John MacArthur on the “lie” of Evolution:
“The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.” (from “The Battle for the Beginning“).
There was a time, ten or twenty years ago, when I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Today I won’t. Not because I am now convinced about a God-guided theory of evolution, but because I just don’t know. I am not confused or disturbed about the issue, nor does it put any of my faith in jeopardy in any way. I just don’t know whether or not God used evolution as a means to create humanity. Neither do I know how long it took to create the earth. I don’t know if Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, symbolically, ideologically, mythologically, or accommodatingly. I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true.
But I don’t think that it is here we find the central battle for our faith. I believe that there are more important issues. Much more important issues.
What I do find is that if Christians get sidetracked on these type of things, believing that if this city goes undefended then the Christian empire crumbles, we are in trouble. The “Battle for the Beginning” is not the battle, at least in my book.
But John MacArthur is a man I respect very much. While he is not a scientist, he does seem to be a very wise leader in many respects and he knows the Bible well. This is why I have to pause at what would otherwise seem to me to be an over-the-top statement. He is right that the last two decades have seen many (if not most) evangelical leaders concede to the real possibility of a God-guided use of evolution. It would seem that there is quite a bit of pressure out there to do so. Evolution is quickly becoming the if-you-don’t-accept-it-then-you-are-committing-the-same-mistake-that-the-church-did-in-the-Galileo-incident type of issue. You remember: back when we insisted that the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe and then ended up with egg on our face.
I don’t really see evolution in the same light. There is quite a bit of observable data that shows us the earth is not the center; it is not quite as cut-and-dry with evolution (I think).
Either way, the gauntlet is going to continue to fall and Christians who believe in evolution are going to continually be accused of compromise. Maybe they have compromised; I don’t know. But to me, it only makes a difference when people push for it to make a difference.
What do you think? Has Christianity been compromised?
668 replies to "John MacArthur on the "Lie of Evolution""
Cadis,
What do we mean when we say man was created in God’s image?? Cause this has been a subject of debate for millennium. It certainly doesn’t mean that we were physically created in God’s image as God is spirit, without form. Quite frankly I see no problems with the theory of evolution and the Imago Dei at all since I see the Imago Dei as spiritual rather than physical. At some point in our evolution, God, as He had planned from the beginning, chose to give us souls and it is at that point we became the image bearers of God. The hardest issues issue for theistic evolutionists to explain generally revolve around death before the fall, and original sin, though both can be explained, not the Imago Dei. One could only claim that evolution requires us to view apes as created in the image of God if they believed that the Imago Dei was physical or genetic.
John,
You are missing a big point that both Greg and myself have been making. Whether or not an event is “Random” is a matter of perspective. Science posits that evolution occurred through “Random” mutations, however as has been pointed out many times it is not random to God!!!. God has an eternal perspective from outside of time. Think about it this way. Quantum mechanics tells us that on the quantum level all matter behaves in a random and indeterminate manner. At the smallest level there is only probability of how things will behave. Yet (at least I believe) God knows the exact position of every quantum particle (Yes that’s right, I believe God can violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). As such God could determine everything that’s going to happen while at the same time having it appear as “random” natural events from our perspective. In other words what science calls “random” mutations weren’t at all random or unforeseen to God. Now I know most evolutionists would say this puts me in the Intelligent Design camp and they are probably right and I’m OK with that.
As to your comment about junk DNA being an argument against all theism. I don’t think this is true because if God created a nuniverse with certain physical laws and then chose to create through a process that was bound by those laws the”junk” DNA is exactly what we would expect to find. Whereas if God created everything directly we would expect that to be there. Now you are at least partially right that this opens the door for atheism, but it is not a necessary or (I think) even a probably conclusion based on the facts.
Finally as to Genesis. As Greg pointed out I never said that Genesis specifically says the Earth is flat cause it doesn’t. However, when Genesis tells us things like God separated the waters below from the waters above it is appealing to ANE cosmology and in that cosmology the Earth was flat. Basically this has nothing to do directly with evolution. It is simply evidence that interpreting Genesis in any kind of a literal manner is a very bad idea because Genesis assumes a false conception of the universe.
Of interesting note there are people out there who claim that there were waters above the Earth and that this is how people lived so long prior to the Noahic flood and that all the waters came crashing down in that flood. Of course they don’ realize the who cosmology involved in making those statements or I suspect they wouldn’t want to make them.
John,
As Micheal has pointed out, you’ve completely missed or misrepresented what we’ve been trying to explain to you. I see no need to repeat what I’ve already said, so you can go back at your leisure and reread it, hopefully with a more understanding attitude.
As for post #145, you completely missed the point. Let me repeat it for you:
1. The Bible says the expanse was made to separate the water below it from the water above it.
2. The Bible says the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the expanse.
3. Thus, there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.
Regardless of who’s perspective is in mind, the Bible still says there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.
John, show me this water above the stars! The Bible says its there, so where is it? Either appeal to modern science or just admit the Old Testament was influenced by Ancient Near Eastern science!
Kaz & mbaker, Re posts #147 & 148
“Clearly, no ‘missing link’ has thus far been found”
I’m just gonna leave these here….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
The first Wikipedia article explains what a transitional fossil is, and the second gives a hefty list of examples. You may be interested in some of the subtopics in the first link on “Missing Links” and “Common misrepresentations by creationists”
The two Talk Origins articles go into even more detail on what constitutes a transitional fossil, and also how its determined to be one. They also provide dozens of examples for you to consider. They may take some time to read through, but in the end I think it may be very helpful for you.
Tom,
The missing links that I’m are speaking of are not simply findings based upon similar bones, brain cavity measurements and some common DNA evidence, and theories about genomes. The big question is where the quantum leap occurred between man and animal as far as independent thinking and spiritual awareness, as opposed to sharing some common physical characteristics.
To give an example, I worked as photojournalist for many years, with nature being my specialty. There is, as you know, a specific order and instinctive lifestyle common to every animal in nature, which is not deviated from, on that I think we can agree. Yet all animals, even those of the same species still have identifiable differences, and differences in lifestyle and purposes. While we may share some commonalities with apes and chimpanzees, and other mammals, just as we share a common genetic code with our blood relatives, we are in actual practice just as different as eagles are from sparrows. One does not equal the other, except they are both birds. By the same token my ability to operate on something other than instinct gives me a distinct difference in mammals who cannot.
To tie this back to the subject of the post, which is whether evolution is a lie, I think it depends on whether you only look at physical evidence, and posit a further possibility from that. It’s still a theory, or at best an educated guess. It seems to me that the weakness in the evolutionist argument is that they assume because there are physical similarities of having wings and beaks, that makes an a sparrow equal to an eagle. We both know from evidence we can readily observe that it does not. However, according to the present evolutionary thinking that could mean that a sparrow is only an eagle that has yet not evolved!
Kaz,
Your comment about something that is 99.99% human not being human just doesn’t seem to work to me. Think about it. If it were the case that Adam and Eve had blond hair then all brunette haired people wouldn’t be human by your estimation since they don’t share the exact genetics as Adam and Eve. Furthermore no one alive could be considered human since every human has a slightly different genetic makeup then every other human (i.e. a friend of mine is 4’11” while I am 6’4″).
I think we really need to have a serious discussion about what it means to be human. What does it really mean to be the image bearers of God??? I think if we answered these questions honestly and Biblically we would find that they are not at a fundamental level in conflict with evolutionary theory.
mbaker, Re Post # 154
The missing links that I’m are speaking of are not simply findings based upon similar bones, brain cavity measurements and some common DNA evidence, and theories about genomes.
I think you’re just moving the goal posts here.
The big question is where the quantum leap occurred between man and animal as far as independent thinking and spiritual awareness, as opposed to sharing some common physical characteristics.
That wasn’t really the topic of discussion. Just because a spiritual question can be posed does not mean scientific evidence can be invalidated. Also, this seems like a question more suited for philosophy and theology, not science.
…we are in actual practice just as different as eagles are from sparrows.
And just like a sparrow and eagle share a common ancestor, so do we with modern primates.
I think it depends on whether you only look at physical evidence, and posit a further possibility from that.
That’s all evolutionary theory is about. Physical evidence. That’s all it seeks to explain also. Questions of philosophy and theology are best answered by philosophy and theology.
It’s still a theory, or at best an educated guess.
The theory of gravity is, well, only a theory, if it helps put things into perspective.
It seems to me that the weakness in the evolutionist argument is that they assume because there are physical similarities of having wings and beaks, that makes an a sparrow equal to an eagle.
The theory proposes nothing of the sort. All it suggests is that the physical evidence points to common descent. A common ancestor is shared by a sparrow and eagle.
However, according to the present evolutionary thinking that could mean that a sparrow is only an eagle that has yet not evolved!
I think you need to look at evolutionary theory a little more seriously. As in, to understand what it is really saying. It does not say anything of the sort in which you claim it does. The sparrow and eagle are free to develop in whatever direction that they do.
Greg,
I don’t think I am moving the goalposts as you put it. Just trying to get my original question answered, one that I’ve already asked twice now, without being accused of trying to invalidate scientific evidence. I am not questioning that physical evidence has been discovered that shows we have some common characteristics with primates or other mammals.
What I am asking is how evolution can be theistic in nature, if it is based upon physical evidence, especially in light of your statement:
“That’s all evolutionary theory is about. Physical evidence. That’s all it seeks to explain also. Questions of philosophy and theology are best answered by philosophy and theology.”
mabaker,
Evolution, defined simply as the idea that more complex life forms evolved from less complex life forms, is neither atheistic or theistic. It is simply a framework that explains the physical evidence. It is only when one combines evolution with various philosophies that it becomes atheistic or theistic. Simply put the question of whether or not there is a God is a question that evolutionary theory does not and can not answer and if some scientist (cough Richard Dawkins cough) claims otherwise they are no longer speaking as scientists, but as philosophers. Evolution simply tries to describe the “how”, not the “why”. The “why” can only be answered by philosophy and theology, not science.
Tom: “That is why Dennis in his video didn’t say what a designer would or wouldn’t do”
Okay……
“How does common design explain that?”
Ha! See? Here we are AGAIN, back with no designer and what a designer wouldn’t do.
“Or the existence of a defective vitellogenin gene in placental mammals that is clearly functional in other egg-laying mammals and birds?”
Again, man made things like computer programs exhibit the exact same things. The only retort is that our God wouldn’t do that, which cuts off your own feet, because you simultaneously claim that he DID do that, except that he didn’t do that because he wouldn’t.
Michael:
“John, You are missing a big point that both Greg and myself have been making. Whether or not an event is “Random” is a matter of perspective. Science posits that evolution occurred through “Random” mutations, however as has been pointed out many times it is not random to God!!!. God has an eternal perspective from outside of time.”
Michael, how is it me who is missing this, when it is the evolutionary camp here claiming that analysis of life on earth precludes the hypothesis of a designer? PRECLUDES! Classic was Tom’s one who starts off saying what you do, but ends up with the retort ““How does common design explain that?””, as if to say, “These set of facts are not compatible in any way with there being a designer”.
Again, no designer means no God. Why don’t all you evolutionary folks go off and take a serious look at yourselves and why you have to present atheist arguments while claiming to believe in God.
“Whereas if God created everything directly we would expect that to be there.”
Again, have you done a random sample of deities to find out what they would be expected to do? When the things that supposedly preclude intelligent design are the exact same artifacts found in man-made designs, the argument is simply a non-sequitur. And again, stealing from previous designs is exactly what Genesis teaches in the Adam’s rib incident.
“However, when Genesis tells us things like God separated the waters below from the waters above it is appealing to ANE cosmology and in that cosmology the Earth was flat.”
A fallacy of the highest order. That’s like saying that using the term “the sun rises” is appealing to a geo-centric cosmology.
“Of interesting note there are people out there who claim that there were waters above the Earth”
There IS waters above the earth. Some of it is falling down right now.
Greg: “Regardless of who’s perspective is in mind, the Bible still says there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.”
Again, this is equivalent to claiming that anyone who uses the term “sunrise” is promoting geocentrism.
“John, show me this water above the stars!”
Actually, there is water above the sun, moon and stars, since it is one of the most common compounds in the universe. But I don’t think this is what it is talking about. You’re taking a very rigid interpretation of what expanses are being referred to and where exactly they are located, and what expanses are being referred to where and when. And frankly, the whole scenario takes place around creation, which if you are mapping it to big-bang cosmology would be billions of years ago. So asking me to show you something now from the cosmic soup of 10 billion years ago, is a bit much don’t you think? Show me a photo of the universe one day after first light, and maybe I can pinpoint it for you.
Michael,
It may be true to you that evolution is not atheistic or theistic, but then as you said, Richard Dawkins (cough, cough here too), and others have made evolution in recent years into more of a stronghold to disprove God and Christianity.
So, I’m back to trying to understand how you or anyone can be a theistic evolutionist if you believe in God., but believe the physical evidence points to an entirely different outcome than scripture teaches is the theological evidence.
You just got through saying, and so did Greg in his quote above, that the two don’t go together.
Hi Michael,
You said:
“Your comment about something that is 99.99% human not being human just doesn’t seem to work to me. Think about it. If it were the case that Adam and Eve had blond hair then all brunette haired people wouldn’t be human by your estimation since they don’t share the exact genetics as Adam and Eve. Furthermore no one alive could be considered human since every human has a slightly different genetic makeup then every other human (i.e. a friend of mine is 4′11″ while I am 6′4″).”
I wonder if you’ve misunderstood the point of my post? It is not my contention that parents who were 99.999999…. [with 9’s to infinity]% human were not human. My point is that they WERE human, and could have been nothing else. Those who subscribe to creation via evolution, on the other hand, must allow that there was some point where a non-human gave birth to a human. Either that, or God employed his own “random selection” by declaring that all who were prior to the one he allowed was the first image bearing man would not have everlasting life made available to them, even though, of both logical and scientific necessity, they would have to have been essentially indistinguishable from the lucky chap who arbitrarily ended up to be the first one on the right side of the dividing line. Now THAT doesn’t work for me.
~Kaz
Hi mbaker,
Regarding your post 148, I heartily agree that the declaration “We are all transitional forms” seems rather silly. It sounds like something that one who is aware of the paucity of evidence of transitional forms might make up to avoid having to try and give a meaningful answer to the question.
As for sharing DNA with Apes, I don’t see how that poses a problem to a creationist. Computer programmers often use bits and pieces of the same computer code for different programs, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are *different* programs. Genetic code is just another feature of God’s design. Thus, sharing such code doesn’t necessarily imply a shared ancestry; it could just as easily imply a shared designer.
~Kaz
Computer programmers designing the Creator in their own image. Classic. =)
Hi Mike,
Don’t you hate it when a simple analogy potentially deflates the force of what an opponent might consider a powerful counter argument? 🙂
~Kaz
Kaz,
Classic. =)
mbaker Re Post #162,
So, I’m back to trying to understand how you or anyone can be a theistic evolutionist if you believe in God., but believe the physical evidence points to an entirely different outcome than scripture teaches is the theological evidence.
You’re assuming your interpretation of Genesis 1 is correct. I brought this up in post #114 if you’d like to look more into it. How sure are you it is correct?
Genesis has ancient science in it. Do you accept this?
John, Re Post #160,
Again, no designer means no God. Why don’t all you evolutionary folks go off and take a serious look at yourselves and why you have to present atheist arguments while claiming to believe in God.
It takes one to know one, John. I tell you this because perhaps that is why you do not recognize a Christian when you see one. Further, I would expect a Christian to act better.
I explained to you in post #140 how your entire line of reasoning and accusations are devoid of any sense at all.
Take your accusations elsewhere because they are in no way welcome here. You have ignored what we have tried to patiently explain to you, entrenching yourself in a state of chosen ignorance.
I believe in a common designer that used common descent to produce the variety of organic life on this earth.
And with that I must say you’ve lost your privilege to be answered. Not because you make compelling arguments. But because you have proven completely disrespectful to what we have done to try and help you understand. You’re accusations of atheism are based only on your willful and prized ignorance in the subjects we are talking about.
Unless you start treating us with dignity and respect, you will be ignored. You don’t deserve to be answered with behavior like that.
Its very frustrating to see good science overpowered by bad assumptions, ignorance, and repetitive shouting.
Its even worse to see Genesis hijacked by culturally egocentric types that can’t fathom God talking to anyone in ways they haven’t approved of.
“I believe in a common designer that used common descent to produce the variety of organic life on this earth.”
Fine. But stop saying you believe this because such and such evidence indicates no designer. Make up your mind, designer or no designer, but stop the schizophrenia already.
Greg,
I should tell you that I am more of the OEC persuasion, if that makes a difference. I think that the evidence that the earth’s age is far more advanced than the assumed 6000-10000 years is pretty clear, and I don’t necessarily see a conflict with traditional Christianity there, I also believe that the flood could have well have only been the known world at that time, based upon all our discussions on the previous threads.
Where I am dubious, and think that evolution has gotten off on the wrong foot and in a sense compromised Christianity is that it assumes something more from Ardi and Lucy than we can know, and that is they were the beginnings of thinking rational beings, or spiritual beings simply because they were bi-pedal.
Other than God randomly deciding to put a soul into beings like Ardi and Lucy somewhere along the way, I really haven’t heard anything concrete enough to be convincing of that kind of quantum leap. So could you specifically discuss where, when and how as theistic evolutionist you believe it occurred?
Its getting a little heated here folks. If you can’t keep your cool, don’t post. I know that this is a subject that many of you are passionate about, but treat each other with respect. We are starting to cross lines here and there. Just remember, this type of post gets a lot of tire kickers. Please represent the spirit of Christ well.
CMP,
I apologize for any fuel I have added to the fire.
John,
Fine. But stop saying you believe this because such and such evidence indicates no designer. Make up your mind, designer or no designer, but stop the schizophrenia already.
I have never said this. All of my posts have been made under the umbrella of Christian theism. It you were confused about my stance, it would have been good for you to ask me to clarify before any accusations were made.
mbaker,
So could you specifically discuss where, when and how as theistic evolutionist you believe it occurred?</i.
I'm not sure. I know broad truths, such as we bear God's image, that he is our God and we his people, and that he is the creator of all things.
Echoing Galatians 4:4, I believe when the fullness of time had come, God, in a way I do not know how, placed his divine image upon us and started the adoption process.
Certain truths, once accepted, serve as boundaries, and in as much as these truths hold, you have to operate within them. I know a few such truths that help me understand the big picture, but not necessarily the details.
For example, I know God exists, or I believe it on faith at least. Either way, it is a boundary for me. I also know he has given us an inspired Word that we can read to know him better. I also know that God's revelation is both time-bound and timeless. It's as much a product of its time and culture as it is meant for all people everywhere. Only God could make something like that.
I also know evolution is true, and is most likely the reason why we are here (I say this under the umbrella of Christian theism. Just as we can naturally explain how the weather is what it is right now, so too can we do that for our origins, even though the Bible says God causes the weather and is the creator of humanity).
The theory, or explanation of how evolution occurs will most likely change over the years, as all science does, but the fact that it happens will remain. Gravity does not cease operating because we do not fully understand it, nor does it change when our theory changes every 50 years or so.
Within these boundaries I have to operate and decide my stance on certain things. Some are easy to figure out, like the days of Genesis, while others are more difficult, like Paul's appeal to the first Adam.
So I cannot answer your question simply because scripture's scope, and therefore explanation, is fairly limited, and because science cannot even tell us much about God's actions upon his creation.
God's special revelation and general revelation are both silent on this topic. Science cannot detect with certainty something like that in the past, and neither does scripture assign a date to Adam's creation. We can guess by adding up genealogies, but scripture never comes out and tells us plainly. So it is silent on the matter.
With that said, I hope I've helped you understand my position better.
John,
I can’t figure out why you keep saying that the arguments for evolution necessitate no God. Let me see if I can do this in logical format.
1. God creates a universe with certain physical laws and designs DNA and other biological processes to work according to these physical laws.
2. God acting through these physical laws and biological processes causes more complex forms of life to arise out of simpler ones.
3. The result of acting through the physical laws and biological processes God created is that all species have junk DNA which is the evidence of the evolutionary process God used to create life.
Why does the junk DNA argument necessitate atheism??? Now if your saying that the idea of evolution allows for atheism this is absolutely true, but when you claim that evolution and the evidence for it necessitates atheism I lose you. As noted earlier the theory of evolution is neither atheistic or theistic in and off itself. It is only when people like Richard Dawkins marry it to a philosophy or theology that it becomes so, but that in no way represents the science itself, only one of a number of possible conclusions that can be drawn from it.
Your argument only holds if we were claiming that God acted outside of the physical laws He created to cause evolution. Since we aren’t claiming this your argument is void.
Kaz,
I know this is a zinger (no offense intended to anyone by this), but the idea that there was a dividing line before which there were no humans and after which there were humans with everlasting life as a result of being given a soul seems no more arbitrary then the idea that before the beginnings of time God had chosen who would turn to him and who wouldn’t by his own Sovereign choice thereby deciding who would live in eternal bliss and who would suffer eternal torment.
On the Computer Programmer Argument,
Alright my understanding of this argument is that junk DNA should be expected because there is a common creator just like there is common code in many computer programs because of common programmers. Below are three scenarios and what I think would be logical to expect in those circumstances with regards to junk DNA.
1. Atheistic Evolution (No God)
In this case we would of course expect junk DNA because everything is purely random.
2. Creationism (God creating humans from a completely blank slate)
If God were a computer programmer we would expect him to reuse parts of old programs that were useful without filtering out all the junk code for efficiencies sake. However, God is not a human computer programmer, but rather an all-powerful, all-knowing being. As a result we would expect for everything to have a function and that junk DNA which is useless to our species, but useful to other species, wouldn’t be there if He created everything in a manner that accords with a literal reading of Genesis. Now of course He could put this junk DNA in there if He so pleased, but it seems kinda deceptive to me to put a feature in our DNA which would lead one to believe He had created in a evolutionary process.
3. Theistic Evolution (God creating humans in a evolutionary process conforming the physical laws and biological processes he created).
Assuming God chose, for whatever reason, to create humans in a process conforming to the physical laws and biological processes He put in place when He created the universe then we would still expect to find junk DNA as a result of the limitations of the physical laws and biological processes He operated under.
Conclusion
The concept of junk DNA could support either Atheistic or Theistic Evolution, but does not necessitate either.
mbaker,
As Greg rightly points out our view only contradicts Scripture if your interpretation of Genesis is the correct one. However, there are numerous ways of interpreting Genesis other than literal. Not that I like linking to wikipedia or consider this an entirely accurate portrayal the link below explains another interpretation of Genesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)
Here is a theopedia article that shows a number of various views on interpreting Genesis
http://www.theopedia.com/Genesis_creation_account
[…] John MacArthur and the “Lie of Evolution” […]
Hi Michael,
You said:
“I know this is a zinger (no offense intended to anyone by this), but the idea that there was a dividing line before which there were no humans and after which there were humans with everlasting life as a result of being given a soul seems no more arbitrary then the idea that before the beginnings of time God had chosen who would turn to him and who wouldn’t by his own Sovereign choice thereby deciding who would live in eternal bliss and who would suffer eternal torment.”
First, IMO, it is absurd to suggest that a non-human could have given birth to a human being. THAT takes even more _religious faith_ in evolution than my own belief that God created man directly.
Second, I’m a non-Calvinist who, like Edward William Fudge, believes in Conditional Immortality, so you might want to come up with another analogy for me. The above could only potentially work on a Calvinist, and even then I wonder. It appears to be problematic even from a Calvinist’s perspective.
~Kaz
re post 129
This past summer’s thread was almost all on the age of the earth and is over 1,000 posts long. It would be more useful, I think, to have a theistic evolution thread on its own, if CMP would oblige at some point. I think that this thread is usefully kept to the concept of compromise only. Hence, I’m done posting here unless the discussion is on on the issue of compromise.
regards,
#John
Greg,
Thanks for explaining where you are in theistic evolutionism. While I respect your point of view, the theology of it is very weak and general, IMO. That’s why I find it hard to understand why folks are so strong on the physical aspects of evolution as proof positive to prove creationists wrong, yet they cannot support their theology of how it occurred in a similarly evidential manner. But, I thank you for being so gracious in this explanation.
Michael,
Thanks for the links. I must tell you guys don’t even bother with Wikipedia as a source any more. One reason is that if you give a link to it, the next day it can be totally changed since it is reader written. Sorry to any loyal Wikis out there, but it is notoriously unreliable resource to depend upon..
Also, your assumption seems to be that anyone who takes the literal translation of Genesis as true is wrong. There are things, IMO, that can never be proven conclusively, either way. However, even though I lean toward OEC, and can accept the physical evidence of science regarding the age of the earth with no problem, I still do not find the scientific proof sufficient that somewhere God put a soul into an animal, and that animal became a man.
While there are myths in other religions which talk of animals becoming human, there is nothing in the Bible to support that theory.
Maybe it depends on what makes us human. Is it physical or spiritual? If physical, I’d agree with the above, but as I read scripture, the clear difference between animal and human is the “Image of God” which God could have placed into an already existing physical being. I’d still count that as a special creation of mankind. Therefore, no compromise.
Though the lack of evidence for evolution is sufficient reason to reject it, in rereading CMP’s original post and the comments (more than once) and reflecting on the issue of compromise, I’ve come to believe more strongly that theistic Darwinian evolution is a compromise of one’s Christian faith (it is important to note my use of “Darwinian” and the further extrapolation of its significance below).
I have come to believe this because Darwinian evolution is inherently anti-teleological because two of its key concepts are randomness and undirectedness. By saying “anti-teleological” I am referring to teleological explanation as explanations that make a reference to the telos or end of the process.
If there is one thing that Genesis and the rest of the Bible makes clear, it is that God had an end in view when He created things in the beginning. The goal of creation was humankind, and along the way there were subgoals such as the creation of a garden with plants and animals to serve as a locale for humans and for their interaction with God. A random and undirected process would not deliver a teleogical result.
Second, a belief that what exists is comptable with a random undirected process entails a belief that God’s hand is not detectible in it (most clearly, I think, this includes “design”). Such a belief seems to be explicitly contradictory to Romans 1:20, which states that God can be detected in what we see around us:
NIV: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
NAS: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
ERV: “For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse”
KJV: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
regards,
#John
Michael on 26 Oct 2009 at 2:50 am # Kaz, I know this is a zinger (no offense intended to anyone by this), but the idea that there was a dividing line before which there were no humans and after which there were humans with everlasting life as a result of being given a soul seems no more arbitrary…
Where does this idea that man was “given a soul” come from (some call this concept “ensoulment”)?
According to Genesis 2, God formed both man and animal from the ground, any difference being that man was formed from “dust from the-ground” while animal was formed “from the-ground” proper.
One might argue for a distinction between man and animal by saying that God breathed the breath of life into man, and not into the animals. Whether God also did that to the animals is not stated, but neither is it explicitly denied.
Note that after God breathed into the man the breath of life, he became a “living being” (nephesh chayyah), Genesis 2:7. In Genesis 1:24, God says re: the creation of animals: “Let the earth bring forth living beings.” It’s the identical nephesh chayyah as in Gen. 2:7, and in both cases “living” is a feminine singular adjective, modifying the feminine singular nephesh (often translated “soul”).
Thus the argument can be made that there is no distinction between the creation of man and animals: i.e., both were created/formed/made to be a “living being” and both were formed from the ground – save that Man was made after God’s image and likeness, and [the other] animals were not.
Since man didn’t become a nephesh chayyah until God breathed into him the breath of life, and animals, too, are designated nephesh chayyah, one cannot rule out that God breathed into animals the breath of life also, just like He did to man. Genesis 7:21-22 reads:
“And-died all flesh that-moved on the-earth with-the-fowl and-with-the-beast and-with-the-living-[things] (chayyah) and-with-all the-creeping-thing the-creeping on the-earth and-all the-man[kind]. All which breath (n’shamah) of-spirit (ruach) of-lives (chayyim) in-his-nostrils from-all which in-the-dry-land they-died.”
It thus appears that n’shamah ruach chayyim (breath of spirit of life) and n’shamah chayyim (breath of life) may be interchangeable terms, which suggests that man also received ruach when God breathed into him. And because the same language used here with respect to all living things is the same language that was used with respect to man in Genesis 2:7, it suggests that birds and beasts and all living things also received n’shamah [ruach] chayyim at some point in order for them to have life. This again supports the idea that the primary difference between man and animal is that man was made in the image and likeness of God, and other animals were not.
I left out this part:
The common Hebrew word for “spirit,” ruach, is also the word for “wind” or “breath,” just like the Greek word pneuma also means “spirit/wind/breath.” Some say that God breathing the breath of life into man gave man a spirit, which made him distinct from animals. In Genesis 2:7, however, the word ruach (breath, spirit) is not used. The Hebrew states: “wayyippach b’appayw nishmat chayyim – and he-blew/puffed in-his-nostrils breath (n’shamah*) of-lives (pl. of chayyah).” There is no mention of spirit/ruach here. While one might infer that this is what happened, ruach is not said to be imparted to man in the text, and God’s ruach is not explicitly involved.
* This word n’shamah (translated here as “breath”) is frequently used with the same meaning as nephesh in rabbinic literature. In the Kaballah, it is used for the part of man that is higher than the nephesh, i.e., the intellectual and spiritual aspects as opposed to the instinctual and physical aspects.
which should precede this paragraph:
Since man didn’t become a nephesh chayyah until God breathed into him the breath of life, and animals, too, are designated nephesh chayyah, one cannot rule out that God breathed into animals the breath of life also, just like He did to man. Genesis 7:21-22 reads:
This is a fascinating discussion. I read all 185 comments (so far) and appreciate the efforts of several individuals here to provide some good information as well as perspectives on the issues. Since no one has mentioned it, I will refer interested persons to the elective course in The Theology Program that I taught this summer on Science and the Bible. It included an examination of many of the points raised here concerning both the age of the earth and the role of evolution in the origin of biological species on earth. I gave particular attention to discussing in some detail the arguments for evolution as set forth in Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True. My own position is that of an old-earth creationist, though I continue to study the arguments for and against evolution and am willing to change my view if the evidence warrants.
#John,
I quite agree with you that it would be more appropriate if we had a separate thread for this kind of discussion, especially since someone here said over 40% of evangelical theologians are now leaning toward this.
After participating in the thread you are speaking of last summer, certainly I think we covered the earth age debate, and the scientific proof offered from all sides of that quite thoroughly. We have heard from scientists and biologists, but I, for one, would like to hear from more theologians as to the reasons why they believe scripture supports theistic evolutionism.
How about it, CMP?
Follow-up to my post 183
There is another reason to treat evolution differently from geocentrism, as regards compromise.
Geocentrism and a round earth are theories that are not based on randomness (Newtonian physics is based upon the behaviour of aggregates, and so atomic, subatomic or quantum randomness is irrelevant), but upon deterministic principles or “laws” of “nature”. Furthermore, geocentrism and round earth can be proved in more direct and immediate ways, and by more than one line of proof. None of those things can be said about evolution, or at least about Darwinian evolution. Furthermore, Darwinian evolution relies on a “Darwin of the gaps”, which is not true about either geocentrism or round earth.
regards,
#John
Hi #John,
Mendel’s ideas about the segregation of gene copies (alleles) and chromosomes during meiosis require randomness. Gamete fusion is also random with respect to the alleles carried by the gametes. In all my years of teaching Mendelian genetics I’ve never had any student object to this randomness, even though it directly applies to one’s own formation from a genetics viewpoint.
John, do you agree that Mendelism (what we now call the chromosome theory of inheritance) requires randomness as a core feature? If yes, should Christians reject Mendelism because of this randomness? Or is it ok in this instance to hold that God ordains, oversees and sustains a process that appears to us as random?
@ EricW (or anyone else)
I was looking at the same thing regarding the breath of life and came to the same conclusion – the only difference in descriptions is the Image of God. But I found it interesting that “chay nephesh” (as my Strong’s shows it) is translated at least 3 different ways in Gen. 1 & 2. Mostly it’s “living creature” but in 1:30 it’s just “life” and in 2:7 it’s “living soul” or “living being.”
Are these differences (especially creature vs. soul or being) demanded by the text in any way or are they traditional in nature?
Another addition here to the compromise factor, then I will be out for the rest of the day.
There is a definite order to the creative process of God in Genesis, as # John has explained. Those of us who have been involved with nature on a professional basis, can see that order. Animals behave the same way. each according to their kind, no matter what part of the world they are found in. Where I believe some folks get hung up is they don’t understand the difference in actually evolving into entirely different creatures, and the practical changes that occur in all of nature based upon necessity. All of us are having to constantly adapt to change, and things like weather, and availability of food and water.
While that includes man, it does not follow that we evolve into entirely creatures randomly because of these changes in the end. We have never seen lions for instance evolve into other creatures, whether they are in the wild or in a zoo.
The difference in progressing, or not as the case may be, via normal adaptive behavior and evolving into different creatures because of it is huge. This is another area where I feel Christianity is being compromised. We must learn to recognize the difference in mankind’s progress by his adaptive behavior and evolving into a different creature to get a truer picture.
#John,
“proof” is something restricted to formal mathematics. Science gives you lines of evidence, not proof.
There are many, many lines of evidence for common ancestry – genomics (including several independent lines of evidence within genomics as I outline in my talk), developmental biology/embryology, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and so on.
These lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion. In science, that’s the sign of a successful theory.
Common ancestry also has strong predictive power. For example, in genomics, it allows us to predict exactly where in the genome we should find the defective remains of genes once used for ways of life the organism no longer uses – egg yolk genes, a gene for making vitamin C, and so on.
I’ve looked over the long thread from the summer, and you clearly see how many lines of evidence point to an old earth (coral reefs, ice cores, and so on). You rightly reject the argument that an appearance of age is what God intended. I’m curious why you fail to see the same pattern here on the common descent issue.
Dave Z:
My Biblical Greek is quantum leaps better than my Biblical Hebrew, but all language and translation is contextual – i.e., a word should be translated (if possible to determine) so as to mean what the author meant it to mean in the context in which he used it. I wouldn’t, however, rely on a Strong’s Concordance for determining the translations of Hebrew words. I assume your Strong’s is based on the KJV, and the KJV translators stated their translation philosophy – i.e., they didn’t feel bound to translate the same Hebrew or Greek word by the same English word – nor would that be a proper practice anyway, unless one is creating an interlinear for the sole purpose of ensuring a one-to-one correspondence between the interlinear and the original language.
One should look at Hebrew lexicons or wordbooks and see how the word is defined and then, via a concordance, read the passages where the word is used. It really helps to learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabets and pronunciation and some vocabulary and a little about the grammar (one could go through Goodrick’s DO IT YOURSELF HEBREW AND GREEK if one doesn’t have the time or inclination to learn the languages in depth) so one can read or follow the passage in the original and see how the translation maps to the original text. With that knowledge, one can begin to interact with commentaries that deal with the Hebrew and Greek texts and see what they say about the meaning and translation of the word.
Hi Dennis,
Good to have a scientist involved. I found your talk linked above very interesting, although I’m still uncertain about various things involving evolution and how it fits in to everything. It does make certain things unclear with regard to Adam and Eve, and I’m concerned about how that affects the rest of scripture. You seem to be saying that there really is no possibility of all of humanity being descended from two individuals. Are you familiar with Reasons To Believe? They seem to say the opposite, it is a big part of what they call their ‘testable creation model’ that genetic evidence shows we are all descended from one man and one woman, and that this can be traced to around where they say the Garden of Eden would have been.
On a side note, your talk appears to have attracted a response from a young Christian youtuber – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rimah8a-hWM .
re post 189
I am not opposed to randomness per se, or to a Christian’s belief in a theory that entails randomness. The distinction I was drawing in my post 188 was the difference between the science of geocentricism and round earth (and stars in space instead of in a firmanent) and the science of evolution. The nonrandom, predictable, law-like, directly observable, repeatable, and falsifiable nature of the physical sciences in relation to geocentrism is entirely unlike the nature of the science in the theory of Darwinian evolution. The former is thus irrational not to believe and so properly informs our interpretation of God’s word. The latter (Darwinian evolution) is thus not irrational to disbelieve and, on the (lack of) evidence, is in fact very rational to disbelieve.
I think that another reason why Darwinian evolution is a compromise of belief is that it has an underlying religious nature and requires a considerable degree of faith. Its underlying religious nature is its removal of God, purpose and teleology entirely from the natural order (which I use instead of “creation” or “evolution” in order to be more value neutral). If Darwinian evolution is true, then God is entirely unecessary to the process. Of course, using a possible worlds philosophical argument one could conjecture that a world exists in which God used a process in which his hand is entirely undectable by humans in order to manufacture the natural world.
But such a hypothesis or belief is entirely speculative and without any grounding in Scripture. Moreover, it has all the appearance and smell of being merely an ad hoc, and also post hoc, hypothesis or belief that is adopted solely to preserve the possibility of belief in God in the face of an acceptance of Darwinian evolution as true. Such a speculative belief is rather thin gruel for a believer.
In addition it is difficult to escape some sort of deism if one accepts Darwinian evolution. For example, Elihu Palmer (ripping off, I believe, a 1746 pamphlet by Peter Annet), published in 1804 a piece titled, “Prospect, or View of a Moral World”.
He wrote, “. . . but perfect wisdom and power can do no otherwise tham pursue the best end in the best manner–therefore cannot alter either.–If God ever determined for moral ends and reasons to interpose, if needful, by a different method, than that of his standard laws–it must be either because he could not foresee the consequences, which is like blundering in the dark; or he foresaw it would be needful–and then it would be like a blunder in the design and contrivance; or he foreknew and determined his own works should not answer His own ends, without His mending work, which is worst of all.”
A similar argument is made by Francis Collins. However, I do not see any warrant for this belief on the basis of, or from, Scripture.
As to the evidence, and disputability or lack thereof, for evolution, that is a matter for another thread.
#John
Yeah, I haven’t done that yet, and probably won’t in the next few hours…so…that’s why I was asking if someone else could enlighten me on that particular difference in translation, which seems to be pretty consistent across the half dozen versions I checked.
mbaker,
Thanks for explaining where you are in theistic evolutionism. While I respect your point of view, the theology of it is very weak and general, IMO. That’s why I find it hard to understand why folks are so strong on the physical aspects of evolution as proof positive to prove creationists wrong, yet they cannot support their theology of how it occurred in a similarly evidential manner. But, I thank you for being so gracious in this explanation.
Can you answer the same question that you asked me?
So could you specifically discuss where, when and how as theistic evolutionist you believe it occurred?
Considering that you are more of an old earth type, of which I also am, how do you fit the timeframe into Genesis of man’s creation and subsequent soul indwelling?
I’m somewhat confused as well, as I don’t recall Genesis even touching on that particular subject. In chapter 1 we have God making man in his own image, and in chapter 2 the breathing into his nostrils to make him a living being. If you refer to that event as the soul-indwelling, then I’ll point there and say “Here is where it occurred”.
Now if you wish to decide exactly what that means, theologically, then I’m fine if it means all that Christian theism has come to believe it to mean. I’m sure there are ANE nuances to the meaning, and I’d love to explore those more to understand just what the original author meant to convey by that, but now I’m comfortable with what I have. If you want an exact process, I have nothing other than scripture, and I’m fine with that. If you want an exact time, then I have none. But you don’t have one either.
As to where, well Eden, of course. If you want to translate that into a physical location, then you’re showing more concern for it than the writer of Genesis, as he provides no definite location. Again, I’m very interested in what ANE studies can shed on this.
And as I pointed out in my previous explanation, neither the Bible nor science can answer your question, so I do not think it right that you hold that against my theology. In essence, you are asking me a question that you cannot even answer with certainty from your own vantage point.
Further, if you have all the theological answers please tell them to me as I am all ears. I was unaware that a theology in development qualified as means to dismiss it and science. It almost seems that tradition and dogma is more prized than seeking truth where ever it will lead.
As mentioned by CMP very early on, Evangelical scholarship is moving in the direction of theistic evolution. It will take time for us to integrate that into our theology just as it is taking time for us to integrate an ANE view in as well. But we are making strong progress.
Remember, Rome was not built in a day. Neither is our theology.
mbaker,
I, for one, would like to hear from more theologians as to the reasons why they believe scripture supports theistic evolutionism.
I think we’ve been going about this all wrong. One of the things I am firmly against is trying to find modern science in ancient scripture. This is why I’ve emphasized reading and understanding Genesis through ancient eyes, a rather basic hermeneutic, but one that is constanly overlooked in the debate over origins.
Of course Genesis doesn’t have anything about theistic evolution in it! The concept itself didn’t exist. The only science in Genesis is Ancient Near Eastern science, which God very obviously used to convey his spiritual and theological truths to the newly released Israelites.
Genesis, and also all of scripture, has to be read first from the perspective of the original author and recipients. If we start from our perspective and try to look for answers to our questions, than we are trying to get the Bible to answer something it may not be equipped to answer.
Overlooking historical and cultural contexts brings the interpreter very close to eisegesis too, reading meaning into scripture instead of finding meaning within it. For example, if I found justification for theistic evolution in the Bible, I would be doing eisegesis and not exegesis.
I should only expect to find science already known to the original author and audience. Anything more isn’t being fair with scripture.
Evolution, whether Darwinian or not, is also a compromise to faith because it is naturalist and materialist in both ideology and methodology. Since it a priori excludes the non-natural and the non-material it can never be a complete explanation of anything except the workings of a deistic God, a God who flips the switch to get things going and then backs off. It thus seems to me that “theistic evolution” is a misnomer; what is actually meant is “theism and evolution”, or two ideas in parallel that never meet or interact. There is nothing theistic at all about evolutionary theory. The theism is just a tack on that justifies prayer and religious experience in the face of the evolutionary explanation.
As mentioned above, in response to comments by John and mbaker, it is not impossible for God to use Darwinian evolution and to be deistic at least in regard to the result in the natural world that we observe today. However, that is merely a possible worlds speculation (as I discussed in an earlier post) that is certainly not necessitated or even implied by evolution, and which is also not implied by Scripture. Indeed, given passages such as Romans 1:20, various Psalms, etc., it seems not only unlikely but improbable and contrary to Scripture that God would have used a process to bring about nature such that we could not detect his handiwork.
If God did use some sort of process akin to evolution, that is, developmental from common descent but not devoid of immaterial and spiritual causes, then modern science will not ever construct the correct theory and current “theistic evolution” is both a red herring and a misdirection of effort and belief.
The deism of modern evolutionary theory, especially Darwinian evolution, is incompatible with God as He reveals Himself in Scripture, and is thus a compromise of Christian belief.
Kaz,
I’m really uncomfortable with your statement that non-humans gave birth to humans because I think it not only mischaracterizes what I have said, but mischaracterizes what a human is.
The only way your statement could be accurate is all that composed humans was physical. Since all Christians believe that humans are greater then just what physically composes us (soul and spirit) this argument loses it’s force. No non-human could ever give birth to a human because creating a human requires a supernatural intervention of God in giving humans a eternal soul. Now the idea that God gave this soul to a preexisting creatures does not mean that a non-human gave birth to a human, rather that God gave birth to humans. Oh yeah and God guided the process from the beginning with the intent of that happening all along.