Does anybody here have a strong belief in Theistic Evolution?

Jaime - posted on 03/10/2012

i really don't think anything in the Bible should be taken too literally. when it was written, the concept of adaptation of animals was not even considered. and animals very obviously adapt to their surroundings over time. perfect example: cats. but anyway, if you want to take the Bible entirely literally then...i don't even have anything to say about that.



but if you want to treat it as a collection of stories and rules that helped the people of that time form a collective "government" of sorts, then it's easy to realize that evolution is indeed a possibility.



as i've stated in a similar discussion, i believe evolution is merely adaptation over an extended period of time, as in thousands of years. humans have changed so much in only a hundred years, imagine what it was like thousands of years ago. we were definitely not the same back then as we are now. dig up a corpse from Jesus' time and you'd know what i mean. we were shorter, smaller, ate and did things differently. look at how differently we all are NOW, never mind back then. look at Asia. the eldest are so short and small, but the younger generations are getting taller and taller. look at their diets and what they do: the elder Asians eat rice, vegetables, and seafood generally (just generally speaking, it's likely that most think of China and Japan when someone mentions Asia, i know Indians have a much more varied appetite) and do a lot of manual labor. the younger generation, especially those that now live in the US and other non-Asian countries, eat more processed foods and more red meat with more hormones, and manual labor is not an issue anymore since businesses are so mechanized now. THAT is adaptation. that's not in the Bible. but it's still real.



if the Bible included EVERYTHING THAT EVER WAS AND EVER WILL BE then we would need an 18 wheeler to carry it all. and since 18 wheelers were not around in the 18th century (forgive me if there were but you know what i mean) never mind in the thousands of years before Jesus, it would be very impractical to include all of that. besides, why would God want us to know everything? isn't that His job?



i also think it's silly that religious people claim God is all-powerful yet limit His abilities by saying that evolution isn't real because it isn't in the Bible. like i said, there's a lot of stuff that isn't there that is obviously real. and as i said in the other discussion, evolution is just another creation story, which every culture has. and by culture i mean any group of people that has a set of rules and ideas, a form of "government." your work place is a culture unto itself, as is your home (SO, kids, pets), your extended family (grandparents, etc), your neighborhood, your church, your town, your county, your state or province, your country, and the entire world. everything is a community, a culture. every culture has its own creation story, and to me evolution is just another one for the scientists and those who believe in evolution.



so yes, i believe it's very possible to believe in Christ and evolution at the same time. in fact, i think it's limiting God to NOT believe it. with God everything is possible. why say something is not?

Jen - posted on 03/09/2012

The old testament is chock full of stories that historically never happened so chances are the genesis story should not be taken literally.

Hannah - posted on 03/09/2012

I don't like intelligent design as I believe it promotes God of the gaps and as those gaps get smaller... I think it's perfectly ok to believe in God and evolution as long as you don't take the bible literally (almost impossible as it has contradictions.) One thing I do find interesting is that the Genisis account of creation is similar to the evolution story e.g. the oceans, land, plants, sea creatures, bugs, mankind. You'd think mankind would be first in an account of the Earth's creation but they are last which is more in accordance with evolution. There are however three accounts merged into one, the point is Genisis creation story is a simple way of showing Gods's hand in creation. I think if God gave us an accurate scientific description we wouldn't have understood it and probably still wouldn't understand it.

Rosie - posted on 08/31/2011

did you even watch the video i put up julie? it explains how virus evolve pretty awesomely. i highly recommend. i have trouble understanding how someone who claims to have studies this stuff for 14 years could come to the conclusion that it's hogwash. AND that intelligent design ISN'T. where's your science proving god created it all? please enlighten us..
and the statement that you would still go with intelligent design even if you had never heard of the bible is impossible to state. if there was no bible there would be no intelligent design of the christian god. not sure where you could come up with all that all on your own...

Jenny - posted on 08/31/2011

Loved that Jenni

Jenni - posted on 08/31/2011

Julie L,



"Viruses do not "evolve". They simply mutate - sometimes by degradation of their own contents, or other times by inserting bits of other viruses in to them."



Mutating is part of evolution. Viruses mutate and adapt to their environment.

The sudden ability of the new swine flu virus to hop from pigs to humans and then to skip from person to person, at least in Mexico, is an excellent example of evolution at work.



If that's the case then I guess there's no point in any of us getting the flu shot year after year. We should only require one shot.



"It's like saying someone who loses an arm has "evolved" or someone who has had a heart transplant has "evolved"."



Mutations can either be beneficial, neutral or detrimental. If they are beneficial or neutral the individual is likely to survive and produce more offspring. If it is detrimental, the individual is not likely to pass on it's genes and will die out.

Amputation is a poor example, this is not a genetic mutation and this could not be passed down to offspring.



"I've been studying various forms of science at uni for 14 years now and I'm yet to see anything that backs up Evolution. I'm not talking about microevolution otherwise known as "natural selection" which is compatible with a literal view of Genesis. I'm talking about macro evolution, which is what is know generally as "Evolution" which is the microbes to man theory."



You would not see (visually watch it happening) evidence of 'macro evolution' as it occurs over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. "Macro evolution" is the same thing as "micro evolution" over a much longer, almost unimaginable period of time. If you believe in "micro evolution", how is it even possible to not believe in "macro evolution"? Unless of course you are also assuming the Earth is only approximately 10 000 years old. Which if you are, then obviously that's why you can't believe in Evolution. Evolution and a theistic theory on the Earth being 10 000 years old cannot coexist.



"The reality is, the more you study evolution, the more bitterly divided you see those who believe in it are. The more you see how repeatedly parts of it are proven wrong. How there are a huge disagreements over the order of when things evolved, how old things are, how badly out of whack some dating methods are - ideas about physics and biology are constantly being disproven and changed to try and make evolution fit in - and the third science, chemistry, can only really say they are yet to find any way for life to have formed randomly."



I'm pretty sure the only 'scientists' who are debating evolution are IDT scientists. The actual Science Community all agree that Evolution did and does take place.

The only people who would be divided on Evolution are those who refuse to accept it because it contradicts their spiritual beliefs. ie: Fundamentalist Christians. The rest of us are not divided and do not become more divided the more we learn about Evolution. Simply, more convinced.





"The truth is, academically, I have more respect for atheists than christian "theistic evolutionists". I respect all of them as people, but when it comes to academic thoughts, I simply do not know how anyone can be a christian theistic evolutionist."



I completely disagree. For the simple fact that the KJV Bible is a overly translated, perverted version of the OHT. Touched by the hands of many ambitious Kings and men.





"From Jesus' statements, he obviously believed (knew) that Genesis was literal. Genesis is written using literal wording. And if Genesis is not literal, then death existed before adam, which negates everything the bible says, mainly because there was no point in Jesus coming down to earth to save people from Adam's sin."



The account of Jesus was also not recorded until 300 years AD. There were various accounts of Jesus' teachings, who he was and how he lived. It wasn't until 300 years later that Constantine the Great decided which accounts to include and which to disclude, which version of his teachings to go with and which to omit. That's why there are stories of Jesus turning water into wine when this is a 'miracle' attributed to Dionysus. (Amoung many other conventional Pagan ideas surrounding religion).



I would recommend that you do some research on the history of the KJV Bible.



"You can be a deistic evolution - one who believes in a god. Just as you can believe in intelligent design and not believe in evolution (as many scientist are coming out as)without belieing in a god.



But believing the bible pretty much precludes believing in evolution. The bible spells out quiet clearly how the world got here. If people don't believe it, then be honest about what religion they follow."



Belief in god encompasses a whole range of beliefs, theories, interpretations and denominations. What makes you an authority on what makes a 'true Christian'? ....isn't that something only God can know and judge...



"Finally, I totally don't understand why people are so hung up on Evolution. Even if I had never heard of the bible, or Jesus or christianity, I would still go with intelligent design. Evolution is a crackpot theory which makes no sense, is illogical, and constanty being disproven. One doesn't have to spend long studying science at a tertiary level to see the beautiful design in the universe. From subatomic particles to galaxies - the order within them is amazing. Human beings are only just starting to barely scratch the surface of being able to control our environment - with things like medical science (eg growing new body parts), or agricultural science (grafting genes from one plant to another to make a more hardy plant) and on and on. And yet despite the greatest minds of our times working on it, we still aren't intelligent enough to always get it right (eg when introducing foreign genes, it can cause immensely bad effects long term). Our greatest minds can barely create the basics of our universe. I have no idea how anyone can ignore the great intelligence that went into creating life and the universe.



I honestly cannot see the fascination with an illogical theory like evolution."



Yes... and a belief in a literal account of creation in a overly translated, selective, perverted, subjectively interpretable, agenda-laden (couple thousand year old) text is so much more "logical".......



The only people who have a problem accepting Evolution are Creationists and their 'so called' scientists..... just sayin.



The science community has no agenda to disprove some deity.

But IDT scientists *do* have an agenda to disprove anything they feel disputes their beliefs in said deity.



I wonder who is more bias? *pondering*

Minnie - posted on 08/31/2011

Fundamentalists always use the eye as evidence that evolution is bunk but as we can see the eye has evolved as well, from spots that only sense light and dark to highly specialized binocular color vision like ours and some birds. Even our own eyes aren't as specialized as birds, who can see in the UV spectrum.

Isobel - posted on 08/31/2011

Early eyes

The basic light-processing unit of eyes is the photoreceptor cell, a specialized cell containing two types of molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. Groups of such cells are termed "eyespots", and have evolved independently somewhere between 40 and 65 times. These eyespots permit animals to gain only a very basic sense of the direction and intensity of light – enough to know when they are safely in a cave[citation needed], for example, but not enough to discriminate an object from its surroundings.[17]

Developing an optical system that can discriminate the direction of light to within a few degrees is apparently much more difficult, and only six of the thirty-something phyla[note 2] possess such a system. However, these phyla account for 96% of living species.[17]
The planarian has "cup" eyespots that can slightly distinguish light direction.

These complex optical systems started out as the multicellular eyepatch gradually depressed into a cup, which first granted the ability to discriminate brightness in directions, then in finer and finer directions as the pit deepened. While flat eyepatches were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate exactly the same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon the light's angle. Pit eyes, which had arisen by the Cambrian period, were seen in ancient snails,[clarification needed] and are found in some snails and other invertebrates living today, such as planaria. Planaria can slightly differentiate the direction and intensity of light because of their cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented retina cells, which shield the light-sensitive cells from exposure in all directions except for the single opening for the light. However, this proto-eye is still much more useful for detecting the absence or presence of light than its direction; this gradually changes as the eye's pit deepens and the number of photoreceptive cells grows, allowing for increasingly precise visual information.[19]

When a photon is absorbed by the chromophore, a chemical reaction causes the photon's energy to be transduced into electrical energy and relayed, in higher animals, to the nervous system. These photoreceptor cells form part of the retina, a thin layer of cells that relays visual information,[20] including the light and day-length information needed by the circadian rhythm system, to the brain. However, some jellyfish, such as Cladonema, have elaborate eyes but no brain. Their eyes transmit a message directly to the muscles without the intermediate processing provided by a brain.[16]

During the Cambrian explosion, the development of the eye accelerated rapidly, with radical improvements in image-processing and detection of light direction.[21]
.................................
wikipedia

Michele - posted on 08/31/2011

There are some "jumps" in macroevolution that are harder to understand - granted that I don't have much time for research these days. There are complicated structures (such as the eye) that are there or not. Are (or were) there intermediate structures for vision or did all of the mutations happen at once? Chemistry was/is my field, so my biology knowledge is not as great.

Minnie - posted on 08/30/2011

And that, I believe is the definition of a species? An organism that can produce fertile offspring? So once genetic mutation has changed so much within a species that specific genotypes can't even produce viable offspring they are officially separate species...

I think again it's coming down to the fact that we operate within such a short time period ourselves that we have a really difficult time comprehending how those mutations can lead to a separate species. People are expecting something hugely significant coming from one organism to another...but we're talking about billions of years.

Isobel - posted on 08/30/2011

equating evolution to amputation is ridiculous. mutation becomes evolution when the mutation is beneficial to the offspring and the offspring reproduces the same mutation to the next generation.

It's like when you consider that our ancestors started in Africa, where we needed dark skin to protect us from the strong sun...as people moved into parts of the world with less sun, they didn't get enough vitamin D and their skin started to lighten in order to let in enough sunlight.

I am quite certain that we will witness MACRO-evolution within our lifetime...it seems impossible to me that ALL dogs within the next 50 years will still be able to mate successfully with a wolf

JuLeah - posted on 08/30/2011

The culmination of most all creation stories ends with: And then there was man



How arrogant can we be?



We think we are the end all and be all to creation? How interesting that our own creation story casts us as the lead. And, if any part of the creation story is true, then we were asked to care for this planet; the animals, the water, the air, the plants …. If there is a God judging us based on that request we are all going to hell :0



And, if creation did end with us, explain how and why things keep evolving ….



I guess that kind of blows me away too. All these people that talk about how God created this planet for us, yet … Or even the folks that believe in evolution. … 10 million years of evolution resulted in a balance on this earth between plants, animals, birds …. We all have what need to live; our food source evolved as we evolved.



Yet, we cook up formula in a lab and called it better then breast milk. (Not intending to start a bf / formula debate) making a point. If you believe in evolution, then you understand that the mammal female has all the nutrition her off spring needs: we evolved that way



If you believe in creation, then you understand God created breasts milk and intended it to nourish a baby.



Yet, we spend a few short years in a lab cooking up a powdered formula that we deem superior. In the 1960’s women were discouraged from bf and told the man made junk was better.



We admit we don’t even know all that is in breasts milk, but ya, it’s better then what God/Nature intended.



We created a way of life, food products, and environments that make us ill. Do we return to nature, our source, where God/evolution intended us to live? No, we cook up drugs in a lab to ‘cure’ ourselves.



All medicines we might ever need can be found in nature, but …..



I can’t really wrap my brain around this either. You believe in God or you don’t. You believe in Nature or your don’t.



But, we seem to say, we believe, yet live, eat, work, in ways that remove us from what we claim to believe.



We give out kids processed junk, not the carrots and apples nature and/or God made. We later ask why we are all so sick … hummm…. And we take drugs, also cooked up in a lab, which have side effects, for which we take more drugs …. With every generation we move further from source, further from where we were intended to live, further from nature, further from God, further from spirit, creator …. And we question why we are all so depressed, so tense, so stressed out … do we return to the life we were meant to life? No, we take drugs, we drink, we smoke, be buy more stuff and a bigger car …..



Can’t understand



In cultures where people live as we were meant to live, close to the earth, there are not such things as insomnia, or mental illness, or anorexia, or kleptomania, or …. Ulcers or stress related illness …..



Research has shown that our ancient ancestors lived longer lives then we do today, and were healthier.



We think of cave people as dying off at 30, but the research just doesn’t back that up.

Jenny - posted on 08/30/2011

Look forward to it :)

Jenny - posted on 08/30/2011

I totally agree. You cant believe in "micro-evolution" without automatically believing in "macro-evolution". If you believe in one, you believe in the other by default. There is no big JUMP in evolution, its lots of little tiny jumps.

But you must know that, as that is evolution basics. Why would "microevolution" stop after a certain period of time? Is it only feasible in 100 variations, but not 100,000? I don't get how you can separate the two knowing as much as you know.

JuLeah - posted on 08/30/2011

My notes on this are long Jenny. I'll send you an email.

Krista - posted on 08/30/2011

I've been studying various forms of science at uni for 14 years now and I'm yet to see anything that backs up Evolution. I'm not talking about microevolution otherwise known as "natural selection" which is compatible with a literal view of Genesis. I'm talking about macro evolution, which is what is know generally as "Evolution" which is the microbes to man theory.


Ah, but that is your mistake. You cannot separate the two, any more than you can say that you believe in 100 teaspoons of water, but not a glass of water.

The microevolution is simply all of the tiny, almost imperceptible changes that have taken place. If you view them all collectively, over a very, very long period of time, then THERE is your "macro" evolution.

And lastly, something to ponder. Just because science doesn't have all of the answers (or always the right answers), why do you assume that the default answer is "God did it"? Has it never occurred to you that there may be a billion other possibilities out there, most of which we humans have never dreamed? Frankly, I think it shows a real lack of imagination and humility on humanity's part to say, "Well, we don't know the answer, so that MUST mean that (insert deity here) did it!!!"

Jenny - posted on 08/30/2011

If evolution is so full of holes why isn't ID the current theory taught in schools? Is evolution just one big conspiracy from the devil?

I get what you say about how could one possibly believe in the Bible & evolution. That's kind of what I'm thinking as I have a fundamentalist background so it's hard to understand how the two match up. But I like to give things the benefit of the doubt, just in case I'm wrong.

I'd like to hear out theistic evolution before I rule it out as an option for myself, but I'm having trouble getting solid information on it.

And I can't say that I have total belief in the bible. I give both sides of the argument the benefit of the doubt, and am interested in what people like JuLeah have to say about their view on it. Would love to know more about the Jewish interpretation of Genesis, or the whole bible for that matter, but don't want to solely rely on google to get that information.

Julie - posted on 08/30/2011

Viruses do not "evolve". They simply mutate - sometimes by degradation of their own contents, or other times by inserting bits of other viruses in to them.

It's like saying someone who loses an arm has "evolved" or someone who has had a heart transplant has "evolved".

I've been studying various forms of science at uni for 14 years now and I'm yet to see anything that backs up Evolution. I'm not talking about microevolution otherwise known as "natural selection" which is compatible with a literal view of Genesis. I'm talking about macro evolution, which is what is know generally as "Evolution" which is the microbes to man theory.

The reality is, the more you study evolution, the more bitterly divided you see those who believe in it are. The more you see how repeatedly parts of it are proven wrong. How there are a huge disagreements over the order of when things evolved, how old things are, how badly out of whack some dating methods are - ideas about physics and biology are constantly being disproven and changed to try and make evolution fit in - and the third science, chemistry, can only really say they are yet to find any way for life to have formed randomly.

The truth is, academically, I have more respect for atheists than christian "theistic evolutionists". I respect all of them as people, but when it comes to academic thoughts, I simply do not know how anyone can be a christian theistic evolutionist.

From Jesus' statements, he obviously believed (knew) that Genesis was literal. Genesis is written using literal wording. And if Genesis is not literal, then death existed before adam, which negates everything the bible says, mainly because there was no point in Jesus coming down to earth to save people from Adam's sin.

You can be a deistic evolution - one who believes in a god. Just as you can believe in intelligent design and not believe in evolution (as many scientist are coming out as)without belieing in a god.

But believing the bible pretty much precludes believing in evolution. The bible spells out quiet clearly how the world got here. If people don't believe it, then be honest about what religion they follow.

It's like some people are scared to say "hey I don't believe in the bible" because they think it will make them a bad person. When in reality, they are some fantastic atheists and there are some really awful christians. Being a christian doesn't make someone a good person, nor does being an atheist or being agnostic (not knowing what to believe whether God exists or not) or a deist (someone who believes that a god exists, just not necessarily the God of the bible) make someone a bad person.

It is ok for people to come out and say "hey I have moral, I'm a good person, I just don't believe what the bible says and therefore I can't call myself a christian"

Finally, I totally don't understand why people are so hung up on Evolution. Even if I had never heard of the bible, or Jesus or christianity, I would still go with intelligent design. Evolution is a crackpot theory which makes no sense, is illogical, and constanty being disproven. One doesn't have to spend long studying science at a tertiary level to see the beautiful design in the universe. From subatomic particles to galaxies - the order within them is amazing. Human beings are only just starting to barely scratch the surface of being able to control our environment - with things like medical science (eg growing new body parts), or agricultural science (grafting genes from one plant to another to make a more hardy plant) and on and on. And yet despite the greatest minds of our times working on it, we still aren't intelligent enough to always get it right (eg when introducing foreign genes, it can cause immensely bad effects long term). Our greatest minds can barely create the basics of our universe. I have no idea how anyone can ignore the great intelligence that went into creating life and the universe.

I honestly cannot see the fascination with an illogical theory like evolution.

Rosie - posted on 08/30/2011

like laura, i don't believe in god. however i feel that someone can be a christian and believe that god set evolution in motion. there's to much evidence to prove that evolution exists- just look at viruses, they evolve. evolution simply isn't some "theory" it's as much of a fact as the "theory" of gravity. we see it, we know it happens it IS. here's a little video (it's long, but interesting) about virus evolution. http://youtu.be/afm3vjn0PuQ



for me personally, i cannot know all the things i know now about the bible and take anything literally out of it anymore. so i simply cannot believe that "god" started the process of evolution either.

for others who find things contradictory, they can still believe in their god and evolution at the same time. it just is all in how you perceive things i guess.

Anna - posted on 08/30/2011

I can't speak for other Christians, but I'm Catholic, and Catholic teaching is pretty specific about the first few chapters of Genesis and what exactly is to be taken as fact. From what I can remember, none of it really contradicts the theory of evolution, most of it just has to do with how sin entered the world. The only part about the Creation of the world that Catholics are required to believe is that first there was nothing but God, and everything that came to be is from God, and God created humans to be set apart from the rest of Creation, in that they have dominion over it, etc. The rest of it is not necessarily to be taken literally.
Personally, I am skeptical of certain parts of the theory of evolution, simply in that I don't believe it has been scientifically proven to the extent that some would claim it has been. If we ever reach the point that it is proven, I will have no problem reconciling it with my religious views.

Michele - posted on 08/30/2011

I do believe in theistic evolution. I view the creation story as similar to the way we as parent explain some some concepts to our childen in an age-appropriate way. Telling your kids details about meiosis/mitosis when they ask where babies come from would be silly. I believe that God has given us the privilege of learning about his creation.

Alison - posted on 08/30/2011

I figured you wanted more of an explanation; I just know that there are some things we don't have all the answers for and that's where faith comes in. But I think everyone has a point where they have to struggle and choose what's most important to them and it's harder for science people who have such analytical minds. :O) (My husband is a geologist). Here's just a little more explanation from a Web site I found about the "day" interpretation and then I'll bow out of this conversation. http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.htm...


"And the evening and the morning were the ____ day."

Needless to say much has been written on the subject of the creation days of Genesis. The poetic simplicity of Genesis 1 leaves much to the imagination. Can these days of the creation be different than a literal 24 hour day? First consider Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 that follow which indicate that time to the Lord is very different than time is to man.

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday"
when it is past, and as a watch in the night."
"... that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day."


Some have taken the two passages above to mean that one day is exactly one thousand years, but it is not a mathematical formula since 1000 years is compared to both yesterday (24 hours) and a 3 hour watch in the night. It appears more likely that they mean that the Lord exists completely outside of our time domain and can look upon all of our life's history at one time simultaneously, as he wishes. He obviously created the universe with our beautiful planet and all its wonderful living things as He wished and on His own time basis.

JuLeah - posted on 08/30/2011

AND, if you look at the stories from different perspectives, the Hebrew text (in ancient Hebrew) the Koran … you will find the language to be very different, therefore the story itself is very different.



1) Adam and Eve were not literal humans – more metaphor, ideas … and in the original version HUGE, like the Titians



2) Adam and Eve were created together – hermaphrodites, conjoined twins … depending on how you read the story – they were joined back to back – God separated them, but didn’t take Eve from Adam’s rib … that bit was added later by men wishing to oppress women



Some versions of the story also mention Lilith, who preceded Eve as the “first woman” – again metaphor, not literal.



A collection of stories handed down orally for hundreds of years before being written in a language so old there is not a living person who is fluent; a collection of stories translated and retranslated from language to language by people with greater and lesser understanding of the original language and under political pressure to gear the stories to a specific audience …. CANNOT be taken literally



On reread, this sounds harsh. I just can't wrap my brain around this idea.



I have been told by people who believe that the KJV of the Bible, for example, is the Word of God - Literally! the Word of God. I have been told by others that their version is the Word of God - literally the Word of God.



But, they are each reading different translations, so ....



And, the KJV came along late in Christian history, so everyone reading a bible prior to the King James was reading what? I mean, King James added his own ideas, took out things he didn't like and was not shy about admitting that, so if his is the real bible, what were the versions prior?



I just don't get it

Minnie - posted on 08/30/2011

Some books that might be helpful to you:



-When Faith and Science Collide- A Biblical Approach to Evaluating Evolution and the Age of the Earth by Gregg Davidson



-The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton



-Beyond Creation Science by Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn



I believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ. I also firmly believe in evolution. Science doesn't negate the Bible. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution.



Much of the Bible is poetry and story-telling. Much of it isn't literal. I believe that Genesis is a story of the setting up of the covenants. Not a literal account of the age of the earth and how living species came about.



I think the block you're coming up against is that you're trying to interpret the creation story in a literal sense- since such and such a creation was listed at this point in the book, that must have been when it happened. But if you go ahead and interpret a lot of the Bible literally, from the perspective of a western person, you're going to come up with some problems. Like the rod verses, for example.



The Bible was written to Hebrews, who are an oriental people, with a circular, pictoral language. Their language and how the view the universe doesn't operate on the same plane as ours. Their frame of reference doesn't start at point A how we see it, and end at point B, but goes in a circle, with layers and layers of imagery. It's difficult for us from our culture to comprehend.

Jenny - posted on 08/29/2011

Not really.



The first veres in Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Light was created in verse 3 and more in verse 14"Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years"

I think that is the sun, at verse 14.



I dunno it makes no sense. Light in verse 3, but specifically in verse 14? By that time he had created all plant life (verse 11&12). So there was the earth before the sun.



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...

Jenny - posted on 08/29/2011

@ Laura. Yes I totally agree, but that for me is the Last Resort! lol. I want to exhaust all my options before I commit to such statements, because I feel like there is no going back from that.

Isobel - posted on 08/29/2011

creation says light before formation of the hills...sun before earth no?

Jenny - posted on 08/29/2011

Wish I could draw a table for this, but here's what a quick search brought up about the differences between Creation/Evolution

Creation Order
• Earth created before sun, stars (Gen 1.1, 1.14)
• Oceans created before land (Gen 1.2)
• Light created before the sun (Gen 1.3, Gen 1.14)
• Plants were first created life (Gen 1.11-12)
• Land plants created before sun (Gen 1.11-12,14-18)
• Birds created before insects (Gen 1.20, 1.24)
• Birds created before reptiles (Gen 1.20, 1.24)
• Man created before woman (Gen 1.26, 2.15,2.22)
• Creation is completed (Gen 2.2)

Evolution Order
• Sun, stars existed before earth
• Land existed before water
• The sun was Earth’s first light
• Marine organisms were first life
• Sun existed before land plants
• Insects existed before birds
• Reptiles existed before birds
• Woman existed before man (genetics)
• Creation process continues

Not to mention that God created everything according to its kind. Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind".

Isobel - posted on 08/29/2011

then science proves which one is right ;)

Jenny - posted on 08/29/2011

If only the bible was as clear as that. There is debate about there being two creation accounts in Genesis. Chapter 1 puts animals created first, then man and chapter 2 puts Adam created first with the animals coming after.

There are a lot of technical issues with the creation account paring up with evolution.

Isobel - posted on 08/29/2011

This is going to seem weird cause I don't believe in God, BUT I have FAR more respect for a person who believes that God lead evolution than somebody who can claim that God PLACED two humans here 6000-8000 years ago...the bible clearly states that first came light (the sun), then the earth, then the water (blah blah blah), the plants, THEN the animals...THEN humans...how difficult can it be to rectify that with evolution?

Jenny - posted on 08/29/2011

It's good to know that other Christians have the same questions I do. However I find that I would differ to you because things like Evolution are one of the things I do stress about. Cannot help it. It will change the way that I believe in God/Christ/Bible.



I like the idea that truth does not contradict truth. And I find it a far stretch to say that the "day" was not meant as a literal day. Especially when it says "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."



Even if the creation account in Genesis 1 some how did not mean literal days, we would then have to reconcile every single later reference in the bible with that non-literal interpretation. Just doesn't fit for me. Hoping someone has a better explanation...

Alison - posted on 08/29/2011

My husband and I are a little on the fence about evolution, but we talk about the possibility of it being a tool Christ used to create the species abundant on earth. If you don't take the word "day" literally in the Genesis, then reconciling the age of the earth with the account of creation isn't that difficult. The jury's still out with us on how Adam and Eve being the first people on the earth fits in with evolution. A brilliant chemist, Henry Eyring, was devoutly religious and gave a series of lectures on faith and science. His main point was that truth never contradicts truth, therefore there are no qualms between true science and true religion. If we cannot reconcile them, it is because our understanding isn't perfect. Evolution isn't something I stress about too much. I'm not a science person and I figure I'll know the details in the next life. :O) I think you were probably looking for more details, but I hope I helped a little in moral support or something.