A Popular Level Refutation of Theistic Evolution

Hey @gbrooks9. I recently completed a long journey over to the EC camp from a YEC background. You can read about it here:

I think you make some good points and I imagine that over here in the UK the numbers are much higher. However, I do wonder how convincing a YEC might find such statistics? Wouldn’t it be easier to accuse of us of arguments from the majority? It occurs to me that if one has already brought into a culture wars mentality, then it would be very easy to see oneself as part of a faithful minority.

Paul’s warning to Timothy is often co-opted to make this point:

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3, NIV2011)

What do you think?

2 Likes

I’m not denying that the fact that it does require some hard theological reflection. This reflection requires a rereading of scripture in light of the evidence and the evidence in light of scripture to ask whether we might have misunderstood the Bible on this point.

Then again, this is hardly the first time the church (and Christians) have had to ask such questions. In terms of science, the heliocentric view of the solar system is the most famous example, but there have been other examples, and not only in the realms of science. Theologically, the Protestant Reformation is the most obvious example. Socially, the work of abolitionists and suffragettes in the UK forced the church to revisits its scriptural view on slavery and the role of women in society. During, and especially in the aftermath of, WWII, many German Christians had some very tough questions to answer about the church’s support for the Nazi government and the extent to which one should submit to the state when the state is bent on evil. These are all things that we take for granted today, and on one level likely understand sub-conscientiously as we read the scriptures. However, church history tells us this has not always been the case, on such matters we see further because we are standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. If EC is correct then one day its view of death will be seen in scripture almost reflexively, if not then it will be forgotten along with the countless other failed interpretive models that litter the theological landfill of church history.

I’m not saying that EC’s are on the correct side of history and that future generations will vindicate us or anything as arrogant as that. I am merely pointing out there is precedent in church history to question settled opinions and established interpretations. In this way, the Lord works by his Spirit in his churches so that they are both self-critiquing and self-correcting. Evidently, much of the work of EC writers is (hopefully) gracious self-critique of the church; time will tell if it also part of the self-correction.* Either way, differences of theological opinion are a means of God’s grace intended to A. drive us back to scripture to see if such things are true and B. to help us to practice the virtues of love and patience towards those who disagree with us.

On the topic of death more generally, @Paul_Allen1, can we at least agree that there was some death in the natural world before the fall (animals, birds, fish, plants, insects, etc.)?.


* It seems to me that humility and the history of science requires me to leave the door open for the possibility of such a groundbreaking discovery that both ECs and YECs are shown to be incorrect.

7 Likes

Christy,

With respect, this article is not a nuanced view of sin and death. I would suggest it misrepresents scripture.

For example, the opening paragraph assumes the Biologos position.

“Without question, death has accompanied life since it first appeared on this planet millions of years ago, long before humans existed. The fossil record testifies to this fact. All death cannot be the result of human sinfulness”.

‘Substantial biblical evidence.’ The author is making an assertion without Biblical evidence.

"Although sin undoubtedly causes a great deal of suffering and premature death, substantial biblical evidence indicates that death—even human death—is simply part of the present creation and not the result of sin"

This paragraph is irrelevant to the topic. The homosexual activists use the same ‘silence of Jesus’ argument. Yet Jesus does connect sin to disease with the man at the pool. The purpose of these miracles was to bring glory to God.

“Jesus heals the sick and raises the dead during his ministry. Yet, he never blames human mortality on Adam and Eve. He doesn’t often address the origins of human death and suffering, but when he does, Jesus explicitly denies that disability, illness, natural disaster, and death are punishment for specific sins. Instead, he explains that God can work through such circumstances and also use them to call people to repentance.”

The author needs to do his research if he is going to quote Paul and Galatians 3. Why take our place? The purpose is clearly outlined in the OT sacrificial lamb of God.

“Jesus ultimately was rejected, tortured, and crucified. The sinless Jesus did not atone for sin by passing away in his sleep. Instead, taking our place required accepting the curse of being hung on a tree (Galatians 3). Christ, whom the New Testament repeatedly describes as the agent and organizing principle in the creation of the world, brings life through death.2”

The next paragraph first diverts the conversation, on God judging other aspects of life. Off-topic. But then makes the claim that death is part of God’s good creation?
Then he states - “death remains.” What did Jesus conquer? What does the resurrection state about death? Eternal life.

"If mortality is part of the original, good creation, how could the Apostle Paul call death “the last enemy” in 1 Corinthians 15? First, death is not the only enemy that Paul says God will judge. In this same passage, he also names rulers and authorities , though these are part of God’s good creation (Colossians 1). Paul elsewhere names all humanity as enemies of God (Romans 5). Paul names death an enemy, but death remains part of God’s good creation."

This next argument is simply wrong. At least he seeks to address the topic this time. Adam brought spiritual separation from God and brought physical death to all humanity. The author then gets lost in his own logic instead of referring to scripture.

“The various ways the Bible speaks of death are crucial to understanding Romans 5-8. In [Romans 5:12-21], Paul famously compares Adam’s disobedience to Christ’s obedience, and the death that came through Adam to the righteousness and life that come through Christ. How should we understand death in this difficult passage, given that the life received from Christ is spiritual life now, and eternal life following biological death? If the death Adam’s disobedience brought is biological, Paul’s logic seems to require that Christ’s obedience brought the end of biological death. Yet, Christians still die.”

With respect, Biologos needs a more nuanced…biblical view of sin and death

Yes, it assumes that Scripture is not the only source of truth about the world, and that science tells us true things.

The article goes on to discuss multiple references to death in context. That is the substantial biblical evidence. You are free to hand-wave away the evidence as not relevant to your concerns, but that doesn’t mean the author failed to present Scriptural arguments.

BioLogos is committed to interacting with the facts of science as well as what the Bible says. The facts of science clearly and irrefutably refute the idea that there was no physical death of humans until one man and woman sinned in a garden 6,000 years ago.

5 Likes

I have noted your comments and I disagree.
I see no benefit in further comments

Do you disagree with this statement:

1 Like

Ahh but can you be certain what happens when we depart from this mortal life?

Perhaps you need to redefine “death”?

Scripture is not simple, or simplistic so neither can our interpretation nor understanding of it be either.

Richard

@lm77

I think you misunderstand what it is I’m doing with the PEW survey data.

I have been told by more than one YEC (and even a few Atheists), that if a person accepts Evolution, then God could not use Evolution to shape life forms on Earth.

And yet that is the very core of my position. Evolution is to humanity like evaporation and condensation is to making rain. These are natural lawful processes … and God uses them … A LOT!

1 Like

I understand people say that a lot, however, it is flagrantly false. Humans use evolution to cultivate domesticated animals. Choosing favored characteristics. It’s not natural selection, but because of human involvement in the process. It is artificial selection, but it is still an evolutionary process mutation and (artificial) selection.

God in heaven could use the same process to cultivate favoured life forms on Earth.

“Supernatural selection” so to speak.

2 Likes

The problem is not a separate creation in chapters one and two. The split between Adam and Eve was the evolution of humanity. Eve did not happen on day six. In fact there was a 1000 year period of perfection without death before Eve was evolved in a single process.

The ramification is that on day six God created humanity that contained both genders. There was not even a biological function. Humans actually multiplied. It was not a combination of biological sperm and eggs. No death or mutation period. When a son of God multiplied out of necessity, it happened. Male and female traits were contained in and passed on with no changes for 1000 years. Necessity was determined by the economy to actually prevent death from occurring.

What sustained this economy? Genesis 1:29-30

29 Then God said, “Here! Throughout the whole earth I am giving you as food every seed-bearing plant and every tree with seed-bearing fruit.
30 And to every wild animal, bird in the air and creature crawling on the earth, in which there is a living soul, I am giving as food every kind of green plant.” And that is how it was.

Wrong interpretation: the plants and trees themselves. Nope, that is and would be death and destruction.

Truth: The fruit and seeds themselves. On day 3 God placed every every plant and tree into the ground. No seeds springing up. The whole earth was planted with the oxygen giving, seed and fruit producing plant and tree life covering the whole earth. All that would be done is the production of seeds and fruit. On day 5 was the creation of birds and fish. The birds ate seeds and fruit, and the fish cleaned up the waste. On day six all animal life and sons of God were created. The sons of God were in charge and the whole earth had an economy with only seeds and fruit as a commodity, and the fish cleaned up the waste. No seeds nor fruit died in the process of producing more plants and trees. It would mess up the perfect balance.

That is why chapter 2 verses 4-6 could never make sense. It is not creation out of order. It is the generations of the earth without death, and not a single seed died in the earth for 1000 years.

4 Here is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created. On the day when Adonai , God, made earth and heaven,
5 there was as yet no wild bush on the earth, and no wild plant had as yet sprung up; for Adonai , God, had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no one to cultivate the ground.
6 Rather, a mist went up from the earth which watered the entire surface of the ground.

It was not just because humans did not till the ground. It was true they did not have to. Even in nature, there was no seed or fruit allowed to die, in the ground, for 1000 years. It was called a Lord’s Day. God did not create nor change, nor allowed change to happen relating to death. Yes, the sons of God seemingly had to multiply rather quickly to gather up all the seeds and pick the fruit, and the birds and animals all helped in the process of running an economy that no seeds or fruit died but sustained life on earth. Animals and the sons of God would have been evenly spread across the face of the earth.

Now after 1000 years enter God. He planted Paradise the Garden and separated His chosen son of God, into a walled area, that would be home (eventually) to billions of this one son of God’s living space. He brought all the animals this particular son of God would need. God then had this individual call all the animals what this individual thought proper. Then God called this son of God, Adam. Then God did the next step and created a biological male and female. Then time started for Adam. 30 years later, Adam disobeyed. 100 years after that, Seth was born.

History of fallen humanity began. Cain and Abel were born in the Garden before the fall. Chapter 4 is their history separate from the other 3 chapters. They were perfect biological sons of God in the process of a separate male and female form. At the fall, Eve was changed biologically and birth would be forever changed. Cain was the only biological offspring of Adam with a full image of God, and he was male. We do not know if the sons of God were biologically forced to have genders or not. We do see that starting with Methusala, who had daughters before sons, that those daughters started a process of different types of mutations involving humans that would decay and eventually die with the sons of God.

For 1500 years, and the point death was certain, the sons of God now with the ability to kill and destroy, drastically changed the face of the earth, because they were actually God on earth. And no longer bound by God’s will. In fact that is why God finally declared, “His Spirit, the God part, would not always strive against them and their spirit.” Adam lost his connection with God at the fall. That is why he was cursed by God from even having offspring for 100 years. Seth also had to wait 105 years himself. That time frame kept dropping. This is the record that God left us in Genesis, in the first 4 chapters.

They definitely hold to a silly proposition of arrogance and ignorance.

Evolution through natural selection is easily summed up in beliefs about ecology. I believe the same thing about ecology as an atheist. None of it requires a belief in this or that God or none at all. It would be like if I argued that the laws of the universe had nothing to do with how everything went. It’s a statement that just makes no sense.

There theological response as others have pointed out is really uneducated. Even at face value some things should stand out winking at you.

Such as sin and death entered through one man… except did not Eve sin first? So how could
Sin and death literally enter through Adam when Eve messed up before him. It shows how loosely the tale was taken.

God is bigger than that.

Item 2 is some helpful insight into that verse from Matthew, thanks. On item 1, though, I’m not understanding how the verse supports the idea that Death is a name for Satan. In Mark 12:27, there’s the word ‘dead,’ which seems to me to refer to dead humans. What am I missing?

Well, Adam was given the rule before Eve was present, so it was very possibly his responsibility to communicate all the expectations when she came on the scene. To what extent did she know what the rule was? I’m not sure, but I’m wondering if it’s possible to say with certainty that the failure was primarily hers.

Dear Don,
Thanks for the note. Mark 12:26-27 says: “And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Further, 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 says: “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”

It is the “god of the dead” or Death that shall be the last enemy to be destroyed - the leader of the dead (fallen from God) - Satan.
Best wishes, Shawn

It was not sin. It was Adam’s disobedience to God. Philosophy and mind games was used on Eve. The point was not about eating to Eve. If Adam told her not to touch it, and never explained why, that would be Adam’s fault and irresponsibility. The experiment on avoiding any moment of Adam eating, could only happen once. It is not like Adam could keep experimenting on obeying God.