A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[rogue06]

Hmm. I mean it's obviously not a terribly great resource, but Wikipedia groups TEs in with OECs. Doing a quick google, some group called the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis seem to lump TEs with OECs as well. I don't know. I'm not sure I care for all of these labels anyways. I'm a Christian, and that's about the only label I really care about.

Some groups place Intelligent Design advocates and TEs together. I think that is because the boundaries aren't always as clear as some may think. Both groups do think that there is an intelligent designer but the majority of ID advocates reject evolution.

[Adrift]

ICR and AIG (who split off from one another) do so polemically. They don't care much for people who disagree with them so I wouldn't use them as an authoritative source of terminology.

Oh ok. I don't really know much about them. I've at least heard of Answers in Genesis. Wasn't impressed with what I've heard.

[robrecht]

I nor the Baha'i Faith believes that Adam and Eve were the first created humans. They were the first humans to know God.

So you believe that Adam and Eve were historical individuals, not necessarily so named, but an actual couple who were the first two human beings to know God?

[Cow Poke]

So you believe that Adam and Eve were historical individuals, not necessarily so named, but an actual couple who were the first two human beings to know God?

He believes their names were Fred and Wilma.

[shunyadragon]

So you believe that Adam and Eve were historical individuals, not necessarily so named, but an actual couple who were the first two human beings to know God?

Yes, the beginning of the Adamic Cycle. The Genesis story is symbolic and has different meanings.

[rogue06]

Oh ok. I don't really know much about them. I've at least heard of Answers in Genesis. Wasn't impressed with what I've heard.

It is hard to be impressed with them especially since Ken Ham has gained control. Those who have worked with him have complained about his deceptive conduct and how he has changed the group into a fund-raising organization. Other YECs complain about what they describe as his "ungodly" behavior.

[robrecht]

Yes, the beginning of the Adamic Cycle. The Genesis story is symbolic and has different meanings.

Wow, so, in addition to symbolic meanings, you also hold to a more literal reading of Genesis than I.

[whag]

One word:

Sin.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Whag, the OP specifically asked for TE's only. It might be ok if you were asking clarifying questions of TE's position, you are not. Please do not post in this thread again

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[grmorton]

One common partial acceptance of evolution (OEC/TE?) by some Christians and many Muslims is that Evolution is true for all the life on earth except for Adam and Eve. In this view humans are the product of special Creation beginning with Adam and Eve. Many if not most OEC consider the 'Flood' a true event of some sort.

Yeah but they place the flood in ridiculous settings that can not possibly match the described event. Thus, effectively, they re-write the Bible to make up a flood. For instance, if one flooded the Mesopotamian basin, water would flow south about 3 miles per hour (at the slowest). The ark would be in the Indian ocean in a week, and this isn't what the story says.

[grmorton]

We've had a couple of TEs in this very thread that have stated that they did not think that Adam and Eve were special creations; That they were hominins/hominids.

You are a hominid

[grmorton]

Nope, only pointing out that context determines definitions of words.

This is an issue of INTERPRETATION. You and I agree on what the word can mean. That is the fact. But Context and interpretation of sentence meanings is subjective and is not objective.



This is not the same as "creating evil". Satan's acts are not Gods, and neither are our own actions to be assigned to God like that. Unless you go with a hyper Calvinist view. If we assign blame to God for that, then logically all blame for all evil lies on God's shoulders. God Himself is then evil, and we should not be following Him.

There is nothing about free will that necessitates evil acts.

I beg to differ. If God wanted to give true freedom to a being so that he could actually choose for himself, it means he had to create a universe in which things could deviate from the perfect, deviate from his deterministic plan. Such a view of the universe is exactly like the universe envisioned by the materialists who deny we have souls and deny free will. I gather you have not read much of the philosophical literature on free will. Daniel Dennett takes La Place's position and claims that determinism means we have no free will. Determinism, remember is a totally determined universe, one which cant deviate from its course.

What Dennett doesn't really take into consideration is the thing that foils this materialistic determinism--quantum particles which pop into and out of existence, perturbing this predictable course of particles. quantum is what gives us freedom, but it brings with it, evolution. God created a world where the substrate of nature IS capable of deviation from the good as well. And in that sense, God created the best possible world, but not a perfect world.

[grmorton]

Well, Hi Glenn! I hope you are in good health.

I am not sure what your point here is, but I believe God Created all life and humanity naturally in the process we observe as evolution. The fact that 'Created Naturally' would make humans fallible with faults as you describe above is not a reason to object to my choice, which you do not believe. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges this reality, as do all religions. The problem is 'What is the cause of this fallible human prown to the dark side of sin?' I do not accept the Genesis myth that the first humans, Adam and Eve, were created innocent with no dark side, and their 'Fall' due to temptation cursed all future humans to a world of pain, death and sinful nature. The paleontological evidence is clear, humans have always been very human and lived in a world of life and death, good and bad behavior, and an animal world not much different from today. There is clearly no evidence for any version of the Biblical Genesis Creation despite many trying to manipulate it to force fit the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old.

I guess I gathered from your last note that you didn't believe humans were basically nasty creatures capable of hideous deeds. It seems that you would agree that mankind has some serious moral problems. is that correct?

Hanging in, have kept the cancer at bay for 12 years so far, but it appears to be getting out of hand. Will know more in a few months.

[grmorton]

Hey Glenn!

Long time no see!!! I hope you're doing ok! How goes the fight with your health?

I just want you to know that it was your articles you had on your website that finally moved me off of OEC to TE. I understand why you took it down but it was such a fantastic resource. I know Barry Desborough preserved some of your papers on Wikispaces. They are getting harder to find though.

Hope you will stop by a little more often.

Thanks LittleJoe, I will stay for a bit, not sure if I will stay long. the length of my stay on earth has amazed my doctors. Twice in the past 12 years I have been told I wouldn't be around in 5 years, yet I have outlived both predictions. lol

[shunyadragon]

Wow, so, in addition to symbolic meanings, you also hold to a more literal reading of Genesis than I.

The belief in the existence of a real Adam has no bearing on whether the Genesis 1 is a literal reading. It very common to build myths around real historical persons.

[grmorton]

I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I don't really see the distinction between the two. In my mind it's one of those every dog is an animal, but not every animal is a dog kinda thing. Like, every TE is an OEC, but not every OEC is a TE. I feel the same way about the distinction between Creationist and OEC or TE. I guess most people think YEC when they think "Creationist", but in my opinion all Christians are Creationists.

I would not agree with that. Most TE's have God as an after thought to the scientific explanation. God makes no difference in any objective sense to the TE's of ASA (maybe he makes a difference in Rogue's view. Those TE's basically said God guided evolution--whatever that means. Guided, how? what is the difference between God guided and unguided evolution? I just don't see that God makes a difference in those kinds of TE's

I agree with Littleoe, OEC's generally don't hold to evolution--Hugh Ross is an OEC