A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[grmorton]

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.

Shunya, I can't think of a statement more at odds with reality than the one above. Mankind butchers our fellows in war; we are hateful, we create governments whose citizenry demand that this group or that be exterminated. We rob, we hate, in adultery, we steal trust in a marriage for 15 min. of pleasure. We see humans beheading others for merely believing different things. Sorry, my friend, I think you didn't find reality where you went.

[Cerebrum123]

I don't think God is what so many think he is. Isaiah45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'

If God creates evil (and the hebrew word has the connotation of moral evil), then ultimately He is what He is and our belief in a kindly grandfather in the sky is meaningless.

God made us what we are through evolution.

Your argument seems to be the common one that our kindly grandfather God wouldn't use such a horrid process as evolution. Problem is, God claims to bring the evil, if you believe Isaiah was speaking God's word.

You need to get your facts straight. While ra can refer to moral evil it does not make sense for that definition here.

Source: Tektonics.org

In the first four verses, the word "evil" is ra. This word does indicate moral evil elsewhere. But there are meanings for this word like "adversity" and words of similar nature. Ra can therefore be used in both senses.

Now with this in mind, how do we determine the proper translation of ra in this case?

The answer is simple, once we consider the literary parallel in the verse in question. Note the antithesis in the first part of the verse from Isaiah: light/darkness. The second part of the verse must also be therefore reckoned as an antithesis. The word we translate "prosperity" is a familiar one: shalom. We commonly translate this word "peace" - but it is NEVER used to indicate moral goodness, the antithesis of moral evil. We must therefore translate "ra" in terms of its specified antithesis, and that is why it is thoroughly proper to give it the meaning of calamity/disaster/adversity here.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

You really need to rethink your theology if you are attributing evil to God.

[Adrift]

I spent loads of time on the ASA list. The only miracle I could get folk to agree to was the resurrection. They didn't believe in a talking snake, do you? They didn't believe in a floating ax head, do you? They didn't believe in Lot's wife turned to stone, do you?

To me, once one admits of one miracle, the resurrection, then all bets are off, and the entire Genesis 1 story COULD have happened just as the YEC's understand it, yes, it is last-Tuesdayism, but so what? How does that get us to the truth or fallsity of that belief? If it is true, then yes, star collisions are a mirage, but merely stating that it is last Tuesdayism doesn't generate a truth value.

So, did Jesus feed the 5000 from a few loaves and fish? Did surgery create Eve? (that too would have to be a miracle).

What is the ASA list? Are they representative of theistic evolutionists?

[grmorton]

You need to get your facts straight. While ra can refer to moral evil it does not make sense for that definition here.

Source: Tektonics.org

In the first four verses, the word "evil" is ra. This word does indicate moral evil elsewhere. But there are meanings for this word like "adversity" and words of similar nature. Ra can therefore be used in both senses.

Now with this in mind, how do we determine the proper translation of ra in this case?

The answer is simple, once we consider the literary parallel in the verse in question. Note the antithesis in the first part of the verse from Isaiah: light/darkness. The second part of the verse must also be therefore reckoned as an antithesis. The word we translate "prosperity" is a familiar one: shalom. We commonly translate this word "peace" - but it is NEVER used to indicate moral goodness, the antithesis of moral evil. We must therefore translate "ra" in terms of its specified antithesis, and that is why it is thoroughly proper to give it the meaning of calamity/disaster/adversity here.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

You really need to rethink your theology if you are attributing evil to God.

It seems you said that I need to get my facts right, but then agreed that the word could mean moral evil. You seem to want it both ways.

Need to add that if God has perfect foreknowledge AND created Satan, it is hard to see how he didn't know what Satan would do, and thus, in going ahead with it, originated evil.

One can link this to free will. Logic may require natural evil in a world with free will.

[grmorton]

What is the ASA list? Are they representative of theistic evolutionists?

They are an organisation of scientists who are Christian. The fact that you know nothing about them proves what I told them, they were having zero impact on the creation/science issue. I would say that probably 95% of the folk on that list were TEs.

The list was highly restricted and moderated after I asked the leader of that organization what would happen if you put a thermometer above a working air conditioning unit (answer the temperature would go up). He said he would have to think about it. I asked him if he didn't know the scientific answer to that question, what was he doing running a scientific organization. They changed the list so only approved messages could be posted, and I got hate mail, both snail and email, for my supposed ill-treatment of the leader. I thought it was funny. The question I asked was 3rd grade science level but he wouldn't answer even with several attempts to get him to answer it.

[rogue06]

I spent loads of time on the ASA list. The only miracle I could get folk to agree to was the resurrection. They didn't believe in a talking snake, do you? They didn't believe in a floating ax head, do you? They didn't believe in Lot's wife turned to stone, do you?

To me, once one admits of one miracle, the resurrection, then all bets are off, and the entire Genesis 1 story COULD have happened just as the YEC's understand it, yes, it is last-Tuesdayism, but so what? How does that get us to the truth or fallsity of that belief? If it is true, then yes, star collisions are a mirage, but merely stating that it is last Tuesdayism doesn't generate a truth value.

So, did Jesus feed the 5000 from a few loaves and fish? Did surgery create Eve? (that too would have to be a miracle).

Pretty much although I think that it is possible that in a few cases that there may be different explanations that are possible. For instance IIRC turning into a pillar of salt was an old Aramaic idiom for having a stroke.

[mossrose]

Just so everybody knows, I am bowing out of this thread. Thank you all so much for your considered replies. Carry on!

[Adrift]

They are an organisation of scientists who are Christian. The fact that you know nothing about them proves what I told them, they were having zero impact on the creation/science issue. I would say that probably 95% of the folk on that list were TEs.

Honestly, it may be more my fault then there's. I don't really keep abreast of the latest creation-science issues.

The list was highly restricted and moderated after I asked the leader of that organization what would happen if you put a thermometer above a working air conditioning unit (answer the temperature would go up). He said he would have to think about it. I asked him if he didn't know the scientific answer to that question, what was he doing running a scientific organization. They changed the list so only approved messages could be posted, and I got hate mail, both snail and email, for my supposed ill-treatment of the leader. I thought it was funny. The question I asked was 3rd grade science level but he wouldn't answer even with several attempts to get him to answer it.

I see, well perhaps they're more representative of theistic evolutionists who happen to be scientists than the lay theistic evolutionist. For the record, I accept all the miracles you listed.

[Adrift]

Just so everybody knows, I am bowing out of this thread. Thank you all so much for your considered replies. Carry on!

Oh no you don't. You get back here this instant.

[KingsGambit]

Not in my experience, they don't.

Ask them if they believe in talking snakes, or floating ax heads, or talking donkeys, all of which would have to be miraculous. Ask if those events actually happened.

Well, there's a difference between seeing natural explanations in some of scripture (i.e. rogue's suggestion of Lot's wife) and rejecting all miracles altogether, but I take the same tack of Denis Lamoureux, who takes most all the NT miracles straight up. My own approach is taking all the miraculous accounts in the OT straight up as well unless I have a good reason not to. I certainly see no reason not to accept the speech of Balaam's donkey or the floating ax head, for instance.

[rogue06]

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/

As for random chance mutation, the British geneticist and member of Royal Society of Edinburgh and Royal Society of Biology Robert James Berry, made an interesting observation that serves as food for thought:

[rogue06]

They are an organisation of scientists who are Christian. The fact that you know nothing about them proves what I told them, they were having zero impact on the creation/science issue. I would say that probably 95% of the folk on that list were TEs.

The list was highly restricted and moderated after I asked the leader of that organization what would happen if you put a thermometer above a working air conditioning unit (answer the temperature would go up). He said he would have to think about it. I asked him if he didn't know the scientific answer to that question, what was he doing running a scientific organization. They changed the list so only approved messages could be posted, and I got hate mail, both snail and email, for my supposed ill-treatment of the leader. I thought it was funny. The question I asked was 3rd grade science level but he wouldn't answer even with several attempts to get him to answer it.

That high? Then there has definitely been a big shift over the last few decades when they were largely Old Earth Creationists. Wasn't it the ASA that Henry Morris left when he couldn't get them to accept YEC?



For Adrift: Here is a link to the American Scientific Association and the Wikipedia page on them.

[Adrift]

For Adrift: Here is a link to the American Scientific Association and the Wikipedia page on them.

Yeah, I found the webpage after doing some digging (ASA is a remarkably common acronym by the way). I couldn't find any names I know. Like I said, I don't really keep up with that sort of stuff. If it isn't Bible scholars, or early church historians, it's mostly not on my radar.

[grmorton]

Pretty much although I think that it is possible that in a few cases that there may be different explanations that are possible. For instance IIRC turning into a pillar of salt was an old Aramaic idiom for having a stroke.

Then my hat is off to you because very few TE's in my experience believe as you and I do.

[rogue06]

There are indeed ways of reading scriptures in such a way that they are not seen as contrary to science, but I still like to focus on the original authors' most likely intent.

That I tried to get into in post #30