Poll: Creation/Evolution

[Charles W Christian]

Since it's poling season and my other poll didn't come out, I'll try again. Vote away!

Charles

[Glenda Harvey]

I believe evolution occurs within the species but that man was created as man and has had minor evolutions through time.

[Susan Unger]

Where would INtelligent design fit in?

[Dennis M. Scott]

While I voted with what right now appears to be the majority, I'd be even more comfortable had not the terminology changed a little between the first two options. "Evolution" and "most aspects of evolution" are a little different. Throw in "mutually exclusive", and I'm not sure what I just voted.

Remarkable poll results thus far, however. I don't remember this many naznetters agreeing on anything.

[Jamie Wayne]

I think that we need to differentiate between evolution, in the sense of species evolving, and survival of the fittest, in the sense that species must fight tooth and nail to survive. Evolution may include survival of the species as part of the evolutionary process, but evolution also includes genetic mutations and the like.

The reason why I bring this up is because I think that we should avoid the sort of thinking that supposes that God intended His creation to run by the law of violence (fighting tooth and nail to survive) rather than the law of love. "Only the strong survive," goes against this law of love, in a sense, where the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

I might suggest that we think of evolution, in the survival of the fittest sense, as a result of the Fall, rather than how God originally intended things.

However, that's not to say that natural selection occurs, not to mention unnatural selection. I remember a story about Japanese fishermen throwing crabs whose shells resembled the fierce face of a samurai back into the water - thus, leaving those to thrive while eating the rest. This sort of thing does happen, of course. However, the real issue, as I see it, is whether or not there is some vestige of the Fall in the violence of surival of the fittest, where might makes right, so to speak.

Evolution, in the sense of growth and change, I posit, was what God had intended in the Garden - that we were not created without the potential to grow. Similarly, when speaking of "Christian perfection," we must not think that there is no room for growth, either! Even without Original Sin, there was, I believe, room for growth, and myself, along with some patristic fathers, believe that Jesus may have came regardless of the Fall, to help us with growth; from this point of view, salvation was not the original reason for the Incarnation!

[Bruce Carriker]

While I voted with what right now appears to be the majority, I'd be even more comfortable had not the terminology changed a little between the first two options. "Evolution" and "most aspects of evolution" are a little different. Throw in "mutually exclusive", and I'm not sure what I just voted.

Remarkable poll results thus far, however. I don't remember this many naznetters agreeing on anything.

Even when I go with the conservative, traditional answer I can't find myself in the majority! :eek::rolleyes::rolleyes::basic04:basic04:laughing :laughing

[Daniel Hamlin]

So that I don't misunderstand you, could you explain what you mean by "the Fall" (I've learned that we here on NazNet come from different viewpoints. I tend to think of the traditional "Fall", but I realize others may not).

[Gina Stevenson]

Evolution, in the sense of growth and change, I posit, was what God had intended in the Garden - that we were not created without the potential to grow. Similarly, when speaking of "Christian perfection," we must not think that there is no room for growth, either! Even without Original Sin, there was, I believe, room for growth, and myself, along with some patristic fathers, believe that Jesus may have came regardless of the Fall, to help us with growth; from this point of view, salvation was not the original reason for the Incarnation!

Was right with ya, Jamie, re survival of the fittest, when original creation was meant to live & not die ... right up until this underlined statement ... have to think about this one a bit. After all, we read how they heard the Lord God walking in the garden. In what form, eh?

8 (http://bible.cc/genesis/3-8.htm) They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 (http://bible.cc/genesis/3-9.htm) Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 (http://bible.cc/genesis/3-10.htm) He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”

[Jamie Wayne]

So that I don't misunderstand you, could you explain what you mean by "the Fall" (I've learned that we here on NazNet come from different viewpoints. I tend to think of the traditional "Fall", but I realize others may not).

The introduction of sin and its consequences into the world, which did not only effect humanity, but all of creation.

[Jamie Wayne]

Was right with ya, Jamie, re survival of the fittest, when original creation was meant to live & not die ... right up until this underlined statement ... have to think about this one a bit. After all, we read how they heard the Lord God walking in the garden. In what form, eh?

8 (http://bible.cc/genesis/3-8.htm) They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 (http://bible.cc/genesis/3-9.htm) Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 (http://bible.cc/genesis/3-10.htm) He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”

Hearing the sound of the LORD walking in the garden does not imply that God had taken on a human nature!!!

edit: I guess I'm differentiating - and rightfully so, I think - between theophanies (physical manifestations of God, such as the burning bush, the Spirit descending as a dove, etc...) and the Incarnation, whereby we consider the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity in the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Maybe that gives you a bit more food for thought?

Regardless, this "theory" is just that, and not everyone agrees with it. That being said, there were some early church fathers who held this sort of view - but by no means am I suggesting that it is a doctrine to be held by all, for that matter. I do like the idea, however, that the Incarnation was always part of God's plan, that He had always thought to send His Son to become one of us, and that the Fall introduced a new element to the Incarnation -rather than being the sole cause.

I do find it a rather fascinating notion to speculate about...

[Mark Metcalfe]

While I do not think the dichotomy matters to my salvation, I saw a TV article that caught my interest about finding the Garden of Eden. At first I thought of it along the lines of UFO searches, but they made some interesting theories about the change of climate and the four rivers at around 7000 BC.

Making the assumption of allegory, the theorists put forwards that it was about this time that humans went from hunter/gatherers to agriculture and herding. What is significant about this is that people in the area of "Eden" would have no trouble whatsoever with gathering (eating from any tree in the garden) and the climate would be perfect to preclude the need for clothing. The sin of the eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was seen as the end of innocence and the beginning of working the ground. They speculated that the climate changes required this and the garden was becoming less and less yielding to the "free lunch" that it used to be. The knowledge of agriculture and herding meant having to depend on oneself (instead of the utopic free lunch). The change to agricultural humans therefore marked the beginning of humanity (Adam and Eve) in the next evolutionary leap for humans. All condensed in an allegory as to how people had to fend for themselves with a tribal memory of the good old days of nudity and abundance.

Now, as I started out, I do not have a problem with a 24-hour day in which God created. Nor do I have a problem with days being a representation of eras. Whichever one is true, or if something else is true about the beginning, the essential truth is that God did it.

Mark

[Jamie Wayne]

Gina,

I looked up, right quick, something to back up what I had said, and this should cover it:

"Although the actual course of history is the result of sin, the fact that there is history is not. God always had the purpose that there be history. The situation in paradise, as described in Genesis, was not the goal of creation, but its beginning.

From this perspective, the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ is not the result of sin. On the contrary, God's initial purpose included being united with humankind. In fact, the future incarnate Word was the model that God followed in making humans after the divine image. Adam and Eve were so created that, after a process of growth and instruction, theyu could become like the incarnate Word. What has happened because of sin is that the incarnation has taken on the added purpose of offering a remedy for sin, and a means for defeating Satan."

This is taken from Justo Gonzalez's "The Story of Christianity: Volume 1" on page 70 of the old blue book. To fill you in, this comes from St. Irenaeus of Lyons, which Gonzalez categorizes as a "Type C" theology (the oldest of the three), and it actually falls along the lines of the Orthodox notion of divinization or theosis

Gonzalez continues on page 71:

"In conclusion, what we find in Irenaeus is a grand vision of history, so that the divine purposes unfold through it. The focal point of that history is the incarnation, not only because through it God's word has straightened the twisted history of humankind, but also because from the very beginning the union of the human with the divine was the goal of history. God's purpose is to be joined to the human creature, and this has taken place in a unique way in Jesus Christ."

Anyway...again, it's a fascinating line of thinking.

[Dave McClung]

Since it's poling season and my other poll didn't come out, I'll try again. Vote away!

Charles

The older I get, the less dogmatic I am about my understanding of how things came about. Last week, as I hiked across the Grand Canyon I tried to compare what I observed with what I have believed about the creation and development of the universe. I came away with one profound thought (well, profound to me) -- It doesn't appear that God has been in much of a hurry.

[Ryan Scott]

The reason why I bring this up is because I think that we should avoid the sort of thinking that supposes that God intended His creation to run by the law of violence (fighting tooth and nail to survive) rather than the law of love. "Only the strong survive," goes against this law of love, in a sense, where the first shall be last and the last shall be first.


While I agree with your overall sentiment, I have a difficult time processing evolution as a violent process. Especially since most of it happened before creatures with the ability to choose existed. Can it be violent if there is no choice?

I think about the biblical illustration about the wolf lying down with the lamb. Obviously, in nature, wolves tend to eat lambs. Should we then believe that God always intentioned wolves and lambs to get along just fine? I think the preferred way to express it would be that once creation has come to completion, things will operate quite differently than we're used to them operating.

I don't think survival of the fittest is appropriate when talking about being with choice, namely humans. We cannot explain away our actions by claiming "primitive urges" or the like. We have a responsibility, but I don't think we can hold the rest of creation to the same responsibility. I just don't think you can call it violence, when actions are not driven by choice.

[Jamie Wayne]

I think the preferred way to express it would be that once creation has come to completion, things will operate quite differently than we're used to them operating.

LOL...but back then there were "talking" animals!

I agree; Justo Gonzalez put this idea much better than I did, I'll admit, but I think that the bigger point is simply that we shouldn't think of survival of the species as God's plan for how creatures were to evolve. Maybe I'm still not saying it quite right (I'm probably not), but part of what I see as a problem is when Christian evolutionists (I'm one of them on any given Sunday, depending on the weather) remove the notion of the Fall from their theory of evolution - leaving it as God's original plan.

In this sense, it's not only that, as you've said, Ryan, things, upon completion, will be much different than we're used to, but also that things as they origingally were - were quite different than we're used to, too!

Otherwise, how do we account for a "Fall" if it's all an evolutionary process? If we remove the Fall, then we must rethink sin and death - and salvation, too. We can't remove the Fall while simultaneously believing that death is the consequence of the Fall! We would be, also, removing the belief that - once upon a time - we were in harmony with God's will...as we were originally intended. My quote from St. Anselm in my signature speaks to that...that we have lost that for which we were made!

[Ryan Scott]

We have different views of "the Fall" as we've discussed on other threads. It's probably not pertinent to derail the track on this one.

Surely human being acting in violation of their designed relationship with God have gravely affected the working of the planet in untold ways. I think we can agree on that.