The theory of evolution does not offer an explanation of how life began. It speaks to how life diversified.
1 Like
The Bible also says that God individually and uniquely creates each one of us. I happen to have a baby due in about a month 
. So here’s a pop quiz. Who or what created my unborn child?
- God
- My wife and I
- Biological processes
You have five seconds to pick only one option. Go!
EDIT: I’m not doing this to be snarky. But it’s so very very important to understand that the dichotomy between God and natural processes (wherein something can be attributed to one but not both) is an atheistic/materialistic premise, not a Christian one. It just so happens that the overwhelming majority of Christians accept this atheistic premise when thinking about creation, without even realizing that they are doing so. And, for me, realizing this and rejecting the false dichotomy totally changed how I thought about evolution.
And also, welcome to the Forum and thanks for your great contributions.
4 Likes
Evolutionists (I think to the last man) believe life came about through natural and unreproducible ways.
My story doesn’t fit that statement.
Neither do the stories of many, many people who have written for BioLogos. Or, perhaps more accurately, the stories on our site show that evolution does not automatically degrade or destroy someone’s faith. In many cases, it’s quite the opposite.
1 Like
Here’s a bunch of scriptures that are used to support a young earth view. Each one can be interpreted to not contradict an old earth view.
Acts 17:26-27
Hosea 6:7
Romans 5:12-14
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
1 Corinthians 15:45-48
1 Timothy 2:13
Genesis 3:20
Romans 8:20-22
Deuteronomy 32:8
1 Chronicles 1:1
Luke 3:38
Jude 1:14
Exodus 31:15-17
I picked these up through the course of this Genesis Academy course. Some are from Ken Ham’s book.
I’ll go through these later and show how they do not contradict old-earth. Right now, I’m just too tired. I was up til’ 3AM trying to dry out and clean up my basement which flooded. Local flood, but certainly felt global at the time.
4 posts were split to a new topic: Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and the orthodox doctrine of Creation
OK George, then please help me out here. Tell me exactly where and how God fits into the evolution of life
Darwin did not “officially” delve into the OOL. He certainly did so in private communications, as is well documented. Nontheless, when we understand the evolution of life as descent from simpler ancestors, we eventually come to the point o inorganic ancestors. This much is true: what we are willing to believe about the evolution of life is completely inseperable from what we are willing to believe about the origin of life. Have you ever heard the old saw, 'What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying?" OOL research is and has been a robust, well funded field, and every single dime of the countless billions that have been invested, has been dedicated to the pursuit of finding a purely naturalistic origin of life narrative.
But please tell me succinctly Christy: what do you believe about the origin of life and how would you support your belief evidentially?
Mervin, I would love to reply to you but honestly I see no substance here; just pure condescension.
“Mere causal component?!” Could you possibly condescend to (using your parlance) consider that there is a “casual component” to the beginning of the the universe? What would that causal component be?
George…
Yes, life is a part of God’s plan. Indeed, in His own words, life - and in particular - mankind - is the very focal point of His plan. Mankind is the entire purpose of His plan (Isaiah 45).
One small problem: evolution, as it is taught and understood, is a purely natural process devoid of purpose (would you like citations from popular textbooks - the most widely used of which is co-authored by TE Ken Miller?). In conversations with me in this very thread, several biologos people have conceded as much. Evolution is evolution, and belief in God is a completely separate thing.
It is good that you believe that God is behind such a process. I understand that my brothers and sisters here at biologos believe in God and that His plan has been manifested here. But there is a very real tension when we say that God’s crowning Creation is brought about through purely natural processes and not by the method of deliberate Creation.
I am happy to criticize evolution. I am one who boldly states that the evidence points decisively to the need for a Creator of life. I defend that position evidentially.
This is a Forum open to anyone coming from any perspective on the topic of origins. Although you will surely find a higher-than-average concentration of Evolutionary Creationists here, individuals don’t actually represent the “views” of BioLogos. So “BioLogos people” is not really a defined category, except for the people listed on the About Us page (Board, Advisory Council, Team). In fact, even the blog posts published by BioLogos do not necessarily represent the position of BioLogos. The idea is to encourage dialogue within the Church on this topic, not to nail down a single solution or to exterminate other positions.
Joe, God’s incomprehensible plan requires a very specific shaping of the evolution of life. He directs evolution environmentally by sending asteroids to hit the planet and by arranging a wobble to the earth’s rotation.
And he directs evolution genetically by sending cosmic rays to specific chromosomes in specific individuals.
I believe God is the author and creator of life. I believe it is his idea and he brought about the conditions for life to begin by his divine will and desire. I have no “evidential” support for this belief, it is an a priori faith commitment based on revelation in Scripture.
1 Like
I do want to consider anything that may correct or rectify any poor or false understandings of my own. So I thank you for your patience in that regard, and I’ll try not to be unnecessarily condescending in my own word choices, though where I think I see clearly and truly, unless my error can be demonstrated from Scriptures, I should defend that, and help other brothers and sisters also understand the same if that helps them out of some error as well. You are right that there may be [hopefully gentle] condescension involved, but what else are we to do with strongly held opinions? Here I stand; in good conscience, I can do no other.
So you ask if I would accept that God is at the very least a “causal component” in the creation of the universe. My objection to this way of thinking is not over the word “causal”, but over the word “component” (and I realize that was my own original choice of words, and you were just quoting … but it was what you brought back here.)
Let me try at an example here. Would you think it sound understanding if someone argued that “Creation” is the cause that evaporates a puddle of water? It’s the sort of thing that is hard to disagree with, because without creation after all, there would be no puddle much less anything like evaporation. But if our imaginary interlocutor pressed his point and insisted: “no – really; creation is what makes that puddle slowly go away.” We might rightly wonder if our friend harbors some unnecessary objections to the more ordinary sorts of explanations involving the kinetic theory of matter with its kinetic energies and phase transitions. And it wouldn’t be that our friend was technically wrong, but “creation” is more of an entire concept within which all our understandings are formed instead of some particular explanatory principle within it. In the same way God should not be thought of as a potential or real gap-filler in some otherwise regular chain of events --not on a regular basis anyway. But note that this is not an objection that this can never happen. Speaking of the theme of our exchange here: God has “condescended” to be a special cause in many different events --especially two thousand years ago.
While walking the earth in flesh, He was indeed a causal agent in the very human sense that we usually use that word. And even apart from this special and significant incarnation, God does and had done miracles as special signs to and for people.
For us to now insist that we need to find God in empirically evidential terms (in other words as an unmistakably, and otherwise inexplicable divine component in some otherwise causal chain) is in essence as if we are declaring that His incarnation – his life, death, and resurrection, and his ongoing gift of life to such a cloud of witnesses around us today in their transformed lives – that all of that is not enough for us. We are pandering for a second incarnation to complete the first --this time a scientifically irrefutable demonstration that no reasonable mind is able to reject.
Now – I know that is a caricature; I’m not attributing that last thought to you at all, as you [I hope] would rightly reject any suggestion that Jesus’ life and work were in any way deficient or incomplete. But my suggestion is that while you reject that on the surface, it is still the effective position you are settling for when you want to “find God” in creation or science. He is there to be found, to be sure. But he is everywhere. If you can’t see him in gravity, evaporating puddles, or crafting a baby in a mother’s womb, or even in pestilence and calamity, then you won’t find him in geological strata, irreducible complexities, stones, or stars either. But if you follow the Biblical witness of praising his work as evident in all those places, then no deep time or origins-of-life realities (whatever those may be) can prevent you from seeing God everywhere.
So on one side we have the atheists and the many creationists who have become their unwitting disciples in this particular assertion: that god is a potential causal component to be ruled on according to narrowly empirical evidence. And on the other side we have the biblical witness that informs us of God’s hand in everything whether we understand it or not – whether ordinary or extraordinary. Please bring me to better understanding if I err in casting my lot with the latter.
1 Like
Nick: of course, there will be those who disbelieve. My point is that evolution turns believers into atheists. I am not talking about obstinate atheists here. I am talking about believers who experience a faith crisis as they learn the TOE. Here’s how the crisis comes about Nick: Sarah comes from an evangelical home where she learns many Scriptures from Genesis to the psalms to Isaiah to the Gospels to Acts; Scriptures which assure us in many ways that God has Created all life, that mankind is the crown of His Creation, that there are different types of seeds for different kinds of life, etc. All of the sudden, she learns that life can be explained through purely natural processes. No need for God. Of course it cannot be disproved that God is not behind the scene. But it is silly to presume that any negative can be “proved.” Moreover, in Isaiah 43-45, God tells His children over and over again in many ways that they know He is God because He Created “The Heavens…(and the) earth, and Created Man on it” The TOE says that natural processes accomplished this. The two cannot be reconciled. Therefore,
Let’s have this conversation. No need to convince me of an old earth (if we want to say the earth is young, my position would be that it is 6 days young, not 6000 years. Time is relative). The TOE is where I plant my flag. I maintain that it defies logic to claim that it fits with the Bible. To this end, I have just created a new open forum topic: “My ID challenge” I invite you to join me there
My point is that evolution turns believers into atheists. I am not talking about obstinate atheists here. I am talking about believers who experience a faith crisis as they learn the TOE.
Perhaps if we (the church) did a better job of explaining the harmony between science and faith, we wouldn’t have such a situation.
Also: A crisis of faith isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Everyone needs things to test their faith from time to time.
… He is God because He Created “The Heavens…(and the) earth, and Created Man on it” The TOE says that natural processes accomplished this. The two cannot be reconciled.
BioLogos is proof that they CAN be reconciled. May I suggest that you’re not paying attention?
1 Like
Acts 17:26-27 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
Ok, so on the surface this appears to be a biblical passage stating that God made everyone from Adam. Au contraire mon frere. The nations being referred to here are the nations of the middle east which were, according to the Bible, founded by Noah’s sons. So, no, this passage does not support that everyone is descended from Adam. Also, just because Noah’s sons founded some nations does not mean that everyone in said nations are descended from Noah’s sons. George Washington was the father of our country, but he is not my great great great great granddad.
Hosea 6:7 As at Adam,[b] they have broken the covenant;
they were unfaithful to me there.
Yes Adam broke a covenant, but that does not mean that all mankind is descended directly from Adam.
Romans 5:12-17 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Death came to all people because all sinned. “The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation” and this is because Adam’s sin of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil proved that all people desire to know the difference between good and evil, to not be unaware of the difference between right and wrong. When one is unaware of the difference between right and wrong, one is blameless, but with knowledge of good and evil, one becomes culpable for one’s actions. All people outside of the garden (everyone but Adam and Eve) knew right from wrong and were culpable. This is why, “the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.” The many trespasses are the natural result of fallible people exercising their free wills without the perfection of God. It is the fact that each of us, if given the chance, would choose to know right from wrong and to be culpable for our actions that allows us to still recognize that God is good after creating this hard world. This world is suitable for us, and the fault lies in us, not in God.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
See my post above for Romans 5:12-17 since this is the exact same thing.