Well, of course he was, in the sense that everyone living at the time was a creationist since evolution had not yet been expounded. However, it seems that a believer in theistic evolution would have to contend that Jesus (being omniscient) knew all about evolution and simply didn't mention it to an audience that wouldn't understand (or need to hear it). So, here is the question I am asking:

Did Jesus ever explicitly say anything that would confirm his belief in creationism? If so, it would seem to deflate theistic evolution (at least for the Christian).

Interesting...For one thing, Jesus didn't write anything and all we have is other people's writings about what he said (all after the fact).

So if Jesus did give a speach about evolution, I think it would have been well over his audience's head. Not to mention, Jesus didn't supposedly come down here to discuss genetics/evolution/science, he came down here to save people's souls.

It's my opinion that if God exists, and he seeks to have us worship him, he's not going to really care whether or not we accept evolution, creation, or watch Mtv.

But then again, that's my opinion.

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here
citizenkyle:

Well, of course he was, in the sense that everyone living at the time was a creationist since evolution had not yet been expounded. However, it seems that a believer in theistic evolution would have to contend that Jesus (being omniscient) knew all about evolution and simply didn't mention it to an audience that wouldn't understand (or need to hear it). So, here is the question I am asking:

Did Jesus ever explicitly say anything that would confirm his belief in creationism? If so, it would seem to deflate theistic evolution (at least for the Christian).

Well, yes- absolutely Jesus was a creationist in the sense that he believed God created the heavens and the earth. However whether on not Jesus was a young earth creationist is a whole other story that has caused a lot of people a lot of headaches!

Clearly, if it could be established that Jesus was indeed a young earth creationist, then all genuine Christians who claim to be his followers would likewise adopt that viewpoint. But the issue is a lot more murky than some would have us believe, hence the differing viewpoints among Christians.

Hey Meatros:

Interesting...For one thing, Jesus didn't write anything and all we have is other people's writings about what he said (all after the fact).

Of course. However, most Christians tend to think the gospels accurately reflect what Jesus actually said.

So if Jesus did give a speach about evolution, I think it would have been well over his audience's head. Not to mention, Jesus didn't supposedly come down here to discuss genetics/evolution/science, he came down here to save people's souls.

Right. But I'm not looking for a lecture from Jesus on evolution. I was thinking of some offhand reference like, "When God created the earth 4000 years ago...". Obviously, he didn't say *that*, but something along those lines.

Hey Rando:

Well, yes- absolutely Jesus was a creationist in the sense that he believed God created the heavens and the earth.

But the theistic evolutionist believes the same thing--God's action is just a little more indirect.

However whether on not Jesus was a young earth creationist is a whole other story that has caused a lot of people a lot of headaches!

I'm not interested in whether Jesus was a YEC or OEC though. I'm interested in whether Jesus ever said anything that could decisively rule him out as an evolutionist.

Today @ 07:54 PM post located here
citizenkyle:

Hey Meatros:

Interesting...For one thing, Jesus didn't write anything and all we have is other people's writings about what he said (all after the fact).

Of course. However, most Christians tend to think the gospels accurately reflect what Jesus actually said.

Fair enough, I guess I'm looking at it from the point of view that they didn't get everything he said down...I'd say that would be both accurate of the believer and nonbeliever alike.

Today @ 07:54 PM post located here
citizenkyle:So if Jesus did give a speach about evolution, I think it would have been well over his audience's head. Not to mention, Jesus didn't supposedly come down here to discuss genetics/evolution/science, he came down here to save people's souls.

Right. But I'm not looking for a lecture from Jesus on evolution. I was thinking of some offhand reference like, "When God created the earth 4000 years ago...". Obviously, he didn't say *that*, but something along those lines.

I think I understand what you are saying, although I'm wondering, why would Jesus have mentioned evolution and an old earth? I mean, wouldn't he have to go into A LOT of details to properly explain these concepts to his followers?

This gets me wondering, does any creationist think that Jesus would have mentioned evolution (you know, if it happened to be true in your mind)?

citizen K,

The first section that came to mind when I read your question is Matthew 24:37-39 where Jesus compares the final days, to the final days in Noah's time just before the flood.

'For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marrage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.'

Jesus is referring to a future gobal event, and comparing it to a past event. My impression is that He was referring to it as being a gobal event as well. Noah and a gobal flood wouldn't fit into most evolutionist's view or even most OEC. The majority of whom think of the flood as a localized event.

Hey Meatros:

Fair enough, I guess I'm looking at it from the point of view that they didn't get everything he said down...I'd say that would be both accurate of the believer and nonbeliever alike.

Oh, okay. I can roll with that.

I think I understand what you are saying, although I'm wondering, why would Jesus have mentioned evolution and an old earth? I mean, wouldn't he have to go into A LOT of details to properly explain these concepts to his followers?

Again, Jesus would not need mention evolution at all in order to make it clear that he didn't believe in it. See the Noah example above to get an idea of what I mean (although I think that example ultimately fails).

Hey trueseeker.


The first section that came to mind when I read your question is Matthew 24:37-39 where Jesus compares the final days, to the final days in Noah's time just before the flood.

'For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marrage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.'

Jesus is referring to a future gobal event, and comparing it to a past event. My impression is that He was referring to it as being a gobal event as well. Noah and a gobal flood wouldn't fit into most evolutionist's view or even most OEC. The majority of whom think of the flood as a localized event.

Thanks for the example. The problem with that one is that it seems a theistic evolutionist (or OEC) could argue that Jesus was comparing the second coming to *the story*of Noah's Flood as opposed to the actual event. In other words, Jesus knew the Flood didn't happen (at least on a global scale), but he also knew that the people he was preaching to considered it history. And, since his point is equally valid either way, there is no reason to point out the errors in recorded Jewish history. A bit of a stretch perhaps, but not inconceivable by any means.

Yesterday @ 07:59 PM post located here
citizenkyle:

Well, yes- absolutely Jesus was a creationist in the sense that he believed God created the heavens and the earth.

But the theistic evolutionist believes the same thing--God's action is just a little more indirect.

Is a theistic evolutionist not a creationist? I'd say no. Who is to say that for theistic evolutionists, God is not intricately involved in the evolutionary process? Imagine a Calvinist TE- he or she might believe that God personally moved every molecule, generated every mutation, and determined the course of the evolution from the tiniest subatomic particle.

However whether on not Jesus was a young earth creationist is a whole other story that has caused a lot of people a lot of headaches!

I'm not interested in whether Jesus was a YEC or OEC though. I'm interested in whether Jesus ever said anything that could decisively rule him out as an evolutionist.

Not that I'm aware of. But then again, there are quite a few things Jesus is silent about in the gospels. For those, we Christians generally turn to some of the other Biblical figures.

Hey Rando:

Is a theistic evolutionist not a creationist? I'd say no. Who is to say that for theistic evolutionists, God is not intricately involved in the evolutionary process? Imagine a Calvinist TE- he or she might believe that God personally moved every molecule, generated every mutation, and determined the course of the evolution from the tiniest subatomic particle.

I think most theistic evolutionists believe just that. And I suppose, in the ultimate sense, that makes them creationists. But, for the purposes of this discussion, I am referring to creationism as "the belief that God created the beings of the earth without utilizing the mechanism of evolution."

Aaaaah. That clears things up, thanks! I wouldn't be able to give you any biblical evidence of what Jesus believed one way or another on this subject. Don't think it exists.

Today @ 02:32 AM post located here
citizenkyle:

Well, of course he was, in the sense that everyone living at the time was a creationist since evolution had not yet been expounded.

A common error. Actually many of the Greek philosophers proposed evolutionary ideas, e.g. Anaximander, Epicurus and Empedocles. This also demolishes silly arguments like "Newton was a creationist merely because there was no alternative."

However, it seems that a believer in theistic evolution would have to contend that Jesus (being omniscient) knew all about evolution and simply didn't mention it to an audience that wouldn't understand (or need to hear it).

Again not so. Jesus explicitly affirmed the authority of Scripture, and used the Creation and Flood to affirm important teachings such as marriage and the coming judgement. There was no question of watering down any teaching to make it more palatable to His hearers, because He frequently cited Scripture to refute them. See also my summary The rest of the Bible treats Genesis 1-11 as straightforward history, not allegory.

So, here is the question I am asking:

Did Jesus ever explicitly say anything that would confirm his belief in creationism? If so, it would seem to deflate theistic evolution (at least for the Christian).

Yes, as above, as well as the timeline below. There is not the slightest hint in any of His statements that treats the Genesis people and events as anything less than historical. This rules out any idea that humans came from ape-like ancestors. I won't bother to rehash what I explained in Biblical creationist opposition to evolution is far more substantial than the days [of creation] and the links contained therein. This post also addresses the fallacy that Jesus taught erroneous things to accommodate His audience.

Today @ 04:39 AM post located here
citizenkyle:

Hey Rando:

Is a theistic evolutionist not a creationist? I'd say no. Who is to say that for theistic evolutionists, God is not intricately involved in the evolutionary process? Imagine a Calvinist TE- he or she might believe that God personally moved every molecule, generated every mutation, and determined the course of the evolution from the tiniest subatomic particle.

I think most theistic evolutionists believe just that. And I suppose, in the ultimate sense, that makes them creationists. But, for the purposes of this discussion, I am referring to creationism as "the belief that God created the beings of the earth without utilizing the mechanism of evolution."

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that i don't think you will find even one creationist who fits this definition. it means God must create every single species from scratch, something even AiG and CRI don't propose.

what about God resting on the seventh day. a definition like this requires close to continuous creation.

Today @ 04:01 PM post located here
rmwilliamsjr:

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that i don't think you will find even one creationist who fits this definition.

More equivocation -- I get sick of people who call any and all change "evolution".

it means God must create every single species from scratch, something even AiG and CRI don't propose.

Finally gets THAT right! Not that there is any reason why they should propose it, since the Bible talks about kinds not modern categories of "species". In fact, post-creation speciation has been mainstream creationist theory since before The Genesis Flood (1961).

what about God resting on the seventh day. a definition like this requires close to continuous creation.

How can God ceasing (what the Hebrew shabat means) be continuous creation? The whole point is that God had finished creation by Day 7! And how crazy to pick that point up (and make a hash of it) and ignore the clear teaching in the rest of the account of discontinuities, such as between air and sea creatures, land creatures and man; and the order which is distinct from evolutionary order, e.g. earth before sun, birds and whales before land creatures.

A common error. Actually many of the Greek philosophers proposed evolutionary ideas, e.g. Anaximander, Epicurus and Empedocles. This also demolishes silly arguments like "Newton was a creationist merely because there was no alternative.

why wasn't newton an atomic physicist, since the idea of the atom had been proposed by greeks?

its pretty silly to suggest that the evolutionary ideas proposed by the greeks are in any way analogous to the robustness of modern darwinian theory