• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theism. Is it by default anti-evolution?

Are theists by default against evolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 38 95.0%
  • Something else that I will explain

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Total voters
    40

firedragon

Veteran Member
I have one reason as to why they might think that. It is due to ignorance. Some people automatically have this idea below as being true.....

1. Theism = religious = anti evolution

and

2. Atheism = non religious = evolution

You are right. I believe some people think like this. They show this thought in a normal thread about another topic, but in this topic no one has admitted this thought pattern.

I would say that theism has nothing to do with anti-evolution, and atheism has nothing to do with evolution.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
They don't perceive the "meeting in the air" to refer to anything but that,
actually, in my opinion the rapture is just that.
It's just the meeting in the air.
The proponents of "pretrip" rapture go one step further: they say the raptured people are taken to heaven. Other people say they are just raptured to anything close to the sky and that's it. The controversy going on about this topic.... is if there is a "rapture to heaven" or not.
But for our discussion, it suffices to know that there is a point in time when the raptured people are no longer on earth, but somewhere in the sky. If underneath the earth gets destroyed, it won't do harm to them, as I see it.
When they are "in the air", that doesn't mean they will feel like being eliminated. The rapture is perceived as a pleasant event for the raptured people, see Mat 24:40. "taken" means something positive because it is compared to the flood when being taken meant being saved (Matthew 24:37-39).

I wasn't kind, it's just natural for evangelists to be open for debate, that's what I'm here for. :)

and we don't know what to expect, but can only at best hope that God will do what is favorable for us,
well, yeah, that's basically it, thank you for formulating this.

What is it about evolution you object to in particular? Would an appropriate compromise be as follows:
it doesn't match Bible passages.

See for instance Psalms 147:9. For the Theory of Evolution there is survival of the fittest. Those who are best adapt to their environment survive, those who are not don't.
However, God constantly saves those who are not fit at all, it seems. This runs counter to the ToE.
Genesis 21:17. Same situation as above: a really unfit person was saved from death. By God.

Additionally, the Theory if Evolution is the only scientific theory that overlaps with theology, as I see it. According to the ToE, God cannot and must not have created one single living being seperately from any other. The Theory of Evolution has set down the number of how many common ancestors there are: 1. Only 1 common universal ancestor of all life.

If God would go ahead and create just one worm today... the whole ToE would be bunk.

Compare this to the theory of Gravitation: if an angel came to lift up the pencil in front of you... gravitation would still be true. The angel would "beat" gravitation and lift the pencil up by
his or her own force... but gravitation is still there.
In sharp contrast, when God creates one worm seperately, the principle of common ancestory of all life would be gone/ is gone.

Wouldn't that in every case be a better view or way of thinking and speaking about each thing? Wouldn't it bring one closer to a Greater seeming notion regarding God and using careful speech to avoid error or blasphemies?
I don't think so. God wants communication, Ephesians 5:20. And communication involves a clear language.
If "day", for instance means everything from a day till 3 billion years.... it means nothing, in my view, and you can't use this word for communication, for instance. If you have too many words with no meaning you can't talk. That's the problem that I see.
God wants to be understood as he wants to be a good father, Luke 15:6, so things are rather simple, as I see it.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Well, you have made a list of 7, but another could make a list of much more, or much less, as needed for that argument.

But nevertheless that counting and allusion is not valid because the 7 days mentioned in the Bible is for creation and all of these people you mentioned came after creation. Quran mentions 6 days. And it says Ayyam, which is a very well known simple language which means a period. It does not mean a day with a morning and evening and 24 hours where the sun rises and sets, and definitely not in the Quran although you can make that with the Biblical account.

As far as I know, in the history of any kind of Quranic exegesis, no one valid has made the case that it was 6 days as you and I know in the English language. Quran bi Quran shows that God says a time period for a man is minuscule for God in two different verses which shows that mans time period is not relative to God.

Thus, there is no indication whatsoever in the Quran to what you alluded.

Peace.


I believe it’s speaking of spiritual not physical creation. So a Day referred to is the day a new Prophet of God arises.
 
actually, in my opinion the rapture is just that.
It's just the meeting in the air.
The proponents of "pretrip" rapture go one step further: they say the raptured people are taken to heaven. Other people say they are just raptured to anything close to the sky and that's it. The controversy going on about this topic.... is if there is a "rapture to heaven" or not.
But for our discussion, it suffices to know that there is a point in time when the raptured people are no longer on earth, but somewhere in the sky. If underneath the earth gets destroyed, it won't do harm to them, as I see it.
When they are "in the air", that doesn't mean they will feel like being eliminated. The rapture is perceived as a pleasant event for the raptured people, see Mat 24:40. "taken" means something positive because it is compared to the flood when being taken meant being saved (Matthew 24:37-39).

I wasn't kind, it's just natural for evangelists to be open for debate, that's what I'm here for. :)


well, yeah, that's basically it, thank you for formulating this.


it doesn't match Bible passages.

See for instance Psalms 147:9. For the Theory of Evolution there is survival of the fittest. Those who are best adapt to their environment survive, those who are not don't.
However, God constantly saves those who are not fit at all, it seems. This runs counter to the ToE.
Genesis 21:17. Same situation as above: a really unfit person was saved from death. By God.

Additionally, the Theory if Evolution is the only scientific theory that overlaps with theology, as I see it. According to the ToE, God cannot and must not have created one single living being seperately from any other. The Theory of Evolution has set down the number of how many common ancestors there are: 1. Only 1 common universal ancestor of all life.

If God would go ahead and create just one worm today... the whole ToE would be bunk.

Compare this to the theory of Gravitation: if an angel came to lift up the pencil in front of you... gravitation would still be true. The angel would "beat" gravitation and lift the pencil up by
his or her own force... but gravitation is still there.
In sharp contrast, when God creates one worm seperately, the principle of common ancestory of all life would be gone/ is gone.


I don't think so. God wants communication, Ephesians 5:20. And communication involves a clear language.
If "day", for instance means everything from a day till 3 billion years.... it means nothing, in my view, and you can't use this word for communication, for instance. If you have too many words with no meaning you can't talk. That's the problem that I see.
God wants to be understood as he wants to be a good father, Luke 15:6, so things are rather simple, as I see it.

The way people understand the word "day" today may be just what has become dominant or common.

The Bible was not apparently written in English, but here:
"
Old English dæg "period during which the sun is above the horizon," also "lifetime, definite time of existence," from Proto-Germanic *dages- "day" (source also of Old Saxon, Middle Dutch, Dutch dag, Old Frisian di, dei, Old High German tag, German Tag, Old Norse dagr, Gothic dags), according to Watkins, from PIE root *agh- "a day." He adds that the Germanic initial d- is "of obscure origin." But Boutkan says it is from PIE root *dhegh- "to burn" (see fever). Not considered to be related to Latin dies (which is from PIE root *dyeu- "to shine").

Meaning originally, in English, "the daylight hours;" it expanded to mean "the 24-hour period" in late Anglo-Saxon times. The day formerly began at sunset, hence Old English Wodnesniht was what we would call "Tuesday night." Names of the weekdays were not regularly capitalized in English until 17c.

From late 12c. as "a time period as distinguished from other time periods." Day-by-day "daily" is from late 14c.; all day "all the time" is from late 14c. Day off "day away from work" is attested from 1883; day-tripper first recorded 1897. The days in nowadays, etc. is a relic of the Old English and Middle English use of the adverbial genitive.

All in a day's work "something unusual taken as routine" is by 1820. The nostalgic those were the days is attested by 1907. That'll be the day, expressing mild doubt following some boast or claim, is by 1941. To call it a day "stop working" is by 1919; earlier call it a half-day (1838). One of these days "at some day in the near future" is from late 15c. One of those days "a day of misfortune" is by 1936."
________________________

Greek (Septuagint, the Bible apparently known to and used by the people writing the New Testament):
ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ 1 Apostolic Bible Polyglot
Strong's Greek: 2250. ἡμέρα (hémera) -- day

a day

Feminine (with hora implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit; akin to the base of hedraios) meaning tame, i.e. Gentle; day, i.e. (literally) the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole aganaktesis hours (but several days were usually reckoned by the Jews as inclusive of the parts of both extremes); figuratively, a period (always defined more or less clearly by the context) -- age, + alway, (mid-)day (by day, (-ly)), + for ever, judgment, (day) time, while, years.

___________________

Hebrew
Genesis 1:5 Hebrew Text Analysis
Strong's Hebrew: 3117. יוֹם (yom) -- day

"
age, always, continually, daily, birth, each, today,

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb) -- age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... Live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger."

_______________________

It seems that the words are used in English, Greek, and Hebrew in a multitude of ways, to mean a multitude of things, including "indefinite periods of time". Furthermore, if the rotation of the Earth is faster and gradually becomes slower, a person could live for many more days while still having an approximately normal seeming lifespan by our standards. If the rotation of the Earth is slowed or still, a day by even that definition of day can be incredibly lengthy.

They say "survival of the fittest", but it isn't always the case, as you pointed out, and many times there are different weird things that account for the different things where a species might get saved, they would call it "Chance", we call it "God". God forms the baby in the wombs, shapes them, that is God's action at work, and does so in stages, step by step, from cells to whatever else, and so God can also over a period make things move, animals roaring and killing each other just like cells, and this and that happening over time, which ends up with so and such lion being the winner of some battle and breeding these children then this happens and that happens, and then their faces take on different shapes with mutations created by God and so on and so forth, its like the process we see in the womb but out in the wild, the reason it is hard to see is that its very slow and long, and we have very short lifespans and limited vision and can't see the big picture as it plays out in God's formation of things, but do you personally consider God's activities to be present and active in the operation and consequences and results of all things whatsoever?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I believe it’s speaking of spiritual not physical creation. So a Day referred to is the day a new Prophet of God arises.

But that not true. Anyway, this is your faith you are imposing upon this thread. What I am interested in knowing is who specifically propagated that this 6 days of creation was a theistic evolution specifically. In fact I will cut and paste the question again so that you could provide an objective answer.

"Which theist specifically are you speaking about who tried to interpret the 6 periods or 7 days or whatever as "earthly evolution"? I am interested to know some specific details."
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Well, that's has nothing to do with the Qur'an.
If you agree that, there are hidden meanings, or inner meanings in the Quran, which is not understood by ordinary men, and only God and His chosen ones can tell us, then,


In the Quran it is written, God has created the world in Six Days.
In the Quran it is also written each Day is 1000 years.

Muhammad has said, this world is like days of a week. It began with Adam, and the last day of this week is when the Qaim comes.

If you take these words literally it is against science, for Adam could not be literally the first human. Moreover, according to both Bible and Islamic traditions Adam lived 6000 years ago.
Bahai writing tells us, this is a reference to beginning of a specific human cycle which began with Adam. Though before Adam, there were other human beings and prophets.
There is a Hadith from Muhammad, that creation is like a building, and Muhammad was the last brick of this building. This is the creation of human civilization starting from Adam and ending with Muhammad. This creation took 6000 years, or the six days. It is figurative. Its meaning is not obvious, and if you believe there is nothing hidden in Scriptures, you would not accept this interpretation.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Quran also says each day is 50000 years.
Yes, but for calculating 6 days, it would be 1000 years. Because, in the context of the verses, where it is talking about 6 days, it also says a day is 1000 years.

"It is Allah who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): ye have none, besides him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?
He conducts every affair from the heavens to the earth, then it all ascends to Him on a Day whose length is a thousand years by your counting." 32:4-5

The Quran is giving a hint, by putting these verses together, telling us, a day of the six day, is to be counted as 1000 years.



50,000 years is about something else. I would suggest, the context give us the hints.

For someone who doesnt and doesnt want to understand arabic that's fine.

Quran says, Allah created Adam with clay and blow spirit in it. As if first human came to existence as a single human out of no where. It contradicts with evolution which tells us, we were animals before, and even small species or simple cells.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes, but for calculating 6 days, it would be 1000 years. Because, in the context of the verses, where it is talking about 6 days, it also says a day is 1000 years.

"It is Allah who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): ye have none, besides him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?
He conducts every affair from the heavens to the earth, then it all ascends to Him on a Day whose length is a thousand years by your counting." 32:4-5

The Quran is giving a hint, by putting these verses together, telling us, a day of the six day, is to be counted as 1000 years.



50,000 years is about something else. I would suggest, the context give us the hints.



Quran says, Allah created Adam with clay and blow spirit in it. As if first human came to existence as a single human out of no where. It contradicts with evolution which tells us, we were animals before, and even small species or simple cells.

The Bahai theory - Six days of creation, one day is a thousand days, one prophet per day
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Hebrew
Genesis 1:5 Hebrew Text Analysis
Strong's Hebrew: 3117. יוֹם (yom) -- day

"
age, always, continually, daily, birth, each, today,

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb) -- age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... Live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger."
in my opinion, whenever a translation is used that is different from "day", "day" would also fit in, I suggest. For stylistical reasons they choose a different word, I think.
In sharp contrast, evolutionary theists from the Christian side, as I understand them, say that day MUST not mean day. Their theological understaning would not suit science, otherwise. So, their minds are set it seems. For them Science is the arbiter of the Bible, it seems to me.
If the above cited meanings for yom/ day are meant to preclude the translation of "day" in a sense that it MUST not mean day... then Bible interpretation would get really horrible and it would be the property of the wise and the rhetorically fittest.
I'm against that approach.

For me, it's not necessary that science always confirms Bible.
If it does, it's nice to have, if it doesn't, it's means work for apologists.

;)
but do you personally consider God's activities to be present and active in the operation and consequences and results of all things whatsoever?
I'm not quite sure. Bible says, prophets are able to see God's works. I believe it's transparent for them..
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
in my opinion, whenever a translation is used that is different from "day", "day" would also fit in, I suggest. For stylistical reasons they choose a different word, I think.
In sharp contrast, evolutionary theists from the Christian side, as I understand them, say that day MUST not mean day. Their theological understaning would not suit science, otherwise. So, their minds are set it seems. For them Science is the arbiter of the Bible, it seems to me.
If the above cited meanings for yom/ day are meant to preclude the translation of "day" in a sense that it MUST not mean day... then Bible interpretation would get really horrible and it would be the property of the wise and the rhetorically fittest.
I'm against that approach.

For me, it's not necessary that science always confirms Bible.
If it does, it's nice to have, if it doesn't, it's means work for apologists.

;)

I'm not quite sure. Bible says, prophets are able to see God's works. I believe it's transparent for them..

The Bahai theory - Six days of creation, one day is a thousand days, one prophet per day
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Quran says, Allah created Adam with clay and blow spirit in it. As if first human came to existence as a single human out of no where. It contradicts with evolution which tells us, we were animals before, and even small species or simple cells.

Sis. Thats absolutely not correct.

God says that when it came to Adam he created him and then said "Kun fa yakoon". By the time the so called "blowing" is happening, Adam is already made and you should know that Sin, waw, yaa, and Sawwa should understood a little better than that level. Quran says that all life came from one nafs, one soul, and that single life replicated itself and that's how life evolved. Sawwahu when it comes to Adam is a fashioning him, not about making a statue from clay.

The problem is the context of the Quran is not taken. You are speaking of context, but you are not taking of the Quran. Read the whole book. One book has its own context of the book. The whole book. Not one verse at a time. So when it comes to Adam, you have to understand the Quran to make this kind of exegesis.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
What is it about evolution you object to in particular? Would an appropriate compromise be as follows:

it doesn't match Bible passages.

See for instance Psalms 147:9. For the Theory of Evolution there is survival of the fittest. Those who are best adapt to their environment survive, those who are not don't.
However, God constantly saves those who are not fit at all, it seems. This runs counter to the ToE.
From what you said here, I've found the origin to your problem, which is, your misunderstanding of the ToE. So you took two different things regarding different and separate ideas and compared them to each other for consistency. First, I have to ask, why are you doing such an irrational thing like that? What would be a rational reason for someone to even consider that two separate ideas should have similar things and/or be consistent with each other? Second, if one's goal was to find differences between such two things, it should be obvious to think that one is bound to find at least one different thing without even doing a thorough investigation. Why? Because they are two different and separate things talking about different unrelated ideas. Then the question would be, what is the significance of finding differences?

Now for your misunderstanding of ToE. The first and probably the most important thing you need to understand is that it the theory isn't referring to individual organisms. What it is actually talking about, is the population of the same organism.

**mod edit**
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Why do some of the atheists and theists believe that theism is by default against evolution?
Because it is stated, and some believe, that God (or a god or gods) created life. If life came about naturally, then that isn't so. Both cannot be true without bending either.

There are some atheists that insist a theist must be anti-evolution. Its almost blasphemous for a theist to speak about evolution. Sometimes it is almost a religious, dogmatic, 'this is mine, not yours" kind of argument. Why is that?

In the past there have been many theists who propagated and taught evolution. There have also been many who didnt know about the evolutionary thoughts. So they are not against evolution but are theists themselves. Thus, is it an educated assumption or just a dismissal? Or is it something else?

Even some theists think that theists by default are against evolution. Whats strange is that they dont seem to know or believe there were any theists in the past who even spoke of evolution. Well, that's wrong.

Why?
People believe dogmatically. The Christian believes in the words of their book, the atheist in the 'words' of their ontology.

Some are able to look beyond the words.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Because it is stated, and some believe, that God (or a god or gods) created life. If life came about naturally, then that isn't so. Both cannot be true without bending either.

Well, with all due respect you have not understood evolution. Theory of evolution does not theorise how life came about. It begins with life, not how life evolved from inorganic to organic.

So there is absolutely no conflict like that by default. So its a misunderstanding.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Well, with all due respect you have not understood evolution. Theory of evolution does not theorise how life came about. It begins with life, not how life evolved from inorganic to organic.

So there is absolutely no conflict like that by default. So its a misunderstanding.
I understand it fine. You asked for an explanation of those who don't, so I offered one.
 

Zaha Torte

Active Member
Why do some of the atheists and theists believe that theism is by default against evolution? There are some atheists that insist a theist must be anti-evolution. Its almost blasphemous for a theist to speak about evolution. Sometimes it is almost a religious, dogmatic, 'this is mine, not yours" kind of argument. Why is that?

In the past there have been many theists who propagated and taught evolution. There have also been many who didnt know about the evolutionary thoughts. So they are not against evolution but are theists themselves. Thus, is it an educated assumption or just a dismissal? Or is it something else?

Even some theists think that theists by default are against evolution. Whats strange is that they dont seem to know or believe there were any theists in the past who even spoke of evolution. Well, that's wrong.

Why?
Many people equate "theist" with Abrahamic religions.

I do believe that Abrahamic religions must needs reject the theory of the evolution of Man on a doctrinal basis.
 
Top