Clarification on Discussing Evolution

[Apologiaphoenix]

Since I got some pushback on the last piece on the Ham/Nye debate, I figured I'd answer some concerns on evolution here: http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...ing-evolution/

[KingsGambit]

My prediction is that over the next few years, evangelical concerns with evolution will be less over how literally it fits a Genesis 1-2 interpretation but instead over how well it fits with an evangelical understanding of original sin. I noticed this come up on a discussion on your Facebook (okay, I was involved in the discussion). This discussion is one that needs to be had, as it is a stronger argument against TE than the usual concerns about literalism (and I obviously don't think it's going to be a death blow for TE, because I believe all truth is God's truth).

[The Pixie]

Good post.

I do find it amusing that the "I don't care" thread is the one people care most about...

[JohnnyP]

My prediction is that over the next few years, evangelical concerns with evolution will be less over how literally it fits a Genesis 1-2 interpretation but instead over how well it fits with an evangelical understanding of original sin. I noticed this come up on a discussion on your Facebook (okay, I was involved in the discussion). This discussion is one that needs to be had, as it is a stronger argument against TE than the usual concerns about literalism (and I obviously don't think it's going to be a death blow for TE, because I believe all truth is God's truth).

There's the Jewish idea that Adam was the father of all human spirits in their pre-existence, coupled with my own that Genesis 2 is about direct creation of Adam. While Genesis 1 is about later evolution of other humans from animals: each spirit went to exist in an evolved human body carrying with it Adam's curse of original sin. That solves some of those problems for me as it combines creation and evolution, and explains how evolved humans still have original sin.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I do think that overall, Genesis 2 is a localized account and Genesis 1 is a universal account. Genesis 1 uses Elohim, a name referring to God's power. Genesis 2 uses YHWH, which is much more covenantal.

[KingsGambit]

There's the Jewish idea that Adam was the father of all human spirits in their pre-existence, coupled with my own that Genesis 2 is about direct creation of Adam. While Genesis 1 is about later evolution of other humans from animals: each spirit went to exist in an evolved human body carrying with it Adam's curse of original sin. That solves some of those problems for me as it combines creation and evolution, and explains how evolved humans still have original sin.

I suspect the key will be a slow move toward Irenaeus's view (and that of the Eastern church in the first few centuries) relating to creation being in a state of immaturity for whom incarnation and atonement were planned for the beginning.

[Wilkowsky]

I think that each Bible's claim should be considered individually. If Genesis is talking nonsense but the Gospels are relating history - throw out Genesis and keep the gospels. If the opposite would be true - throw out christian fairy tales and consider Judaism.

Though "throw out" is maybe not the best word. Genesis could be a mythical account and still communicate some truths about God.

I sympathize (and for now just sympathize and lean towards, because I didn't do enough research to decide) with a view that a large portion of the Bible are myths or legends, up until and including Solomon actually. I still believe that bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a best explanation for emergence of Christianity. And therefore I'm a christian.

[myth]

Interesting perspective, Nick. I pretty much agree with you.

I know you said that you weren't too interested in the scientific perspective, but I was curious if you've read "Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design" by Stephen Meyer. I'm not a scientist myself, but I've taken just enough university science courses to grasp some of the basics. I found myself very intrigued by Meyer's work.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Interesting perspective, Nick. I pretty much agree with you.

I know you said that you weren't too interested in the scientific perspective, but I was curious if you've read "Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design" by Stephen Meyer. I'm not a scientist myself, but I've taken just enough university science courses to grasp some of the basics. I found myself very intrigued by Meyer's work.

No. I heard him debate on Unbelievable? and I found it a fascinating debate. I could read about it as a side interest, but for me, nothing really hangs on there. My view of how God works in the universe depends more on metaphysical reality than on mechanical reality.

[myth]

No. I heard him debate on Unbelievable? and I found it a fascinating debate. I could read about it as a side interest, but for me, nothing really hangs on there. My view of how God works in the universe depends more on metaphysical reality than on mechanical reality.

Ah, ok. Just curious.