Speculating on possible motivations for rejecting evolution

Conversation
,
82

I just noticed this thread and post as it’s relevant to my perspective. Of course I think I’m being consistent (as everyone does :wink:) , but it’s these kinds of topics that make rejecting evolution philosophically and theologically easy. Catholicism and Evolution: Polygenism and Original Sin Part II - #2 by vjtorley

I forgot to mention in my other post @djkriese (it’s waiting for approval otherwise I would edit) regarding chasing after false knowledge leading to a loss of intelligence: Sometimes when I’m on this forum and I see arguments about intelligent design and whether it is scientifically testable, etc, etc, I feel myself exasperated. Nature is so obviously designed and I wonder sometimes how incredibly intelligent people can argue otherwise with a straight face - Leave academic science aside: I hadn’t swept by our back door in a while and my two-year-old was thrilled by the ants that were crawling around in the dirt and food crumbs left there as he put his face on the floor next to them and then experimented crushing them under his little fists.

It feels as if we’ve lost a sense of wonder. After joining this forum and spending some time here, I look at the sky and the stars and various plants so much differently now - thinking about the awe of it all. My brain just began to rebel against the mundanity of these arguments for chance against the beauty and art of the everyday world. There’s just too much of it for there to be no author.

83

I skimmed through it and my eyes are glazing over because it’s late. I didn’t expect it could be a whole philosophical discussion!

I would save that people have value because their nature instrinsically is that they have the image of God. They have this nature because that’s how they were created. :slightly_smiling_face:

Well, if humans evolved, they changed over time from other animals. So all those parts of their nature that were added over time cannot be intrinsic because they were not all naturally or essentially a part of them at all times. If those areas of particular value were a part of humanity since it’s beginning, then I think we are able to call them essential values.

That isn’t a Christian perspective, at least not a biblical one IMO.

Well, I suppose the negative effects I’m thinking about would touch on the theological. This one probably no one would disagree with: If we’re chasing after knowledge and going down a path toward falsehood, it makes humanity more stupid. Second probably, is the idea underlying our culture that we are always progressing, getting more intelligent perhaps. It’s very subtle in culture I would say. But it would be interesting historically to see if that’s always been the case. If it has been, then I’m proven wrong. Third, I think some of evolutionary psychology is crazy town. Truly I was very amused when we had someone trying to argue for the ideas of it, and many scientists here we’re very eager in the thread to slap away some of her claims. That was #popcorn for me. Some of you will remember what I’m talking about. Finally, generally I think our culture doesn’t realize yet what a post-Christian culture will look like. I don’t think it will be what many anti-religious people think it will be - it will probably look like Twitter on steroids. And I think evolution as an origins explanation gives post-Christian culture a “superiority card” that perhaps will hasten its arrival because it’s much more intellectually credible that way. Take or leave my perspective as you will.

I didn’t think I needed to explain it to you. You’ve been honest to me that you don’t really reply to me because you’re actually interested in knowing what I have to say, but to show how little I should be listened to. That question was framed to belittle me, was silly, and wasn’t relevant to what I was saying - not sure if you misunderstood me or you’re being deliberately obtuse. I think the others understood me, or at least that’s all I can assume because I didn’t see more questions.

And, of course, we don’t know where the conclusions of current research will lead.

I’m not sure I agree. Even those who God does not have a relationship with, have instrinsic value in their humanity. God’s relationship and purpose is different than His image. It’s just that the image of God allows him to have a friendship with humans in a way that isn’t possible with other creatures.

1 Like
84

Are you saying the exquisite, awe-inspiring mechanisms of HIV-1 infection was consciously designed as well?

I am pretty sure that doesn’t include me.

Who says its only chance that brought us this far?

4 Likes
85

That’s quite a misrepresentation.

In reality, I am fascinated by your ability to simultaneously claim that you are interpreting evidence while completely avoiding it. That requires some interesting mental gymnastics to overcome massive cognitive dissonance. You appear to be aware, at least on some level, that the evidence is never going to support your position.

No, it was meant to show that your claim is false. Your entirely ad hominem responses suggest that you made the statement knowing it was false, or at a minimum, unsupported by any evidence.

In this thread alone, you’ve claimed to understand Biblical exegesis better than a retired minister and Biblical linguist. You’ve claimed to understand biology better than a biologist. And my pointing out that you are making a false claim by asking a question you refuse to answer is somehow belittling? That’s just not credible.

You were saying:

Which does not appear to be true, as on this forum you have steadfastly avoided being a witness to even a single datum. You issue ex cathedra pronouncements. That’s why I asked you a question regarding scientific data.

So, what scientific data sets have you, personally, interpreted? If the answer is zero, what is the point of making any claim about how you choose to interpret scientific data? How can one interpret data one is not witnessing directly?

You already claimed that I misunderstood you, despite the fact that my understanding is perfectly congruent with the understanding of those who also have pointed out that you have no idea what parts have practical applications:

I’m challenging you to support your claim that you “see a differentiation between these parts.”

Neither.

You saw rebuttals to which you did not respond. All of us share the same understanding of your false claim about being able to predict commercial and practical applications.

And, of course, we don’t need to, because we have an extensive track record that you have not examined. My question that you are avoiding was about past research:

1 Like
86

Fun question!

My answer would be speculation that springboards off of the story.

We have a couple of Hebrew scholars here that might stop by and coach me up if I step out too far on a limb. But here we go.

One possible way to read Genesis 1-3 (and some/many translations reflect this) is that Genesis 1 speaks of humanity as a whole. The Hebrew word Adam means human or humanity. Moving through the narrative, Genesis 3:17 may be the first time the authors use Adam and Eve as a names. So, the writers are naming Adam, “Adam” to create a literary continuity between the Genesis 1 creation of humanity and Genesis 3, God dealing with the rebellion of Adam and Eve (Human and Life).

The reason I bring this up is that in Genesis 1:26-28 humans (not just two of them) are created in the image of God, or to image God, in Genesis 1:26-28, not just Adam and Eve.

So God created human in his own image,
In the image of God he created them;
Male and female he created them.

I have no problem with the fact that the study of the natural world shows us that humans emerged as a population out of pre-human ancestry. My speculation is that the population of humans matured over time to the point where they could receive the vocation to co-labor with God as stewards of creation.

When did this happen? Again, this is speculation. It seems like it would have to be sometime between behavioral modernity and the emergence of civilizations (100kya to 10kya). And maybe it happened sometime after other archaic humans had become extinct or had been absorbed into the homo sapiens population. Did I mention that this is speculation? :blush:

*Side Note: Adam and Eve may very well have been real people. I don’t know, I wasn’t there. But either way, there are literary devices being used here for theological purposes. The writers named them HUMAN and LIFE. Come on. There is richness to be mined in these texts beyond the stuff we get stuck on. *

2 Likes
87

djkriese, I like how you’re wrestling with these topics!

My theology vs “what people think” comment wasn’t about specific items but more a general comment about lists that you made.

Here are places where I think you’re dipping your toe into some thoelogy:

Here are my comments:

  • No doubt that evil predates Adam and Eve. The story tells us that. Nothing controversial there. So that’s theology.
  • Here’s some more theology. I can’t really see a good argument from the Bible that there was no death before Adam and Eve. The death sentence for Adam and Eve was that they no longer had access to the Tree of Life, which was in God’s presence, at a place where heaven and earth met (the garden). It appears that there was always death outside the garden. And it appears that “outside the garden” existing before the garden. I’m not saying anything other than what’s in the text. I can’t see an argument from the text that death started with Adam and Eve, just that Adam and Eve got expelled from partaking in the life of God in the place where heaven (God’s space) and earth met.

These next items represent what some people think, but don’t represent much theologizing, or discerning the intent of the text and what it’s trying to say about God, his world and humanity, imo.

  • Regarding corporal punishment, I don’t think the story that the Bible tells requires that a reader institute every piece of Hebrew wisdom that one finds in the text. The theme that runs through the Bible here would be that of discipline, and not just regarding raising kids. Look at all the places where discipline is discussed, OT and NT, and you start to get a picture of what the authors are saying about God, his world and humanity.
  • What I see in the Bible that would touch Climate Change is the idea that we are to be good stewards of creation. My application would be that we should be concerned about how we impact our natural environment. And that we’re responsible for our actions (call to stewardship). I can’t imagine how someone could use the Bible to speak against being good stewards. I think some evangelicals think climate change isn’t real just because they eat from the tree of a political party.
  • Yes to supporting (loving!) people suffering with mental illness! Are there people opposed to this? If they are, I can’t imagine how they’d support their case from the Bible.
  • No to depriving groups of acceptance!! But I say lets love them and not just accept them. Folks sin against the Image of God when they dehumanize others. Dehumanizing others does not have legit theological grounding in the Bible.
  • Do you mean stoning? Yeah, let’s not do that. The deal is, the Bible wasn’t written to be a rule book. We shouldn’t get theology from folks who use the Bible that way. One could argue that ancient Israel was a bit of a forerunner in there use of the rule of law. Moses’s instructions modify some ancient near east cultural norms in ways that we would applaud. But those instructions are still for an ancient people, and there is wisdom to mine there, but I see no evidence from the Bible that those instructions to Israel, in their ANE context, should be law for all nations that would exist after Israel.
88

Thanks for the response,

My main concern is how modern evangelicalism is perpetuating harm through some aspects of how it sees the bible and humanity.

I read the bible and God’s character similar to you.

Some people see God creation order in genesis and use of predominantly male figures (as well as many scriptures) to determine that women do not have access to power structures the same as men.

Others want a punitive system that focus on inhibiting offenders similar to OT while others see a more gracious Father who does not even kill Cain or Saul or myriads of others but repurposes our fallenness.

I think that it is interesting on how NT and Jesus utilized the OT in quite creative and non-obvious ways but I think there is substantive disagreement if these protocols can be applied to NT thoughts

1 Like
89

But look how I can just plug evolution into there:

I would say that people have value because their nature instrinsically is that they have the image of God. They have this nature because that’s how they evolved. :slightly_smiling_face:

If Adam was created de novo by God, his nature was added over time (even if it was instantaneous) to the dust from which he was made, yes? Can we dismiss his value, then? If not, it’s still not clear to me what quality instant creation of humans has that would preclude gradual creation.

It seems one simply could define humans as the creatures in our lineage who first possessed all these valued traits naturally and essentially—after all, individuals don’t evolve after they’re born.

2 Likes
90

Nothing here objectionable from me.

This is debated, but you’re right that it tends to be later in the text than most (including translations) think.

1 Like
91

It makes YEC tribal dogma unnecessary? :grinning:

92

Yes to all of this!

I think the way that Jesus applies the Hebrew scriptures is consistent with the character of God as presented in the Hebrew scriptures. It’s just hard for folks to get the poor examples of how to apply the OT out of our heads! And these poor examples create assumptions that impact our reading.

93

This topic was automatically closed 7 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

94

Not sure why you you’re trying so hard to find a hole in my point of view :sweat_smile: but obviously dust does not carry the image of God and has no human characteristics. If something is created instantaneously, it’s not added to over time.