I think that @Mervin_Bitikofer and @beaglelady have backed themselves onto a broken false limb. They have followed a truth that evolution doesn’t have some kind of evolutionary goal like modern humans and over-extended this into claiming that evolution doesn’t make improvements – when it most obviously does. The evolutionary algorithm certainly does work – but the only criterion of biological evolution is survival, and there are MANY MANY MANY survival strategies. Some of them can even be described as evil – viruses which invade other organisms to steal their capabilities and resources while destroying them, cookoo birds which lay eggs in another bird’s nest to push babies there out of their nests. Thus there certainly is no goal of spiritual improvement in biological evolution. BUT that does not mean there are no improvements of any kind – for we see many examples of that.
If all you mean by improvements is survival strategies for the geological moment, then sure! I was speaking of improvement in the more value-laden sense. Only after we have decided (on quite non-scientific criteria) that larger cranial capacities represent progress or walking upright is to be preferred over knuckle dragging, - only then do we get to conclude that evolution has ‘improved’ things. But as a scientific thinker, it sounds suspiciously like, “evolution has made us more like we are now” … which is to say nothing about what should qualify as ‘improvement’ or not.
How could the process of evolution have goals? Are you into intelligent design?
There are no goals in the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution doesn’t work like a ladder.
If you think there are goals you should list them
Evolution makes an organism more fit for a particular environment.
The only changes which the process of evolution selects for are those which are an advantage for survival in the environment at that time. Survival is its only measure. But that tends to coincide with what we would judge as improvements by other measures – perhaps sometimes even moral improvements. But those other measurements are no universal criterion for the biological evolutionary process. I quibble and split hairs for the sake of better communication with adamjedgar. He sees improvements by some measure and we certainly do not argue that evolution did not produce them. And we have no reason to argue with his disputation of the idea in the OP that evolution is driven by an aim for spiritual improvement.
Calling it a “truth that evolution doesn’t have some kind of evolutionary goal” is to assert that it is true that evolution has no such goal. But from this adamgedgar has you defending the idea that evolution produces no improvements – and perhaps you should call “strawman tactic” on this.
Huh? Who are you quoting? Name some evolutionary goals
You insist on disagreeing with me so YOU must think evolution has goals. So YOU name some evolutionary goals. Its no wonder you are having a problem with adamjedgar when you make no effort whatsoever to communicate with people. This is a good example of caring more about being right than about finding out the truth as we discussed in the other thread.
Evolution doesn’t have goals. That is the truth.
But that doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t improve things. Obviously it does. The examples are so many… better vision, better hearing, better intelligence, better mobility… natural selection does that. These are not goals. But they are improvements.
What are you talking about?
Life implies the urge to improve. This is the essence of life. Furthermore, this urge to improve is what propels evolution. Therefore, life implies evolution and evolution implies improvement.
However, goals are conscious decisions. Evolution therefore does not require goals. It just happens as part of existence.
Consider any field of knowledge. It reveals improvement or evolvement. For example, take the case of elements. Every element is an improvement on an earlier element. There is no conscious effort here. One element evolves further to form another element.
Similarly, the ape man evolved over time into homo sapiens. This is not a conscious development.
Evolution does not require goals because it forms the essence of existence.
I don’t think so. Besides, evolution acts on populations, not on individuals.
Having lower intelligence, loose moral or increased tendency for aggressive behavior and raping might improve fitness in certain environments. Should we call these changes improvements if they increase fitness?
The use of words that are associated with values in the context of evolution is problematic because it leads to misunderstandings. Improvement is one of those words. I understand that improvement can be used in many ways but too often people use the word like we would be talking of improved models of cars.
Are modern humans improved version of humans that lived >20’000 years ago? It depends on what you mean by improvement. Put a modern human to the environment where the ancient humans lived and the lifetime offspring production of the modern human might be much lower than that of the more ancient version.
Or even before any questions of reproductivity … take any one of us and put us in that world 20,000 years ago, and how many of us would still be alive a year (or even a few months) later? If my diet depended on my hunting or gardening skills either one, I’ll be starving in most challenging or moderate climes.
I would point out that saying the cartoon graphic depicting human evolution indicates “progress” assumes that humans are better than apes. Most biologists would consider this to be an arrogant assumption based more on anthropocentrism then actual science. I am not saying that you are making an arrogant claim, nor am I saying that I agree with the majority of evolutionary biologists. I am simply saying that biological evolution from apes to humans is only progress if you are assuming that humans are inherently better than apes. I don’t think that the scientific community necessarily holds this view. Apes evolving to humans by itself is just change. It is no more progress necessarily than “evolving” from an Englishman to an American.
The graphic is out of date anyway. Human evolution is pictured as a bush now. Also, humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.
Most of us lack proper education, like knowing which plants are edible or how to prepare ancient weapons or traps. Few urban people can even read animal tracks.
The interesting part would begin after we get that education. Could we prosper as well as ancient humans even if we had the same information?
‘Prosper’ is a relative word but at least survive and reproduce successfully.
Don’t forget to add strength training. I’d be dead by the end of the first day.
Whilst your ESV says that, it doesn’t change the original meaning of most other translations (such as BSB,NASV, KJV, NIV and a host of others). The traditional translation still uses the term I wrote…
My translation (BSB) says in Isaiah 64
Isaiah 64: 6 Each of us has become like something unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
the point is, salvation by works alone is futile as further explained by James. However what James in fact is saying is that it works the other way around to what the pharasees and sadduccess had been teaching the Israelites. Our works are generated by our faith and that is how we are saved…it is not our works that make us righteous.
James 2: 17 So too, faith by itself, if it does not result in action,f is dead.
So, contrary to what you have stated, our works do not save us… period. There is no evolutionary concept here when it comes to salvation. Man is not moving in the right direction either physically or spiritually. The book of Revelation is predicting the complete opposite of what evolution claims. Even looking around at the world, things are not getting better either socially or environmentally. It is spiralling out of control and getting worse by the day.
So again I repeat, "
[quote=“adamjedgar, post:50, topic:50286”]
The O.P does not understand the concept that our efforts to overcome sin are but filthy rags.
[/quote]
The point is, we are not of ourselves capable of overcoming sin. We cannot make ourselves righteous! That is impossible for humanity. The consequences of sin are also automatically bestowed upon all of us. We are all condemned to die from the moment we are conceived. The bible verse “for the wages of sin is death” is absolute…there is no escaping it either physically or spiritually unless we look to Christ, believe on him, and then follow him.
first comes the belief that he can save, then the following
Its faith, then actions (the actions being the fruit of our faith)
*Beagle lady, might I suggest that in future, when you quote bible texts with the intention of only quoting paraphrases and translations that appear to suit your needs, you use biblehub.com as your referencing tool. *
For individual texts, you can view more than a dozen different translations of that same verse in order to glean what the most accepted version of the text really is. This will help ensure an ecclectec understanding of scripture and reduce the chances of poorly founded doctrinal erros.
What on God’s green earth are you responding to? How dare you assume to know my intentions!
Too bad it can’t help you with your spelling.
The term “filthy rags” is not the issue. There is no significant difference when this is translated as “polluted garment.” The issue was your changing “righteous deeds” into “efforts to overcome sin” and the context of this passage which is not even to say that our righteous deeds have no value. It is not speaking of all people and in the context it makes it clear that God does have regard for those “that joyfully works righteousness.” The point in passage is that we cannot hide our sins beneath a cover of righteous deeds.
And I repeat, this “understanding” is wrong. Not only does the Bible say no such thing, but the Bible says the exact opposite, praising constantly those who repent and seek to change.
The problem is people who measure themselves as righteous by covering up their sins with something else. And this is just as true for those who cover up their sins with belief in dogma as for those who cover up their sins with righteous deeds. Jesus says we must be perfect, because there is simply no place for sin in the kingdom of God.
This is correct. Jesus said it in Matthew 19, “with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” It is possible for God, not for churches with their dogmas or rituals, but for God alone!
All that live will die. That much is true. But Bible certainly does not say that all are condemned or damned from conception. Nor does it even say that all are condemned from birth. It SAYS all are condemned because all have sinned.
So you are in fact teaching that men can save themselves, dictating your own formula by which they can do so. This is not what Jesus said.
I have said no such thing. On the contrary I have said it is impossible for us to save ourselves by ANY works – not works of charity and not works of reciting dogma either.
this furthers my comment to Beaglelady and that’s the point. I do not really get it that people get hung up on how this all works.
We are saved as a result of our faith, however, good works come as a consequence of having that faith.
Salvation still requires works…but it is not the works that get us salvation, however, without the fruits of our faith (works), our faith is dead (as is clearly outlined by James).
I think that the problem is that modern evangelicals have this idea that works and the law are “the old ways” of doing things and that Jesus came along and stated “you don’t need the law, all ya gotta do is believe on me…love God and love your neighbour”. That is absolutely true, Jesus was right, however, the point of it was, if one catalogues the ten commandments (Gods moral law), they combine into two fundamental categories…Loving God and Loving thy neighbour! So the law has not been done away with at all, the wages of breaking the law remain as they always have been.
As an evangelical, one should not be saying, I’m not under the law anymore so I don’t need to bother with the ten commandments…that is a bit of a misinterpretation of what Jesus meant. They forget that Jesus came and lived a life according to the law.
I think of this fact and its implications in a really simple way…I am a former school teacher, would I demonstrate to my students methods that I myself do not actually want them to follow? Of course not…that is stupid.
It makes sense to me that Jesus came here to demonstrate to us that following the law is vitally important…its just that we are sinners by nature and cannot possibly keep it without stumbling.
Fortunately, Jesus has taken those failures upon himself to cover our filthy rags with His righteousness so that we are not condemned by our failures so long as we believe on Him and follow Him. However this also means that where we know what we intend to do is wrong, we are ignoring the whispering of the Holy Spirit and ignoring what the bible says about the new covenant (that God will write his laws on our heart and in our minds)
From wishful thinking people make up stuff which does not work. They want magic by which they can get a pass for all their sins. But there is no such magic.
No. We are saved by God. This is the gospel of salvation by the grace of God taught by Jesus and Paul. Faith is only the answer to the question of what we can do which is the other side of the coin. We cannot do it. Only God can do it. So we must have faith in God. But no this doesn’t mean we are saved by our faith. It means we are saved by God.
Indeed. Jesus said only God can save us. But Jesus did NOT say that it doesn’t matter what we do – quite the contrary! The problem with the young man in Matthew 19 is that he wanted to know what he could do so that his salvation would be accomplished. And the first thing Jesus asked was about fulfilling the law and all that the young man should do – so what we do is clearly important. But Jesus continued giving the young man more things to do, until he gave up – and finally explained that what the young man wanted was impossible. So the point was that there is no enough we can do – nothing by which we can get our salvation accomplished. We have to do everything we can – and that is the essence of faith, but in the end God is the only one who can save us. Thus the whole point of grace and faith is that salvation will never be one of our accomplishments – there will never be a time when we are entitled to salvation.
Thus Paul explains in Romans 10…
5 Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
Faith doesn’t ask such questions because faith is the opposite of entitlement. You have to put your salvation in God’s hands, not by doing nothing but by doing everything you can in “fear and trembling”. If you think you have rules by which you can say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell then you have already crossed the line from faith into legalism.
This is overly simplistic and naïve, because the law of the Old Testament was full of things like circumcision, what you can eat, lack of personal grooming, and outrageous archaic barbaric laws for the treatment of other people – like stoning to death people caught in adultery. Some of these were even repudiated by Jesus and Paul. Thus the summation of the law in the 2 great commandments is therefore fundamental to Christianity. Frankly people spout such rhetoric like this about the law is because they want a keep a few favorite barbarisms of their own even though it is quite clear that love doesn’t have anything to do with it.
The notion that with a little blood black magic you can get indulgences for your sins is not an understanding of Christianity that I will ever have any regard for. Hiding your sins behind your religion and religious rites is not acceptable to God at all. Read Isaiah chapter 1. That is a misunderstanding of what Jesus and Paul were teaching.
Yes that is what it is really about… the hope that God can change us so we leave our sins and become more like Him.