Why did God used evolution?

Faith & Science Conversation
101

Thats an absurd option to take there Richard. A Christian chooses belief/faith, however, we cannot know what we are choosing nor grow in that belief/faith if we dont read/learn the fundamentals.

The difference here is that almost everyone demands that the bible must be interpreted.

I say, God has revealed Himself to us through His word…thats the biblical fact i keep trying to remind people here…God has already explain this all to us, all we need to do is read his word written in plain language for us…it isnt some kind of spiritual speaking in tongues magic trick.

We either take the whole or throw it all out…consistency demands that those are the options. If our science is at odds with our religion, then we are making scientific errors because God doesnt make mistakes in His revelation to us (His writings).

If all Genealogies below are wrong, then what becomes of religion? (Answer: a fairytale)

Genesis 4:17-22: Records the descendants of Cain, highlighting the lineage of the first humans after the flood

Genesis 5:1-32: Traces the lineage from Adam to Noah, emphasizing the longevity of the patriarchs and the eventual flood.

Genesis 10:1-32: Presents the “Table of Nations,” detailing the descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, providing a framework for understanding the origins of different peoples and languages.

Genesis 11:10-32: Follows the lineage from Shem to Abraham, establishing the foundation for the Israelite people

Genesis 25:12-28: Details the descendants of Ishmael and the lineage of the Midianites.

Genesis 36:1-43: Records the genealogy of Esau (Edom)

Genesis 46:8-27: Lists the descendants of Jacob (Israel) who came to Egypt

Exodus 6:14-27: Provides the lineage of the leaders of the Israelite tribes

Ruth 4:18-22: Traces the lineage of Boaz and Ruth back to Perez, son of Judah, highlighting the importance of lineage in ancient Israel.

Ezra 8:1-14: Lists the leaders and families who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile.

Nehemiah 11-12: Lists the people who settled in Jerusalem after the exile.

Matthew 1:1-17:
Presents a genealogy of Jesus, tracing his lineage from Abraham to Joseph, emphasizing his royal descent through David.

Luke 3:23-38:
Provides a different genealogy of Jesus, tracing his lineage from Jesus to Adam, focusing on Mary’s ancestry.

102

And that is precisely what I am talking about

You say

And I must agree!

The frustration is that my views allow for yours, but your view condemns (rejects) mine.
(Copy in @St.Roymond)

Get it?

Richard

103

AI seems to look at it in a different way. Theological discussions with Artificial Intelligence - #17 by marvin

The God in who’s image you are made is a God who is out to deceive others. That does not put you in a good light. might be time to change your thinking. you could think that some people explain evolution or Genesis in a way that they exclude each other and you should ask yourself what their agenda is, but if you believe that evolution is a process without a purpose and based on randomness you only got yourself to blame.
Even Einstein did not understand God when he proclaimed that God would not play dice. He was ignorant of the fact that God would know how they would fall.

104

Given that God is faithful, it’s a not unreasonable connection.

No one here but you ever uses those descriptions.

Calling something what it is not causes problems for anyone who does it – and calling those history results in big problems, too. The error in both cases is the same: insisting that ancient Hebrew literature can (and should) be described in terms of a MSWV.

BTW, when citing a source, don’t forget to note that it includes information that contradicts your point(s)! The Wikipedia article notes that genealogies often skipped generations, for starters.

Also BTW, it is a very incomplete article and looks as though it was redacted by apologists who don’t want uncomfortable truth to be reported accurately – not surprising, given the " This article has multiple issues." note at the head of the page.

BTW #3, even the part in your citation does not mean your point is correct – you are reading into it what isn’t there.

105

That’s actually an easy one but I’m going to wait to see what Adam says.

That’s something many people confuse with the meaning, which leads to confusion – “interpretation” and “application” are two things often in mind when someone says “meaning”, but they are not the same (reading some of the old rabbinic literature is actually helpful here; I forget which writer it was, but his commentary on the Torah began always with “meaning”, then addressed “interpretation”, and finally considered “application” [“relevance” was also an issue, often addressed under one of the latter two]).

Oh, you should really read some of the old rabbis! To them, arguing “Scripture against Scripture” was something that rested on the foundation of its authority, it didn’t question it!

The scriptures were written in what was plain language for the original audiences; they were not written in our language(s) nor in what is necessarily plain to us.

Where do you find that position set forth in scripture?

Right there is the false teaching behind YEC: demanding that God has to adhere to a modern scientific-materialist definition of truth.
There can be no scientific error when there is no intent to communicate scientific content – and you have yet to show where the scripture tells us to expect scientific content.

Only if you insist that scripture has to bow to a MSWV. To an ancient Israelite, what you would call “errors” in genealogies, because you define that by a MSWV, wouldn’t be erros at all, just a different way of communicating truth.

2 Likes
106

It would seem that you are a bit more dogmatic about Scripture
(if it doesn’t match your view it must be wrong or I am just ignoring or claiming to be above it)

If you accepted the possibility of different views we might get somewhere other than insults

Richard

107

Interestingly, creation ex nihilo could actually be considered an overly anthropomorphic way of thinking about how God creates. Conjuring things into existence out of nothing is actually the way that we imagine human magicians to work. We might as well imagine God putting together an animal in a giant factory. It is possible that God simply does things differently because of who and what he is. This is not to say that I don’t believe that God created ex nihilo at some point, just that I think it is an unjustified assumption to say that just because God can create ex nihilo that therefore he did.

One reason God might have used evolution instead of creation ex nihilo is because God is relational. Conjuring something into existence out of nothing does not require relationship. Working through natural processes, however, does appear to require working with creation like you might work with a domestic animal. Maybe God is more like a cosmic lion tamer than a cosmic engineer.

3 Likes
108

The popular version of the debate between Wilberforce and others versus Huxley and others reflects the much later account in Huxley’s memoirs and does not match well with contemporary accounts.

Although Wesley was not thinking of evolution, ideas about some sort of evolutionary processes have been around for millenia, e.g. the chain of being or abiogenesis. Thinking about how God works in ordinary processes likewise is a longstanding question.

2 Likes
109

why would you feel insulted by that? the contrast between the two genesis accounts is a great reminder that the truth is beyond a single story and diffrent interpretations are needed.
On the other hand, there are differences in translation where coherence between passages was ignored. If people would have looked at the context of the story of personal injury compensation they should have noticed that the compensation for the free man included compensation for lost work time until he could work unaided. no provision was made for what to do if he died a slow and agonising death. Why this was meant to be different for the slave and only the slow and agonising death was mentioned whilst ignoring the case of lost work time can only be explained by translations working in mysterious ways :slight_smile: It was a clear contradiction between two bible passages should have been noted a long long time ago

110

By what? (it would help if you quoted the words you are answering or confronting)

I am sorry I cannot relate what you say to my thoughts.

Richard

111

link added. guess its less about you feeling insulted but some using dogmatic interpretations insulting others.

1 Like
112

It was aimed at a specific dogmatic person, so you are correct. It is not so much a matter of insult as frustration. If someone does not even consider an alternative view as being valid there can be so discussion (only assertion and counter assertion)

Richard

113

I find it quite interesting how people interpret scripture as the clever thing is its use of poetic language necessitates its interpretation, thus revealing the God one reflects.
The ones that interpret the declaration that when you eat from the tree you will die as a matter of Gods punishment for our disobedience clearly represent not a loving and logic God, but the God of the atheists who acts logically incoherent as he knew this was going to happen. Atheists use this as an argument against God for being incoherent and Christians who believe in such God see it as an expression of authority, not realizing the incoherence. The atheist position in that is the more embarrassing one, as recognising the incoherence and not changing their interpretation of the text is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.

114

It is a shame that wisdom, a large topic in Scripture, is not understood as anything other than understanding Scripture (A sort of feedback loop)
“Scripture says” takes priority over any other mental function or reasoning. The possibility that they have not understood Scripture correctly is dismissed as an impossibility (Ironic) Consequently any view that they cannot confirm fro their reading of Scripture must be “made up” and just wrong.
The by-product of this view is that they cannot see the God they are worshipping, onlly the rose coloured view they have “discerned” (obeyed from Scripture)
In many ways I am jealous of the atheist who can live their life without the burden of Biblical Christianity. It is a sad fact that many atheists are more Christian in their outlook than devout Biblical Christians.

Richarsd

1 Like
115

Some of us atheists were raised in good church congregations and in good families. They get some of the credit as well. We may believe religions and scriptures are most likely the product of humans, but we can still recognize the wisdom in others. Perhaps one “advantage” we atheists have is the ability to pick out nuggets of wisdom from different religious traditions without getting tangled in religious tribalism.

2 Likes
116

Not every Christian would deny that.

I do not limit goodness to those who had a grounding in any religion, let alone Christianity./

(You might be careful who you attack or criticise. You never know, they might not be your enemy)

Richard

117

Perhaps I should have attached “not divinely inspired” to make that clearer. :wink:

I don’t view disagreement as an attack, nor do I view those who disagree with me as my enemies.

4 Likes
118

Without claiming the perfect answer. The definition of “Divinely inspired” is not universally understood the same, either.

That would depend on how it is worded (phrased)

:smirk_cat:

A witty or suitable response escapes me, for once.

Richard

119

It is sadly true that many believers cannot separate the text from the interpretation. Even when the text is valid, the interpretation may be a misconception.

Rather than protesting attempts to follow what ‘is written’, we should help people to understand that we cannot understand the scriptures without interpretation - without interpretation, the text is just ink on paper/papyrus/pergament, or pixels on the screen. The interpretation is done through our subjective worldview and experiences, which always brings a subjective bias to the interpretation.
We are allowed - and there is even an obligation - to inspect (test) the interpretations. If someone claims that we must uncritically believe in the way one interpreting leader or a small group of leaders teaches, that is a warning sign of potential spiritual abuse and an attempt to oppress other persons.

When one Christian claims something about the will of God and another disagrees and claims something else, how do we know which one is closer to the teachings of the apostles of Jesus and thereby, to the teachings of Jesus?

For that purpose, I do not know a more reliable standard than the biblical scriptures. These scriptures were part of the teaching in the early churches, later confirmed in an ecumenical council (canon) and their authoritative status has been recognized by the majority of Christians since that time. If we accept the teachings as a guide in our life, we can know that we have not deviated too far away from the teachings of the apostles of Jesus. Then we just have to find a balanced and reliable (truthful) interpretation of what is written.

I dream of a future where people from different backgrounds can try to learn together what the texts in the biblical scriptures tell, without emotional blocking of differing interpretations and digging into defensive bunkers. A day when truth interests more than the selfish benefits of the leaders, denominations or ourself. Unfortunately, that demands such spiritual maturity and internal stability and freedom that many do not yet have. Forums such as Biologos are valuable but it is easy to predict that in the near future, there will also be ‘discussions’ that resemble ‘warfare’ between persons that have digged into defensive bunkers and try to shoot others into submission, rather than understand why the other person thinks and interprets in a different way.

4 Likes
120

I fear that already exists.

Due to the scientific emphasis on this forum the notion of “right” and “Wrong” in terms of interpretation, belief or even truth makes the entrenching almost inevitable.

Richard