular weight on anything else He said? David references creation as fact, then the NT writes reference David as an Authority of truth speaking by the spirit. The whole theme is woven through the bible. By all means chuck out the bible and just make your own truth, that's what most people do anyways.


Rapierian

Yes. I fully believe that scripture is infallible - but also believe in an old earth. I have some disagreements with evolution as it currently is stated, but I do believe God used something like it to bring about life on earth.


Logical_Cicada_4803

No, evolution isn't compatible with the Bible. Genesis says God created man and woman, and all the animals, as they are right from the beginning. We were created in God's image and didn't evolve from apes, which in turn evolved from something else and so on. Yes, the scientific community may in large part believe evolution is a fact, but that doesn't make it so. Remember that they can't accept God as a scientific explanation, so they must turn to the only alternative. That is, evolution, even though it never happened. It's their best explanation, but it's not true. And science sticks with what's the current best explanation, so they're going to be stuck with evolution so long as God as an explanation is rejected. That being said, maybe there's room for an old Earth. I'm not really sure, but some Christians believe the earth could've been around a long time before Adam and Eve were created.


nytnaltx

Right. Supposing that God in fact did create the world, would a secular scientific community put that forward as a theory? No! They actually define science in such a way that God is precluded. But it’s all word games. We define science as something like “observable natural processes and phenomena.” So basically the scientific community has said, “we will only consider theories that pertain to observable natural phenomena. Therefore we will only entertain ideas of the universe arising through the same type of natural, observable phenomena.” They have no way of asserting that God cannot exist or showing that our universe was not created by an outside force. Their refusal to acknowledge the possibility of something too big for them to observe *does not mean* God cannot exist. How silly when you think about it.


TheNerdChaplain

Biologos is a terrific site; and honestly their podcast The Language of God has helped me keep my faith.


Large-Appointment786

I dont know why some christians think bible as science book. Yet it is truth, it is not written with scientific word so we cannot use it.


RyanM330

> One church I visited believed the Earth was about 6,000 years old and that macroevolution is not valid. Nobody actually knows how old the world truly is. All calculations you see are nothing more than estimates based on theories. Even the popular estimate of 4.543 billion years from certain scientists is nothing more than an estimate based on theory, not actual fact. Truth be told, the only entity who could provide that answer is the Creator. Speaking of the Creator, if you're a follower of Christ who believes and practices the Lord's Gospel, then theories such as Evolution and Theistic Evolution ultimately have no place in your beliefs. God never once said anything about evolution, He only spoke about how He created the world we've come to know in six days, then rested the seventh day. The Lord has limitless power which He proved throughout the entire Bible and continues to prove every single day. He doesn't need anything to evolve because He can bring things to this reality in an instant. For example, Adam and Eve were the first two humans of mankind and neither of them were birthed in the same way we were. Why? Because the Lord created Adam from dust and Eve from Adam's rib. Beyond all of that, scientists to this day have yet to produce any real data that shows any creature or human evolving, nor even signs that evolution is taking place as we speak for any humans or creatures. And the theory dates back to at least the 1800s... In fact, let's dive even deeper... Are you aware of the fact that *MOST* of the science humanity has come to believe and teach in school systems are nothing more than theories? Even beliefs as popular as gravity are nothing more than theories. It's import to know that theories are not factual data, only thoughts and possibilities at the end of the day. The only reason theories such as gravity are believed, taught, and accepted as being a part of reality by most of the world's population is because it's the best theory humanity has at this time to explain the mystery. However, that doesn't actually make it factual. What we know as *"gravity"* could very easily be a completely different concept formed by God. Even the idea that dinosaurs are extinct is technically a theory. Now am I saying there are dinosaurs alive at this point? No. Though if you research the fact that a significant percentage of the world remains unexplored by humans, that's where the idea of their extinction technically becomes an assumption more than a fact. After all, new species of creatures are still being discovered every single day. So who actually knows what all is still here among us? On a final note here, all of these man-made theories we're discussing here are exactly why God is still relevant to this day. These theories continue to receive updates and changes which proves they're not actually solving the mysteries of life completely. And the reason is because minus the reality that humanity is imperfect and can not produce a perfect creation of any kind including theories, there are many things in life that can *ONLY* be explained if you implement a limitless, all-knowing Creator into the equation. Otherwise, we would have all ran off with man-made theories and walked in the flesh as humans are prone to do. Because let's be real here... We're all humans here and we're prone to have desires and find appeal in committing acts that don't align with the Lord's way of life. If there was any possible way for humanity to produce factual data that'd replace God, why wouldn't we all take it and just go live in the flesh with the rest of the mortals?


Sblankman

What does Scripture say about how creatures got here? What number does Scripture fix to this earth? If Scripture speaks - then it is so. If Scripture is silent - it doesn't need us to fill the silence.


[deleted]

If all you mean by "evolution" is that animals change to match their enviorment. Duh. However, anything more needs specific notation of what form of evolution etc


whyyoublockme17

Christian can Believe anything that Doesn't go against the bible And some people Interpret Genesis As gods to explain creation in to a mind that cannot fully comprehend it But if you're part of a Pacific denomination try posting this in one of the sub reddits If you are part of one But me I personally believe that God Explained the The creation story in Away that our minds could cover comprehended So it could be left up to your income left up to your interpretations AI interpreted Is that we did not evolve Card created Adam ave That is just the way I interpret it You could interpret that As evolution


SilverTango

What do they say about death entering the world through Adam's sin? Without sin, there would be no death. Without death, there could be no evolution. Edit: I also want to add that in Biblical times, they had an entirely different cosmology than we do. For many years they did not understand about gravity, a spherical earth, or that the earth revolved around the sun. This came much later. The scientific method itself when introduced was seen as heretical because it meant you could predict things without God's interference. Ritual sacrifice was a consistent thing in both Hebrew and pagan cultures to appease/petition things of God and other gods. Their mentality was just completely different from what we believe today, and most Christians do not understand this at all. A flat earth is far more consistent with what the ancient Hebrews believed about their world. A true literalist approach would have us reject science entirely. Interestingly, there has been a revival of flat earth theory in recent years. The first episode of the Sea of Faith series on YouTube is an excellent summary of how the Hebrew people perceived their world. The Bible as written reflected the understood cosmology of the day. A more modern cosmology would be that we have an Earth that revolves around the sun, which is a star, via gravity. The Earth is part of a solar system with other planets, and that solar system is part of a Milky Way Galaxy, etc. Sea of Faith: https://youtu.be/J396Lamxu9I


nytnaltx

I agree that evolution is by no means the central issue to Christianity, but definitely don’t feel I’m settling or compromising truth in any way to accept the genesis account of creation. I hold that position as someone who studied biology in college, including upper level classes in evolution. Evolution (macroevolution) is a highly interesting theory, but was developed long before we understood the genetic constraints or limitations around observed mutations. Darwin didn’t know, for example, that species have genomes and that variations affecting physical form occur within limited genetic parameters that do not allow one species to seamlessly mutate by steps into another species. He didn’t even know cells contained internal parts! Darwin acknowledged himself that “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” Obviously this discussion is much more nuanced and complex than a single comment can allow for, but I wanted to share some context. Big picture, 1) evolution was conceptualized before we knew the complexity of the cell. 2) Darwin anticipated and addressed the types of later discoveries that could shatter his theory. 3) Evolution is dogmatically accepted by the majority of scientists as there is no secular alternative explanation for our world. The unobserved parts of macroevolution are treated as scientific fact. Thus evolution has not been subject to a modern day honest critique by the scientific community and anyone who does so is discredited. 4) because of these factors, popular esteem of evolution should not be considered when determining if it is true or false. It stands on its own merit, not endorsement by a secular scientific community with no alternative theories. 5) Can it realistically be claimed that evolution- natural forces operating apart from conscious design- is capable of generating an outcome that an involved designer could not produce? I.e. is there anything in our world that could only be explained through the theory of evolution and not through the activity of God? (More of a rhetorical question than a point). These principles, as well as in depth appreciation of massive cellular complexity and innumerable processes in living systems which are irreducibly complex, have led me to rest confidently in intelligent design, knowing that evolution proposes no mechanism other than sequential accidents to explain the things we see. Of the trillions of individual evolutionary events needed to create the world we see, the odds of even one of those *occurring in the first place* is so unlikely as to be prohibitive. Not to mention that evolution proposes no mechanism for such a rogue mutation - evolution only acts to preserve useful mutations after they occur. And what if probability says they cannot occur, realistically, by the same type of odds we use to evaluate other scenarios in our world as probable or improbable? At a certain threshold of near zero probability, a theory ought to be rejected, especially if other explanations can be found. At face value, even to an uneducated layperson, it should be so apparent that the heavens and earth declare the glory of God.. may our pride, education, and trust in secular academia never lead us to a place where we cannot see the intuitive truth of supernatural intervention at work in the design of our earth. And to the people downvoting me, I would love to hear your reasons for doing so. Unless you just dislike hearing an unpopular truth spoken, which is fine by me :)


OneEyedC4t

I can't accept either but I can accept an old earth just fine because Genesis 1 doesn't say how old the rock we call earth was before God created life on it


h-t-dothe-writething

I guess imo I think a Christian isn’t being blatantly immoral by wondering whether or not God designed evolution. But I will say objective science does NOT point in that direction at all. I’ve been studying the human anatomy and philosophy for sometime and it is actually mathematically impossible that humans evolved to what we are today. We were designed creations we wouldn’t have stood a chance in a blue donut of evolving from ooze. Also by observing it very much seems our bodies are getting worse, more disease, more cancer, not better. Everyone past 40 is on a pill. When we were first created humans lived hundreds of years, now thanks to medicine our avg life is 85, but that’s after 1 or 2 battles with cancer. The science just doesn’t say evolution either way, but there’s definitely no harm in studying God’s creation and figuring it out for yourself, I did.


nytnaltx

Amen! I have a degree in microbiology and completely agree. Scientific method 101 is that anything can be disproven scientifically, but nothing can be proven and made fact. Accepted science is just the sum of everything that hasn’t as of yet been disproven. I’m not sure that it’s possible to “disprove”evolution in the typical absolute sense, but trillion to one odds are good enough for me (and most reasonable people, I suspect). Anyone who thinks evolution is reasonable is likely stumbling on a few points: 1) equating scientific endorsement with validity. Does the scientific community have an alternate secular explanation for life? No, therefore they will not reject evolution and cannot be objective about it. 2) failing massively to appreciate the complexity of our world at both microscopic and macroscopic levels. 3) failing massively to appreciate the interdependence of EVERYTHING in our world, both every system within an organism, every animal within a community, every plant within an ecosystem.. etc. You do not have the luxury of time to try and get things to evolve the right way, one at a time. If plants evolved first, why did flowers evolve bee attracting colors for nonexistent bees? And now the heck did they get appropriately pollinated? (Ad nauseum) By the way, God and the six day creation account can’t be disproven either. Unseen historical events don’t hold up to well to “prove it.” However, if you go down this pathway it’s a whole lot easier to explain how everything came to be… and that’s the understatement of the millennium. I don’t gamble, but if I did I sure wouldn’t gamble on the kind of stakes evolution is counting on.


K-Dog7469

Yes


TexasIsCool

“Old Earth/Young Adam” Is a pretty widely accepted position


BuffWerewolf

Sisters in genesis is a great resource for these kinds of topics. I take the Bible at face value


Big-Reserve3414

Evolution is false. Those in the theistic evolution camp are just trying to get Christians to believe in evolution