God part of evolution?

[diciple_of_light]

Could it be possible that God in the creation of the world used evolution to create all things? And if so would that explain the theories for the earth being billions of years old?

[micatala]

A few quotes from Luther along these lines can be found in Thomas Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution" which has a subtitle something like ' the role of astronomy in the development of Western thought.' Copernicus' book came out in 1543, although it was known for some time among the learned community of northern Europe at that he would be publishing a large work including the motion of the earth. Copernicus had published a brief pamphlet on the subject about 40 years earlier. At least some of Luther's comments date from before 1543 (I believe he died in 1546).

I can possibly find some other sources. I believe you would find his views well-documented. Other early protestant leaders, including Calvin and Melanchthon were also against Coperncanism.

I don't fault Luther or others of the time for not accepting the motion of the earth. Given the evidence available at the time, it would have been astonishing if they did. I am only saying that one can base one's views on the bible, giving the most straightforward interpretation, and be wrong.

[YEC]

Well, that's a try..but you still fall short.

I'm still looking for you to post the verses to support your claims.

[micatala]

Here are a few Luther quotes.

"This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Luther is referring to Joshua, chapter 10.


Not on the subject of Copernicus, but a quote on the age of the world.

"We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist."

Regarding the inspiration of scripture:
"We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]....
This is not really on the subject, but does speak to the issue that not everyone agrees with what should be and what should not be included in scripture.

A quote from Calvin
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" He is citing Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis

and from the same
"We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center."

"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."
-- Melanchthon, emphasizing Ecclesiastes 1:4-5


Some of the quotes Luther and others cited or may have cited are:
Ps 19:4-5 where the heavens are described as a tent and the sun "a champion rejoicing to run his course." According to the Hebrew view of the universe, the sky was a solid dome under which the planets including the sun moved around the fixed earth. My understanding from a variety fo sources is that they believed in a flat earth, which most Christians later replaced with a fixed but spherical earth at the center of the "sphere of stars." (See Kuhn, for example) This belief was influenced by Aristotle and also the dominant Ptolemaic astronomical system. It is worth noting Genesis 1:6, where God talks about establishing the expanse of sky between the "waters above and the waters below," the former being the source of rain.

Matthew 5:45 " He causes his sun to rise on the evel and the good . . ."

Ps. 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved". This idea occurs in a number of other passages.

Ps. 104:19 "The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down."

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north . . ."

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations? Tell me, if you understand."

"And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz."
-- 2 Kings 20:11

Many years later, of course, we have the more famous events surrounding Galileo.

"... And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine -- which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture -- of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and by Diego de Zuñiga On Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuñiga, On Job, be suspended until they are corrected."
-- The Roman Catholic Church, from The Decree of the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Index which condemned De Revolutionibus on March 5, 1616

Quotes from Cardinal Bellarmine, who communicated the decree personally to Galileo, can be found in "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana.


Now, I am not saying that any of these individuals should be deprecated for their quotes or for not accepting the Copernican system. I am also not saying that there understanding of scripture were necessary. Obviously, we have all made our peace with Copernicus and I am certainly not throwing away my bible because of what other people believed it said. My only point is that many people in Copernicus' day and for 100 year or more afterwards believed that Copernicanism was unscriptural.

If we can reconcile Copernicanism with the Bible and Christianity, why not biological evolution?

Consider John 6:63. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

It seems to me a reasonable implication of this is that God cares not at all whether we believe in evolution or not. How our flesh got here is not important. What is important is our spiritual being, and it is to this aspect of ourselves that Jesus addresses us. When we are "created in his image," I think this can only mean His spiritual image, as God is spirit.

Personally, I find the idea that God used evolutionary processes in creating life incredibly inspirational. It draws me closer to God, not further away.

I know you may not find all this very satisfying. I am not too interested in worrying about persuading people to my point of view. I am interested in persuading Christians not to have fights about things that are not really worth fighting about.

[old ag]

No; simply because he tells us he didn't. If he did, then he lied in Gen.1 and we know that God can not lie! He defines night and day and uses them over and over in the narrative. In the context YOM means, and can only mean, a 24 hr. day; not my opinion, the considered opinion of 10 eminent scholars of Hebrew from noted universities worldwide in response to an enquiry specifically asking the direct question!! Results and sample quotes were reported in CREATION EXNILO magizine, hech, 10-years ago.

I once heard a talk show host ask a creation supporting caller "Is your faith so weak that you need bad science to back it up?" My question to the host and to any theistic - evolutionist believing Christians out there is this: Why is your faith so weak that you can't be;ieve what God tells you?"

Check out the short essay I just posted under the debating evolution/creation string on this web-site.

OLD AG

[old ag]

If we can reconcile Copernicanism with the Bible and Christianity, why not biological evolution?

Simple:
1.The millions of years don't exist.
2.Death entered the world by Adam's sin; it was not here millions of years before.
3. Christ himself supported the Genesis account.
4."From the begining"... they were man and wife...not at the end of a string of monkeys!

I could, of course, go on and on...PH d's have and you can find their stuff at numerous websites (answersingenesis.org being my favorite). But here is my question: IF we can't belive what God says in plain English (or greek or hebrew, take your pick) about Gen. 1, what logical reason can you give me for believing what he says in John 3:16?? YOU CAN"T! If he lies once, you throw the whole thing out!

Last, but not least, a quote from vehement atheist and anti-creationist Dr. Eugene Scott: "I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are PEOPLE OF the FAITH COMMUNITY(emphasis added). One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"

Onward thru the fog
OLD AG

[MagusYanam]

No; simply because he tells us he didn't. If he did, then he lied in Gen.1 and we know that God can not lie!

Firstly, God did not write Genesis 1 or 2, or any of the books of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch probably began as an oral narrative during the time of Moses - they are, after all, the Mosaic books - and were passed down through the tradition of the spoken word and writ down likely by Jahwist and Priestly authors later on.

Even conservatives who don't accept source criticism will admit that it was not God who wrote the Pentateuch, but Moses (who was inspired by God to write it, but inspiration - nota bene - does not mean dictation).

My question to the host and to any theistic - evolutionist believing Christians out there is this: Why is your faith so weak that you can't be;ieve what God tells you?

I am a man of faith, but I'm also a man who looks at a rock or a spectrogram and sees not a God of illusions who just made the rock to look 500 million years old, but a God who works on a grander, gradual scale, having guided the formation of the rock 500 million years ago. When someone asks me to accept recent creation, they are asking me to make a logical leap that denies my senses and my reason - something I cannot do in good conscience.

Simple:
1.The millions of years don't exist.
2.Death entered the world by Adam's sin; it was not here millions of years before.
3. Christ himself supported the Genesis account.
4."From the begining"... they were man and wife...not at the end of a string of monkeys!

No - not simple. Again, to convince me that '[t]he millions of years don't exist' would require you to present to me evidence that radiation and atomic decay don't exist, or at least that they don't work the way we've seen them do.

IF we can't belive what God says in plain English (or greek or hebrew, take your pick) about Gen. 1, what logical reason can you give me for believing what he says in John 3:16?? YOU CAN"T! If he lies once, you throw the whole thing out!

I've already established this, but I think I'll elabourate the point a little. It wasn't until very recently - that is, after 1600 - that certain people have begun to think that the Bible was dictated directly by God to the various writers of the individual books. Most people with good common sense take 'inspired' to mean something far broader. A popular novelist can be said to be divinely inspired, but that doesn't mean we take it that God literally spoke directly to the novelist and s / he just copied what s / he heard. No, it means simply that the novelist was moved in spirit, emotionally or intellectually, to write. God didn't speak directly, to tell truth or to lie: when He wished to speak, He spoke through the prophecies. These we know to ring true.

[micatala]

In the context YOM means, and can only mean, a 24 hr. day; not my opinion, the considered opinion of 10 eminent scholars of Hebrew from noted universities worldwide in response to an enquiry specifically asking the direct question!! Results and sample quotes were reported in CREATION EXNILO magizine, hech, 10-years ago.

This is an opinion, and the fact that you have a few supposed eminent scholars who believe this does not make it a fact.

There are countless scholars who have a very different interpretation of the 'days' in Genesis, including many Christian ones. Not even all anti-evolutionist scholars believe in 24 hour days in Genesis I. See for example Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe website. I don't believe Ross accepts evolution as the sole means of explaining the diversity of life, but he does a pretty good job of explaining the 'days' of Genesis and debunking the global flood. He addresses both the scientific and theological issues.

Ross' site also includes a list of other theologians, many of them evangelical, who understand that YOM is not necessarily 24 hours.

Why is your faith so weak that you can't be;ieve what God tells you?"

This question misses the point. It is not that I don't believe what God tells me, it's that I don't believe the YEC opinion or interpretation of Genesis. You are confusing your own particular opinion with what God thinks or says. Why should anyone put more faith in your opinions than in their own informed reason, their own study of the scripture, their own consideration of what the 'experts' in the various areas have said?

But here is my question: IF we can't belive what God says in plain English (or greek or hebrew, take your pick) about Gen. 1, what logical reason can you give me for believing what he says in John 3:16?? YOU CAN"T! If he lies once, you throw the whole thing out!

This is pretty much what Luther said at the time of Copernicus. If you believe in Copernicanism, and believe that you must throw the whole Bible out if one part of it is 'wrong' than you yourself would have to throw the whole thing out since Copernicanism is true.

You haven't addressed the question I previously posed.

If we can reconcile Copernicanism with the Bible and Christianity, why not biological evolution?

You have said we should take what the Bible says in plain English or Greek or whatever as the truth. If this is the case, we should reject the Copernican system. Luther did on exactly that basis. He made the most straightforward interpretation in his mind, and concluded that the Bible says the earth does not move and the sun does.

If Luther rejects Copernicus, why don't you reject Copernicus?

[Jose]

In the context YOM means, and can only mean, a 24 hr. day; not my opinion, the considered opinion of 10 eminent scholars of Hebrew from noted universities worldwide in response to an enquiry specifically asking the direct question!! Results and sample quotes were reported in CREATION EXNILO magizine, hech, 10-years ago.

This is an opinion, and the fact that you have a few supposed eminent scholars who believe this does not make it a fact.

I quite agree with micatala. I would suggest that in this context, yom is very unclear, and certainly not unambiguously "24 hours." Even in the English translation, "day" is not unambiguous. We might make this more evident when we note that in George Washington's day there wasn't so much insistence on exactly 24 hours. We might also ask, "what walks on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon, and on three legs in the evening?"

If we find the words "day," "morning," and "evening" written down, even in English, there is no clear conclusion that they necessarily refer to an exact 24-hour period.

Why is your faith so weak that you can't be;ieve what God tells you?

Why is our faith so weak that we can't look at what God actually created? In the book of the world, there can be no allegory--while in the book of words, it can--and does--exist. We might also ask why our faith is so weak that it can be undermined by a mere scientific finding. Is God real, or is he likely to be a figment of a fevered brain, to be blown away by a mere scientific conclusion? If we have faith, it must not be so frail as to be afraid of what God's Creation contains.

But here is my question: IF we can't belive what God says in plain English (or greek or hebrew, take your pick) about Gen. 1, what logical reason can you give me for believing what he says in John 3:16?? YOU CAN"T! If he lies once, you throw the whole thing out!

But, the only evidence that God says anything in English is that someone else tells me that a book they hand to me is God's word. Where is God's word other than in this man's claim that his book contains it? By this proof, I cannot distinguish the bible from the book of mormon. Both claim to be God's word, and both are said to be God's word, and I find them irreconcilable. Yet even this is beside the point. Why, if one small bit of text is best interpreted allegorically, must we discard the entire affair? What logic makes this reasonable? Especially with evolution, which has more lines of evidence supporting it than does the Copernican theory of heliocentrism, why must we conclude that the bible is a fake if it must be seen allegorically to be consistent with God's creation itself? The majority of Christians have no problem with an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. Judging from a simple comparison of Genesis and the world itself, I'd say that God has no problem with this, either.

[Cathar1950]

I find it hard to understand the charge about believing God. It seems to be equating God and the Bible. I am having a hard time swallowing that the Bible is God's "Word". It is mixing metaphors. If a mistake is made in the Bible or the Prophets were wrong now and then. I don't blame God. I fell lucky we wrote anything down. I am still pissed about the library at Alexandra. Both times it burned down. They wrote about God they only knew what they had. Kind of like us except we got science tv and microwaves. It is interesting that when the biblical writers wrote God was always in the past or future. But to take the writings as God's literal Word is silly. I would think God could write a better book and it would be more edifing and useful. It seems for the Bible believer it is useful for their salvation. I think that is debatable. Might scare people to church to fill up the coffers. You notice all the problems of the world are always the non believers. How convenient. Good thing God's didn't give us a book we would be fighting over it.