A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[shunyadragon]

I hope a Catholic answer is okay as well? :)

According to the current magisterium, Catholics may hold various opinions regarding the science of biological evolution, however we're still to hold that all humans descend from one woman and one man, namely Adam and Eve. That all can ultimately trace their lineage back them, and that they were therefore historical people, and that the Fall was a real historical event. This was declared by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical letter Humani Generis.

Beyond that we're free to believe what we want and you can find creationist Catholics like those of the Kolbe Center (http://kolbecenter.org/), or those who think that science has gotten it mostly right, but defer to the Church's opinion regarding Adam and Eve.

I'm more of the latter group, and I think that Adam and Eve were taken from a tribe of hominids, and then given the gift of being bearers of the image of God, and being able to recognise and commune with Him, as well as that ability to understand abstract concepts that only humans have. This would explain the biological facts that our chromosomes are so similar in various ways to the apes, while being harmonious with the understanding of the Church regarding the Fall and sin entering into the world.

I would say that death existed before humans came to be, and was not an evil part of the world. Animals don't have eternal life, or souls that go on after they die. So when an animal dies, nothing evil has happened, its simple part of the natural order of things. Moral evil, and natural forces that could go against human ends, that's what entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned.

These beliefs based on the Genesis myth is part of the reason I left the Roman Church and ultimately Christianity. They are too riff with contradictions and problems that humanity is plagued by Original Sin and the Fall of two unfortunate fallible humans is not reconcilable with reality.

The lack of guidance to follow science as the guiding light of the knowledge of our physical existence and leaving this to whims of human judgment is equally problematic.

God Created our natural existence naturally and humanity was Created to evolve as naturally human and fallible untainted by any Divine mythical curse of the Fall

[Adrift]

These beliefs based on the Genesis myth is part of the reason I left the Roman Church and ultimately Christianity. They are too riff with contradictions and problems that humanity is plagued by Original Sin and the Fall of two unfortunate fallible humans is not reconcilable with reality.

The lack of guidance to follow science as the guiding light of the knowledge of our physical existence and leaving this to whims of human judgment is equally problematic.

God Created our natural existence naturally and humanity was Created to evolve as naturally human and fallible untainted by any Divine mythical curse of the Fall

Strange you would become a Bahai then, what with Abdulbaha's views on evolution.



He talks about it negatively here and here.

[grmorton]

And I would like only those to respond here, please.

And, mods, if this is not the best place for this thread, please feel free to move it.

My question is, where do Adam and Eve fit in your belief that God used evolution to create?

Do they fit at all? If not, why?

Sorry, I guess that's 3 questions.

I am a theistic evolutionist, I believe Adam and Eve were real, were the first humans.

I do believe in miracles, (unlike most theistic evolutionists), and I believe that God was involved in the creation of Eve, but Adam's body was evolved.

No one likes my views.

[mossrose]

I am a theistic evolutionist, I believe Adam and Eve were real, were the first humans.

I do believe in miracles, (unlike most theistic evolutionists), and I believe that God was involved in the creation of Eve, but Adam's body was evolved.

No one likes my views.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate everybody who has done so.

I have the answers I was looking for. If people wish to carry on with this thread, they are welcome to.

[KingsGambit]

I do believe in miracles, (unlike most theistic evolutionists)

Most TEs don't believe in miracles?

[Kbertsche]

From what I've read of his writings, Walton argues that concerns about the material origins of the world is a relatively recent preoccupation and that Genesis 1 is falsely being brought into judgment for something it was never written or designed to do. According to Walton God used the cosmological understanding of the ancient world to describe how the functions of that world were called into being and operated, leaving open the precise details of how the material nature of the world originated.

According to Walton the discussion of creation is meant to be viewed from a functional^[1] rather than material ontological perspective. Functional ontology is actually interested in somethings role and purpose rather than its material status meaning that when you talk about something being brought into existence (i.e., to create something) you're talking about giving it a function and a role.

While the Bible declares that God created the heaven and earth, but if this is an account of functional origins rather than material origins, these six days do not mark the material beginning of the cosmos but its functional beginning. Consequently, the age of the material earth and surrounding universe has no relationship to these six days, meaning that the material cosmos could well have been in existence for endless ages before this creation of functions.

Aside from presenting a strong case for this really being the way that many ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed things, and thus how the Jews at the time of Moses likely would have understood Genesis (this is not just something he concocted out of thin air to explain away differences between the biblical and scientific accounts), Walton points out that if Genesis 1 were an account of material origins, we would logically expect it to start when no material existed. Yet, in Genesis 1:2, the situation described is not absent of matter ["darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters" Gen 1:2] but absent of function.











1. It really needs to be emphasized that the ancient idea of functions was not the same as our scientific descriptions of functions (e.g., the sun as a burning ball of gas that holds planets in orbit due to its gravitational pull) but rather their understanding of function centered wholly upon the role played in human existence.


Walton shows how during the six "days" God set up a cosmos to function for human beings, with the function described in ways that were pertinent to them (this is especially evident in the description of the fourth day).

I think you've given a good, accurate summary of Walton's views. But I think Walton makes too much of a dichotomy between "material" and "function". Walton has given us some good insights; the Christian world has probably missed or minimized the functional aspect of Gen 1. But this does not mean that Gen 1 is ONLY functional. I think Gen 1 speaks to material aspects as well.

Note: I am NOT a TE. But I just returned from the ASA annual meeting in Tulsa, where I spent time talking with with a number of my TE friends (Denis Lamoreaux, Terry Gray, George Murphy, Bethany Sollereder, Loren Haarsma, Keith Miller, ...). From what I gather, most BioLogos folks lean toward a literal Adam and Eve. Denis is on the other end of the TE spectrum, denying a literal Adam and a literal Fall.

While I don't go as far as Denis, I like his distinction of "message" vs "incident". He points out that some biblical language, such as the apparent solid-dome "firmament" of Gen 1, is "incidental" to the "message" of Scripture. It is culturally-bound language, necessary to convey the timeless theological message to the original audience.

[shunyadragon]

Strange you would become a Bahai then, what with Abdulbaha's views on evolution.



He talks about it negatively here and here.

My objections remain the basing of Doctrine and Dogma of Christianity on an ancient Genesis myth. The Baha'is do not consider all writings as unchanging as if written in stone.

It is often difficult for many Christians to understand the concept of the 'spiritual evolution' of knowledge, including the spiritual understanding on science. Knowledge, Doctrines and Dogma are not static. To understand the Baha'i view on science and evolution you have to read and study all the writings not just one quote by Abdul'baha.

I thought a more detailed response to the supposed controversy and confusion. The reason why there is no particular controversy nor confusion is because the foundation guidance in the Baha'i Faith deals with this. Yes there is healthy dialogue and discussion on the issues as cited by some.

This unique foundation principle is described in the following by Abdul'baha. One question that is answered here specifically is; 'When are the Baha'i Writings literal and do not change, and how are the commentary about our physical existence in the writings considered? The moral laws of the Baha'i writings are immutable and will not change.

"Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism."

Paris Talks, Pages 141-146: gr16

It is the moral teachings that are immutable and absolute, and not teachings on the knowledge of our physical existence. This is where science makes final judgements.

Harmony of Science and Religion

Another cause of dissension and disagreement is the fact that religion has been pronounced at variance with science. Between scientists and the followers of religion there has always been controversy and strife for the reason that the latter have proclaimed religion superior in authority to science and considered scientific announcement opposed to the teachings of religion. Baha'u'llah declared that religion is in complete harmony with science and reason. If religious belief and doctrine is at variance with reason, it proceeds from the limited mind of man and not from God; therefore, it is unworthy of belief and not deserving of attention; the heart finds no rest in it, and real faith is impossible. How can man believe that which he knows to be opposed to reason? Is this possible? Can the heart accept that which reason denies? Reason is the first faculty of man, and the religion of God is in harmony with it. Baha'u'llah has removed this form of dissension and discord from among mankind and reconciled science . . .

The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 228-235: gr9

Among other principles of Baha'u'llah's teachings was the harmony of science and religion. Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality. If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination. . .

The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 172-176: gr9

[Adrift]

It is the moral teachings that are immutable and absolute, and not teachings on the knowledge of our physical existence.

Sounds like something a Mormon would say when trying to fudge for some embarrassing thing one of their prophets taught.

[robrecht]

My objections remain the basing of Doctrine and Dogma of Christianity on an ancient Genesis myth. The Baha'is do not consider all writings as unchanging as if written in stone. ...

Nor do the better Christian theologians. But if you define and delimit Christians by simplistic belief in scriptural inerrancy vs science, then you are merely engaging in religious polemics.

[robrecht]

A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

And I would like only those to respond here, please.

And, mods, if this is not the best place for this thread, please feel free to move it.

My question is, where do Adam and Eve fit in your belief that God used evolution to create?

Do they fit at all? If not, why?

Sorry, I guess that's 3 questions.

I used to think the various Christian doctrines and theologies of creation were at necessarily odds with scientific theories of evolution based, in part, on random chance mutation, hence I would not have described myself as a theistic evolutionist. Rather, I would claim that theology and science are such disparate disciplines that one should probably not try to forge a unitary view. However, I have begun to consider a potential and putative synthesis based on the more recent formulations of the physics of biology by Jeremy England of MIT. Essentially, if I understand him correctly, the driving force of evolutionary biology is consistent with probabilistic entropy. This by no means necessitates a belief in God, deistic or otherwise, but it may point a way forward that potentially unites the idea of a driving force of evolution without negating random selection.

For a brief introduction, see: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like something a Mormon would say when trying to fudge for some embarrassing thing one of their prophets taught.

No fudging. The Baha'i scripture is specific and detailed in what I cited and elsewhere as to the evolving nature of spiritual knowledge and human knowledge. The founders of the Baha'i Faith were not scientists nor college educated, and realized the knowledge of science would change and evolve. You are arguing from a hostile position toward the Baha'i Faith, therefore you selectively cite the writings to justify an adversary position.

All you need to do is read the citations I referenced. They reflection the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith.

Your avatar suits you well.

[shunyadragon]

I used to think the various Christian doctrines and theologies of creation were at necessarily odds with scientific theories of evolution based, in part, on random chance mutation, hence I would not have described myself as a theistic evolutionist. Rather, I would claim that theology and science are such disparate disciplines that one should probably not try to forge a unitary view. However, I have begun to consider a potential and putative synthesis based on the more recent formulations of the physics of biology by Jeremy England of MIT. Essentially, if I understand him correctly, the driving force of evolutionary biology is consistent with probabilistic entropy. This by no means necessitates a belief in God, deistic or otherwise, but it may point a way forward that potentially unites the idea of a driving force of evolution without negating random selection.

For a brief introduction, see: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/

Vocabulary such as 'random chance mutation,' is more the layman's problematic view of how things work in natural circumstances and events, and do not reflect how scientists consider what appeared to be random events in the past and today. What has replaced randomness today is 'Chaos Theory,' which is the underlying pattern in all of nature on the macro pattern. Even the apparent observed 'randomness' in Quantum levels of Physics may not be truly random. The bottom line is Natural Laws are the fundamental cause of all events, and all events in nature can only occur within the constraints of Natural Laws. This makes Nature to some degree deterministic within the variability of Chaos Theory. Given this view the evolution of life and humanity or other forms of life or intelligent life on other planets is to certain extent deterministic dependent on natural and environmental factors.

The nature of our physical existence including humanity is Created by God by natural means reflecting the attributes and images of God.

[themuzicman]

I have more recently become more agnostic and open to theistic evolution after hearing Dr. John Walton speak on the first chapter of Genesis and how the Ancient Near Eastern cosmology worked. I think we can understand the construction of Genesis 1 (and 2) in such a way that the rest of creation developed in an evolutionary manner, and then at the right time, God planted a garden and created Adam and Eve from the dust of the ground, and breathed the breath of life into them.

[shunyadragon]

Nor do the better Christian theologians. But if you define and delimit Christians by simplistic belief in scriptural inerrancy vs science, then you are merely engaging in religious polemics.

It is not religious polemics [a very tired and over used word]. It is actually what is taught in most traditional churches as Doctrine and Dogma, and believed by most Christians.

[rogue06]

I am a theistic evolutionist, I believe Adam and Eve were real, were the first humans.

I do believe in miracles, (unlike most theistic evolutionists), and I believe that God was involved in the creation of Eve, but Adam's body was evolved.

No one likes my views.

You must be acquainted with an entirely different group of TEs than I'm familiar with. Thinking long and hard I can not think of a single TE who doesn't believe in miracles. For instance, I'm not aware of any who doesn't think that Christ was resurrected which I hope you would agree definitely counts as a miracle.