I'd like to start off by noting that I am apparently starting off on this forum great!

Further, here would be my quick argument for why evolution should be rational to the believer, and it is not a matter of strict presuppositions:
1. The Bible confirms that science and its presuppositions (the existence of an objective, external reality, the accountability of our senses in describing this reality, etc.) are valid.
2. Science confirms that evolution is valid.
3. Bible-believers should believe that evolution is valid.

Now, I'm hoping that, beyond the theological implications of evolution, there shouldn't be any problems with the above argument except for possibly #2.



Lastly, without getting into the specific biblical arguments for or against theistic evolution, I would like to point out that its *discussion*, in my opinion, should at least be allowed on this forum. For where else can truth lead us but to Jesus? If we fear discovering that evolution is true, then we are only fearing a potential truth of which no fear should exist.

If it is determined otherwise, if it is determined by the forum's authorities that evolution should not even be *discussed* further, then I will discuss it no further.

__________________
Ben
First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)
Ada, OH

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

First of all, let me say that I appreciate your candor and humility in regards to what I have already written.

Science is valid but as someone pointed out above, not infallible. After all modern science often carries with it many assumptions about the universe that are explicitly contradicted by God's Word. These assumptions will influence how one looks at the evidence.

For many scientists today, for example, claim that science rules out the supernatural.

In addition, some scientists (not even Christians) are now rejecting Darwinism as I pointed out above.

Therefore science is not as monolithic as you claim.

Conclusion: Darwinism, evolutionism or whatever stripe of gradual progressive theory of creation one holds to is an explicit rejection of biblical Christianity. You cannot hold to both; they are mutually incompatible. Charles Hodge rightly called evolution what it truly is: atheism.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I agree with a framework interpretation.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

So you admit that the use of the "Waw-Consecutive" by Moses is sometimes found in writings other than historical writings? That being the case your argument does not hold together.

However, I agree that Gen 1 is history, the question is what type of history and this is where the type of literature is important. It is an ANE cosmogony presented in a prose that characterises historical writings, as is similar to other ANE cosmologies. That is, it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form.

Conrad Hyers wrote a helpful article entitled “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic, Yes; Scientific No”

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Hi Ben, I know it's in this same forum but was wondering if you'd read all the way through this post. I thought it was pretty exhaustive/ing :-) and it deals with the Hebrew and some other other specific points. I do think the theological implications of theistic evolution are simply untenable, and am not sure with what certainty we are to approach the resurrection and Christ's other miracles if we begin to allow science to be authoritative in interpreting Scripture. As others have noted, just because a passage has a literary structure doesn't mean it isn't literal historical truth.

As regards science, they treat 'theory' in this area as established fact. Science is properly a tool to observe things that can be observed; not a philosophy about origins: it is this tool, and not the philosophy, that the reliability or suitability of our senses can be used to validate. Scripture does not give science any authority to speak to origins or to a spiritual world that cannot be observed and experimented with in a scientific manner. In these areas Scientists are walking blind: they can only make guesses and change the guesses as new data about our present, physical world comes forward (and they only have a fraction of the data about even that). God's word doesn't change with all these outdated models.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Do you believe that death existed before man was created? If so this leads to a theological issue in that death came before the fall.

Since science is basically a system of acquiring knowledge through observation, and since the scientists who observe are tainted by sin, and since the creation that they observe is tainted by sin...why would we look at it as an authority above the Scripture?

Also, when you speak of all of the evidence that supports your position, i don't think you have mentioned any of that evidence, so it's impossible to know if others would consider it solid evidence or if it could be disproved.

__________________
Larry Bray
Training for Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/

Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net

-----------------------------------------------------
"The best Christian is still a poor Christian" - R.B. Kuiper

Thanks, Heidi. I was gonna put a link to that, but you've already done so!

Ben, the post that Heidi links to is probably one of the best threads we've had on this subject. You really should try to work your way through that before persisting here, so that a lot of things won't have to be addressed again.
Thanks!

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

#2 is pretty significant!

Science does not confirm evolution. The confirmation is built more, or shall I say almost exclusively, on philosophy rather than on science. I think we need to keep in mind that Darwinism is so appealing not because it gives us anything concrete and "scientific" but because it serves human pride: We think we have this thing figured out. I think it was Bahnsen who once stated that autonomy and understanding are mutually exclusive. Unbelieving scientist ( and even some believers ) think we can act independently of God's words. They tell us science confirms this and science confirms that. The facts do not bear # 2's assertion out. Heidi is spot on. We think science can reinterpret scripture. It has no authority over God's words or our lives. It is merely a tool. Many of us have let it have more authority than it should. Science's interpretation of facts is not infallible and we have witnessed were it has oftened erred. I also believe it is a slippery slope to other doctrinal problems that, given time, will begin cropping up.

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

Primary to the issue of evolutionary creationism, and of grave importance, are the theological ramifications of the tenant that go to affect the entire worldview of the individual.

If the Genesis Creation account is allegorical rather than historical, the evolutionary crationist has a conundrum or two to account for that I cannot see being reconciled so as to form a logical and well-grounded faith in the Gospel.

Mind you, I am not saying that you do not affirm the Lordship of Christ and the sacrifice He has made, or that you are not one of the sheep of the Flock. Rather, I am saying that if you do hold this position while holding to the immediately aforementioned, your groundwork for faith is illogical. I recognize that one is not brought to faith by logic, but I do think that mature faith is itself logical. It is for this reason I think I can firmly state your position is theologically illogical and inconsistent, but say so to one I do take as a brother, despite the shortcomming.

Problem 1: In denying the historicity of Genesis, the evolutionary creationist denies the historicity of Adam as the Federal Head. Being that Adam did not exist as is portrayed in Genesis, he cannot then exist as the Federal Head of all mankind, to be a representative for us. With this taken as true from your position, Christ's work on the cross is meaningless as we are just a bunch of hairless apes who are not really "totally depraved" because sin did not enter the world through Adam.

This is contradictory to the reasoning we see in Scripture which plainly asserts that through one man, i.e. Adam, sin has entered the world. In denying the historicity of Genesis, you deny what Scripture purports about the vehicle through which sin entered the world, as well as any explaination for the total depravity of man.

Problem 2: As was mentioned above, Scripturally, death did not occur before the Fall, it was a result of the curse. This has no place in an allegory and I fail to see how apes evolved into humans via natural selection sans mortality so that they could disobey God, and introduce death into the world, which was already prexisting somehow. I cannot see this as reconciled.

Problem 3: At what point did man gain a soul? Animals are without an ethereal nature and Angels and demons are solely ethereal. Man is the only hybrid, so to speak. At one point in the evolutionary framework did man cease being a souless animal and gain an immortal, ethereal soul? I see no place for this in Scripture, at all, which means you'll need to appeal to an extra-Scriptural basis in order to account for this, which is plainly outside the bounds of orthodox Protestantism.

Edit: Problem 4: I read Rev. Winzer's post and it also reminded me that we also have no basis for the Sabbath. The Decalogue tell us to "remember the Sabbath" because it had already been in effect since creation. If the historical 7 days are denied, then what exactly are we to be remembering?

Sidenote: I don't think anyone here would seek to purport that scientific findings should be dismissed because they are, well, scientific. I would urge you to remember that science was ruled by God fearing Christians for hundreds of years before the usurpation of the discipline by naturalistic, materialistic, atheists. It is with these presuppositions, i.e. that all that occurs is a result of only physical, natural processes and that the supernatural and immaterial are fantasies, that evolutionists have designed a theory to account for our origins that is without sufficient merit to be regarded as it is, i.e. as a presumed law. Irreducible complexity, the genesis of DNA without proteins, and information ex nihilo sans an author all present steep problems for the evolutionary explaination, but they are ignored in an unabashed defiance of logic and scholarship, to the deteriment of us all.

It is not science that is a problem. Science is the discipline by which we explore and discover God's general revelation to us. Rather, it is the presuppositional stance that is required to enter and exist in the field of science that is the problem. It requires that you abandon all tenants of science in a specific area, i.e. evolution, in a foolish bid to maintain a false worldview so that men can continue denying God.

I hope you'll take these inconsistencies to heart and reform your notions about man's origins.

Humbly, your brother.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)

The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, "...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.

According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

You are correct that we ought understand yom to refer to a 24-hour day. There is no linguistic reason not to. However, that does not mean that these days actually ever took place. As I noted earlier, Gen. 1 is an ancient Near Eastern cosmogony that is presented in a prose that characterises historical writings, like unto to other ANE cosmologies. That is, it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Any kind of evolution from one species to another is ruled out of court in Genesis 1 by the fact that God created all living beings "according to their kind." This clearly indicates that each kind is distinct. Furthermore, there must be a clear distinction made here between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former happens all the time when a species develops in order to adapt to its environment. Think of the fruit fly experiments, for instance. But the key here is that they remained fruit flies. They did not change into aardvarks. If macro-evolution were true, one would expect evidence of intermediary forms. Science has not produced these. All the so-called fossil evidence isn't. Most of them are hoaxes perpetrated in order to support a theory. There is certainly no evidence of intermediary forms in the world of living animals today. Similarity of form can be much easier explained by the fact that when God created a template that He liked, He used it more than once.

The other problem here is that science can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER prove anything true in a mathematical proof sense. All it can do is theorize. The theory of evolution is not true, therefore, in any sense of the word meaning "proven." Some other theory might very well explain the evidence far better.

As to the Framework Interpretation, several things mitigate against it. The appeal to the creation week in Exodus 20 makes no sense whatever if the week is only a literary framework. Secondly, the apologetic edge against sun-gods Shemesh (Babylonian) and Ra (Egyptian) in Genesis 1 (confer the pointed omission of the names for sun and moon in Gen 1:16) explains much better the correlation between day 1 and day 4 (light and lights) than the Framework Intepretation does. The source of light is God Himself, not sun-gods. Light is not God. Confer also the eschatological direction of Revelation 22:5: as the world began, with God being the source of light, so also will the world end, with God being the source of light. The sun and moon are parentheses. Second, the reference to morning and evening indicates sequence. If it is just there to provide realism, then it is superfluous, and nothing in Scripture is superfluous. Thirdly, the argument about poetry is insane. To say that something is poetry, and therefore ahistorical is simply ridiculous. Are no poems ever written about historical events? Fourthly, the argument that natural preservation was the rule in Genesis 1 (argued by Kline and Futato) runs aground in the fact that their argument does not prove that all of creation was sustained immediately by natural preservation. The literary framework of days 1-3 paralled by days 4-6 fits in with the literal interpretation just as easily as with the Framework hypothesis. Therefore, the FH is not tenable.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

The seventh day is a normal day in human reckoning. The lack of morning and evening references to the seventh day also indicate that in God's reckoning, the great Sabbath begins, into which we will go, as Hebrews tells us.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Lance, I agree that the seventh day is marked out as special with emphasis on God's resting from his creation. I do not undersatnd what you mean by "a normal day in human reckoning". My reason for bringing up the difference was to suggest that the markers day/evening do not necessarilly give clues to literalness of time in the account.

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

I don't particularly mind your calling me Lance instead of Lane (which is my real name). I get called Lance-a-lot.

The conclusion does not follow. If morning and evening mean a literal day by everyone's reckoning, then the absence of it indicates that something more or different is going on. I would argue that it means for us to ask questions about the Sabbath and its nature, especially that God's Sabbath is eternal, even though He continually works.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Lane, unfortunately this is incorrect. Speciation has occurred and does occur. To deny it is to deny simple observation. HOWEVER, you are correct that most of what we see around us is adaption rather than speciation. And while I am an Old Earth Creationist, I do not believe in macro-evolution as a means of explaining the world around us. Basic Darwinian concepts are very valid (like you said, "micro-evolution"), but to extrapolate that to macro-evolution over millions of years to explain the current existence of the biosphere is absurd, and poor science. And you are also correct that we would expect to see almost infinite numbers of transitional species, when in fact we see relatively few.

But where I disagree with you is the idea that speciation does not occur, and that reproduction of every animal "after their own kind" precludes the development of any new species after the original creation. This just isn't true, as we can see from observing animals and plants; new species have arisen during our lifetime. Again, it does not validate evolution on a large scale, but small-level speciation does indeed occur. So, either Genesis 1 is incorrect or our reading of it is incorrect. Obviously it must be the latter...

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18