Don’t conflate science with theology. That seems to be a common practice, both among unbelievers and Christians. Science says nothing about God nor can it, and there is nothing wrong with promoting reality.
And if you want to say something about so-called ‘flukes’ (not scientifically but theologically), be prepared to defend God’s sovereignty in his providence. (We can talk about his recognizable M.O. in the lives of his children, but we cannot establish any science about it with respect to evolution.)
I see no good in trying to make evolution a part of the fall. If the fall actually existed it cannot be by accident (TOE) or God;s design (If that is what evolution really is)
Everyone seems to be dancing round the idea that God is controlling evolution, yet TOE is used to dismiss the influence of God. (Dawkins, Attenborough etc)
The point is not whether God does control evolution. The point is whether we teach it or not. And we do not.
TOE is taught as random (whatever that might mean) deviations controlled (tempered) by Natural Selection (survival) The controlling factor being Natural Selection not God.
So why is that important? Tell me Please! Why is it important to teach that Nature did it not God? That is the antithesis of Genesis 1. In fact it is the one thing Genesis 1 is trying to counter
It seems this is the elephant that no one can see, or if they can, admit to seeing.
I hear YEC in your approach. TOE is a misnomer, and hearing it "taught as random " implies listening to same. Mutations are minuscule but omnipresent. That’s the ‘random’ part. Very VERY few of them have any effect. The few that have a good effect improve the odds of the bearer producing more viable progeny. Think in terms of a tiny snowball on a very shallow slope; it may take a thousand generations within a given breeding pool before the improved version of the gene sweeps the breeding pool to become the new standard for that gene.
TOE makes evolution into a theory when it is not; it is a fact, The ‘theory’ part that explains it is called natural selection, or descent with modification. There is nothing random about the result, with the caveat that there is no way to predict exactly which positive modification will appear.
“Teaching nature” is the inevitable result of our Constitution, which holds both church and state at arms length from each other. Yes indeed teach theology and faith in church schools; but refrain from NOTteaching evolution, which is a sign of God’s unimaginable ability to create a universe which does the detailed work at the RNA and DNA level on its own. Does God rewire someone’s DNA once in a while? Jesus is the immediate answer – 23 of Eve’s chromosomes plus 23 more produced in a way we can only view as miraculous.
The one thing Genesis is trying to counter is the pagan theology of that day - needy, woundable, promiscuous deities whose laziness led them to kill one of their number, mix blood with dust, and fashion seven breeding pair to take over the labor involved in producing burnt offerings. God as sole creator of the universe, inventor of time itself, trustworthy, making the universe for humanity not the other way around, is the meat in Genesis, Making a contest over which means God chose to produce humanity hides that “unseen elephant.”
Science is fact. Creation is fact, The only interaction between the two is when theology teaches something in a way that violates fact.
Fact has no spiritual component. Spirit assigns value, meaning, purpose, importance, etc, But when the cup of spirit slops over the rim of the cup of fact, it gets lost in the dust on the floor.
Secular or Christian ‘we’. Science is science and theology is theology. In a Christian school ‘we’ can talk about science with the understanding that God underlies it all. But you cannot point to any scientific fact separate from any other and say ‘God worked here and not there’.
The ‘slop’ is when science gets conflated with theology, Richard × 2, and others. (And there are spiritual facts, just not scientific spiritual facts.)
You are causing confusion with this…how can both be called fact when you claim that the theological is an allegory? There is irreconcilable conflict with that statement.
You simply ignore the important issue…SALVATION IS NOT FOUND OR OBTAINED IN SCIENCE.
If one understands the theme of the Bible, "the wages of sin is death, Christ died physically to make atonement for the wages of sin, Christ will come again to redeem us back unto himself and we will meet Him in the clouds and return to heaven, a new heavens and a new earth will be made after the blame is placed on the head of the scapegoat Azazel who is then cast out to die, the saints who keep the commands of God and have the testimony of Jesus will then live forever with any sin…no tears, no more crying, no more death…
There is nothing evolutionary in the prophetic visions given to John as he wrote the final chapters of the book of Revelation!
Or are you going to claim billions of years for Revelation 21?
My issue with that would be this…if we have already evolved over billions of years…is Christs second coming and the creation of a new heaven and earth for us “already evolved humans” another stage of evolution or a miracle?
That is the whole peoblem trying to mould evolution into the bible…genesis, the gospels, and revelation all say the same thing about creation, the fall, salvation and final redemption. It ends where it began…with a new creation of our reality.
It (evolution of species) cant flaming happen the second time over billions of years because all life has already evolved into various species. If you claim revelation 21 is more evolution you are immediately twisting what is clear scriptural prophecy. It also leads to the secular claim this is nothing more than an evolutionary cycle…its “groundhog day” and God is the main character trying to fix what he keeps stuffing up all the time.
Sorry for a split answer, The secular claim not to see God in the real world is easy to anticipate, and its meaning is nil. Scientists see God in the intricacy and finesse of reality. God has no symbol or inherent numeric value in any formula. Creation is perfect in that regard. Philosophers leap from “absence of proof” to “prof of absence” - a common failing of non-scientific minds.
As to evolution not repeating itself, no - the human genome if represented in printable characters in a series of volumes they would take twenty feet of shelf space. This should make it absurd to think of any evolved creature as other than fully unique.
Christ’s second coming will mean new bodies that are perfect, and sexless, No ability to reproduce, no diet (pee and poo) - perfect in ways we can’t even guess at.
Evolution doesn’t mold into scripture any more than 2+2 is a moral statement.
Science, science by definition,cannot point to any scientific fact separate from any other and say ‘God worked here and not there’.
Science is strictly materialistic and not spiritual. Surely you’ve seen (but apparently not understood) the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism?
You have not answered the dilemma…how do you explain revelation 21 scientifically when we have already evolved? Are you truly claiming millions or billions of years for Revelation 21?
Also, how do you reconcile revelation ends where genesis began…sin and its physical consequences are the common denominators (crying, tears, sickness, death) are wiped away.
The dilemma is a Christian one. How does a Christian explain that both Genesis AND Revelation are both allegories and not everything in between?
If Revelation ends where Genesis began…Theistic Evolution has an enormous problem…Revelation 21 is over billions of years and groundhog day becomes our future hope… God is the main character stuck in an evolutionary origin of species cyclical loop… Hes stuck there until his stuffups are sorted. Christs death on the cross becomes pointless and the entire biblical narrative falls apart.
There is nothing Biblical about that…isaiah 9:6 describes God very differently.
Is that an explaination of your position or merely an observation of the plainly obvious given im a Christian?
Would you make the same claim to a native american indian, pacific islander, hindu, or even a muslim who remains steadfast in their spiritual beliefs or would that be considered racist?
You have done nothing to reslove the dilemma of Revelation 21, speciation is already evolved, and creation took billions of years.
If God is planning on restoring the universe in Revelation 21…what does that do for your evolutionary model and timeline. The bible says in the blink of an eye we will be changed.
1 corinthians 15
in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
It is my position that it is plainly obvious that you cannot distinguish between science and theology, which is pretty much a given about YECs, not being able to recognize the truths about the realities of God’s creation because of their distortion of the truths about God in the Bible (and trying to make the Bible subject to a modern scientific understanding no less!).
What a strange and irrelevant analogy. I am talking about Christians who try to merge their mistaken biblical theology with their mistaken view of what science is.
Then you should go to Specsavers (Uk = provide hearing aids)
TOE is the standard name for the macro version of Evolution
That is not what is taught and it removes natural Selection as being valid. If the mutations are controlled by God they must survive or God is incompetent…
No it is not. Even with your omnipreset insistance it is not.And that is not what is taught.as evolution, anywhere.
You have already cancelled that out (see above)
So what? That makes in inevitable, not right.
Jesus has noting to do with evolution. he was Divine, the Son of God, not Adam and Eve or evolution.
Evoution s the pagan theology of today. No difference.
Evolution says otherwise. Evolution claims Nature did it (Natural Selection) Not God
No contest. Just not enough information. And/or wrong interpretation of what information we have, controlled by atheists.