Theistic (Biblical) Evolution: How Does This Sucker work?

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

If you're decent at maths, you can set up the rules in a way that within a closed system leads to a result that you want. Many theistic evolutionists believe that God was present in setting life in motion and perhaps elevating man at one point beyond animals. Note that I'm speaking about what others believe. I personally have no preference.

Thats a good theory.

 

[1robin]

"Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that 'evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God, and Theistic evolution, which accepts that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God'."
source

This is very well and good, but how does one reconcile this with the claims found in early Genesis where stuff happens independently of one another and in days, etc.?

.

The biblical theory of evolutions comes from verses of the following type.


New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

This would mean that God created the archetype of each kind of beast and that there were free to evolve according to their kind. Kind is usually (but not exclusively) taken to mean a breeding population. It is easier to say what kinds aren't than what they are. This means that biblical evolution occurs but it seems to be limited.

Ignore my response. I forgot that I decided not to debate this topic for quite a while.

 

[Skwim]

The biblical theory of evolutions comes from verses of the following type.


New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

This would mean that God created the archetype of each kind of beast and that there were free to evolve according to their kind.

But it doesn't say anything about the kinds being any kind of archetype. It says the animals were already created according to their kinds, so how would they evolve into themselves---their kinds?

.

 

[1robin]

But it doesn't say anything about the kinds being any kind of archetype. It says the animals were already created according to their kinds, so how would they evolve into themselves---their kinds?

.

A while back I debated a few people in another evolution thread. I swore I wouldn't do so again for a while because this is one of those emotional issues for some people. However I realized that after I responded to you so I will continue our discussion for now.

The bible says that God created "wild animals" according to their "kinds". I take that to mean God created the original pair of dogs, cats, finches etc.... and they then evolved into all the types of animals we see around us.

However if you want more than just my opinion here is an entire article that illustrates what the bible means by "kinds": What Does after Its Kind Mean?

That link goes to the premier online bible search engine.

Here is another that goes more in depth.
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The biblical theory of evolutions comes from verses of the following type.


New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

This would mean that God created the archetype of each kind of beast and that there were free to evolve according to their kind. Kind is usually (but not exclusively) taken to mean a breeding population. It is easier to say what kinds aren't than what they are. This means that biblical evolution occurs but it seems to be limited.

Ignore my response. I forgot that I decided not to debate this topic for quite a while.

No, theistic evolution is simply regular evolution except that "God done did it". Unlike creationism it assumes that God can't lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A while back I debated a few people in another evolution thread. I swore I wouldn't do so again for a while because this is one of those emotional issues for some people. However I realized that after I responded to you so I will continue our discussion for now.

The bible says that God created "wild animals" according to their "kinds". I take that to mean God created the original pair of dogs, cats, finches etc.... and they then evolved into all the types of animals we see around us.

However if you want more than just my opinion here is an entire article that illustrates what the bible means by "kinds": What Does after Its Kind Mean?

That link goes to the premier online bible search engine.

Here is another that goes more in depth.
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

If I recall correctly you were the one that got rather emotional.

Your error here was to rely on cretionists rather on those that believe in theistic evolution for your definitions.

 

[Skwim]

The bible says that God created "wild animals" according to their "kinds". I take that to mean God created the original pair of dogs, cats, finches etc.... and they then evolved into all the types of animals we see around us.

Well, to be fair not every Bible says "God created "wild animals" according to their "kinds"

Out of 51 Bibles checked

15 Bibles say "according to their kind"
8 Bibles say "according to their kinds,"
11 Bibles say "wild (and tame) animals"
7 Bibles say "each kind" or "every kind"
3 Bibles say "every type of"
2 Bibles say "species"
1 bible says "each"
1 Bible says "every one of them"
1 Bible says "them all"
1 Bible says "all sorts of"
1 Bible says "every sort and kind"
​

So only 23 of the Bibles (45%) could be said to actually imply a specific group of animals having similar characteristics: "according to their kind" or "according to their kinds."

Therefore, while you may choose one of the 23 Bibles to support your theology, there are 28 (55%) that do not. Moreover the number of different interpretations of Gen 1:25, 11 altogether, speaks to an uncertainty that doesn't give any of them much veracity or imbue them with much trustworthiness.

However if you want more than just my opinion here is an entire article that illustrates what the bible means by "kinds": What Does after Its Kind Mean?

That link goes to the premier online bible search engine.

Please note what your link says:

"The Bible teaches "the fixity of the species" in that each biblical kind can only reproduce within certain fixed boundaries."​

Fixed boundaries being those elements that define each species. Moreover, The "the fixity of the species" means that species do not evolve into other species. They remain fixed. So however you choose to define "kind" it cannot designate a form of plant or animal other than a species, of which there are about 8.7 million.

Here is another that goes more in depth.
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

AiG is one of the most deceitful religious sites on the internet. It's integrity is near zero. Ken Ham, its grand overseer, has very little compunctions about lying or misrepresenting facts, and is therefore utterly untrustworthy.

 

[Kenny]

No need to quibble, both fit nicely.

I know you are sincere... but mostly sincerely wrong.

Peace.

 

[Audie]

evolution to work requires
- non life to life
- single cell to multi
- invert to vertebrae
- asexual to sexual
- egg layer to non egg layer
- ape to man

but yes there is a law of biology that life comes form life... sounds like an obstacle to getting to first base

Your first there "non-life to life" is such a tiresome old
bit of confusion.

Evolution is exactly the same whether "god" started it, or not.
Why is that hard to understand?

As for the other requirements, a little knowledge of basic
biology and you'd not find those to be some sort of
reasons that ToE could not be true.

Ape to man? People are apes.

 

[Sapiens]

I know you are sincere... but mostly sincerely wrong.

Peace.

That appears to be the non-evidentiary, "you're wrong because I say so," which is argumentation that no rational person would take seriously.

 

[viole]

"Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that 'evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God, and Theistic evolution, which accepts that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God'."
source

This is very well and good, but how does one reconcile this with the claims found in early Genesis where stuff happens independently of one another and in days, etc.?

.

I think both views have problems. The literal and the figurative. Both counts as creationism, I think. It just depends on where they set the creation point.

On a personal note, i see evolutionary theism as more absurd than Adam and Eve and dinosaurs playing with kids. More absurd than Ham’s museums and arks.

I mean, which benevolent and omnipotent God, who knows what He wants, would use something even similar to evolution by natural selection to achieve His goals?

To me it looks like a desperate attempt ro salvage God under the obvious evidence of pure, amoral, ateleological and unguided naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

The Days of Creation represent the 7 stages of our souls development. They aren't literal days.

If you draw comparisons to the 7 Chakras and 7 Root Races, you can see a pattern emerge as it describes the cyclic ascension of the soul.

This is why I hate numerology.

Playing the number games, as if such numbers have inherent supernatural properties or as if they have some hidden meanings.

It just more silly superstitions.

 

[Skwim]

evolution to work requires
- non life to life
- single cell to multi
- invert to vertebrae
- asexual to sexual
- egg layer to non egg layer
- ape to man

but yes there is a law of biology that life comes form life... sounds like an obstacle to getting to first base

It's so sad to see people write like this, as if they actually knew what they are talking about. First of all, evolution has NOTHING to do with first causes---how life came about. It ONLY addresses how life CHANGES. Secondly, there is no such biological law, as you've made up here, that suggests life comes form life. Putting out nonsense like this does your credibility no good, so may want to think twice about concocting "facts" again. *Sheesh!*

.

 

[Milton Platt]

"Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that 'evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God, and Theistic evolution, which accepts that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God'."
source

This is very well and good, but how does one reconcile this with the claims found in early Genesis where stuff happens independently of one another and in days, etc.?

.

Does he offer any evidence to support his assertions? We understand the mechanisms that drive evolution and they are all natural processes.

 

[1robin]

No, theistic evolution is simply regular evolution except that "God done did it". Unlike creationism it assumes that God can't lie.

Not according to either of the links I supplied. What is "regular" evolution?

BTW I thought you posting to me in another thread was a resounding no. Your being very inconsistent.

 

[1robin]

If I recall correctly you were the one that got rather emotional.

Don't transfer all the color commentary from the other thread into this one.

Your error here was to rely on cretionists rather on those that believe in theistic evolution for your definitions.

I do not think you get it. We were trying to determine what the bible means when it uses the term "Kinds" in this context.

We are trying to reconcile our selves with the following verse and those like it:

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

This would mean that evolution is limited and common descent is untrue. You need to provide proof that evolution has no limits and hat common descent is true. You need to provide a counter to the verse above. This is impossible.

 

[1robin]

Well, to be fair not every Bible says "God created "wild animals" according to their "kinds"

I was not trying to provide this level of detail. All the verses in question have very similar translations.

Out of 51 Bibles checked

15 Bibles say "according to their kind"
8 Bibles say "according to their kinds,"
11 Bibles say "wild (and tame) animals"
7 Bibles say "each kind" or "every kind"
3 Bibles say "every type of"
2 Bibles say "species"
1 bible says "each"
1 Bible says "every one of them"
1 Bible says "them all"
1 Bible says "all sorts of"
1 Bible says "every sort and kind"​

You seem to have done your homework. I am impressed. However, what are you trying to show? Are you saying the same verse has been translated in 11 ways? It is only a problem if they contradict each other.
​

So only 23 of the Bibles (45%) could be said to actually imply a specific group of animals having similar characteristics: "according to their kind" or "according to their kinds."

Again, are you claiming that there are contradictions concerning the same scripture in the bible. This seems to just be a common occurrence of what is known as literary telescoping. They do not appear to be contradictions.

Therefore, while you may choose one of the 23 Bibles to support your theology, there are 28 (55%) that do not. Moreover the number of different interpretations of Gen 1:25, 11 altogether, speaks to an uncertainty that doesn't give any of them much veracity or imbue them with much trustworthiness.

I appreciate how much investigation you have done but I still do not see a conclusion. You seem to be simply saying the bible is translated using different but not necessarily contradicting terms. Also keep in mind the bible is not a biological text book. When it deals with secondary or minor issues it does not always give us as many details as we might desire. I am still having a problem with seeing exactly what it is your driving at.

Please note what your link says:

"The Bible teaches "the fixity of the species" in that each biblical kind can only reproduce within certain fixed boundaries."​

Yes, this is what I am driving at. Biblical evolution only concerns the evolution of things within boundaries. For example God creates a pair of dogs but evolution produces great danes and terriers.​

Fixed boundaries being those elements that define each species. Moreover, The "the fixity of the species" means that species do not evolve into other species. They remain fixed. So however you choose to define "kind" it cannot designate a form of plant or animal other than a species, of which there are about 8.7 million.

It is very problematic when you try to equate what the bible means by it's terms with the terms created by modern geneticists. I don't think for instance that kinds translates perfectly as species.

AiG is one of the most deceitful religious sites on the internet. It's integrity is near zero. Ken Ham, its grand overseer, has very little compunctions about lying or misrepresenting facts, and is therefore utterly untrustworthy.

I am aware that many people do not like answers in genesis sites. I was not using them as the absolute judge of all things biblical. I was using them as a sort of shorthand attempt to get on the same page. Let me clarify my position once more in the hope it will save time.

Biblical evolution is evolution within "kinds" where as Darwinian evolution is change between species. It is hard to equate what the bible means by "kinds" except to say it limits evolution where as Darwin did not.

Did you read both links I provided, if so we can use them as a sort of crude common ground?

BTW, I also am not much of a Ken Ham fan.

 

[Skwim]

Does he offer any evidence to support his assertions? We understand the mechanisms that drive evolution and they are all natural processes.

HERE is Wikipedia's source for the quote.

.

 

[Skwim]

I was not trying to provide this level of detail. All the verses in question have very similar translations.

You seem to have done your homework. I am impressed. However, what are you trying to show? Are you saying the same verse has been translated in 11 ways? It is only a problem if they contradict each other.
​

Again, are you claiming that there are contradictions concerning the same scripture in the bible. This seems to just be a common occurrence of what is known as literary telescoping. They do not appear to be contradictions.

I appreciate how much investigation you have done but I still do not see a conclusion. You seem to be simply saying the bible is translated using different but not necessarily contradicting terms. Also keep in mind the bible is not a biological text book. When it deals with secondary or minor issues it does not always give us as many details as we might desire. I am still having a problem with seeing exactly what it is your driving at.

Yes, this is what I am driving at. Biblical evolution only concerns the evolution of things within boundaries. For example God creates a pair of dogs but evolution produces great danes and terriers.​

It is very problematic when you try to equate what the bible means by it's terms with the terms created by modern geneticists. I don't think for instance that kinds translates perfectly as species.



I am aware that many people do not like answers in genesis sites. I was not using them as the absolute judge of all things biblical. I was using them as a sort of shorthand attempt to get on the same page. Let me clarify my position once more in the hope it will save time.

Biblical evolution is evolution within "kinds" where as Darwinian evolution is change between species. It is hard to equate what the bible means by "kinds" except to say it limits evolution where as Darwin did not.

Did you read both links I provided, if so we can use them as a sort of crude common ground?

BTW, I also am not much of a Ken Ham fan.

I'm sorry that so much of this is beyond your grasp, but I'm not up to explaining it any further. Perhaps someone else will step in and help you out. Good luck.

Have a good day.

.

 

[1robin]

I'm sorry that so much of this is beyond your grasp, but I'm not up to explaining it any further. Perhaps someone else will step in and help you out. Good luck.

Have a good day.

.

Good out!!!