Me, too, and excellent points on the development of Cain and tubel-cain.TK wrote:just to clarify my position- i am an old earther but i do not believe in species to species evolution. natural selection occurs, but i dont believe that fish crawled onto land and became amphibians, which in turn turned into reptiles, which in turn turned into birds.
i believe that species were created by God; there has been variation due to natural selection within species. but i dont believe that T-rex was walking around with noah, although it is possible that there were some dinosaur type remnant species still living in early bible times (e.g. leviathan).
TK
Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
Michelle taught me a new theological term today: "Open Creationist."
It was coined @ Theologyweb by some who couldn't decide if they were YECs or OECs.
I've self-identified as a "Theistic Evolutionist" since I don't believe the Bible addresses modern science {not very much, anyway} and that the original understanding of the Creation Accounts, stemming from the context of ancient cosmological beliefs, was the atmosphere from within which the author(s)*** wrote and, so obviously to me, from whence they were understood.
***Moses may have had some "editors" {and I'd best leave it at that}.
The Redaction Worm
__________
How old is earth?
I don't know and that doesn't matter.
God knows and this is what really matters.
Does God think it matters if we know or not?
I highly doubt it or He would have "said so."
"Believe on the YEC and thou shalt be saved" {???}.
{It's not quite worded just-this-way},
Anyways....
"Open Creationist."
I kind of like the ring of that, Thanks,
P.S. Directly-On-Topic: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm
Scroll to: Creation and Evolution Talks and Interviews:
Francis Collins on Genetics, Evolution, and Christian Faith mp3.
It was coined @ Theologyweb by some who couldn't decide if they were YECs or OECs.
I've self-identified as a "Theistic Evolutionist" since I don't believe the Bible addresses modern science {not very much, anyway} and that the original understanding of the Creation Accounts, stemming from the context of ancient cosmological beliefs, was the atmosphere from within which the author(s)*** wrote and, so obviously to me, from whence they were understood.
***Moses may have had some "editors" {and I'd best leave it at that}.
The Redaction Worm
__________
How old is earth?
I don't know and that doesn't matter.
God knows and this is what really matters.
Does God think it matters if we know or not?
I highly doubt it or He would have "said so."
"Believe on the YEC and thou shalt be saved" {???}.
{It's not quite worded just-this-way},
Anyways....
"Open Creationist."
I kind of like the ring of that, Thanks,
P.S. Directly-On-Topic: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm
Scroll to: Creation and Evolution Talks and Interviews:
Francis Collins on Genetics, Evolution, and Christian Faith mp3.
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
Rick, I'm finding that nearly all of the evangelicals that work in the field of biology hold to theistic evolution, at least all the ones who write books. Collins and Polinghorne argue a very good case from science, but a very poor case from scripture. I don't hold a liberal view on this subject but I can see why someone would. I've heard Greg Boyd argue for a modified gap theory which almost makes since, but not quite. As for the age of the earth, I simply don't see 6,000 years as being possible. I don't know if 4.5 billion years makes sense either so perhaps I'm stuck in the land of undecided.
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
Hello Jason
Francis Collins Visits Point Loma Nazarene University, April 11, 2008
This lecture is longer than the former I linked to and also has a Q&A session with some good singing and guitar-playing right at the end! {does Doc Collins play guitar too, I wonder? He surely can sing!}....
The "outline" of both lectures are similar to the point of almost being the same lecture. I'd still recommend both, though reading the book would, obviously, be a good thing to do as well.
I'm not a science buff but am generally interested in: physics, biology, and cosmology. I watch all those PBS science shows like Nova, etc. These programs and/or ideas from science raise questions like: "What could String Theory tell us about the essential nature of the Lord's resurrected body?" {was what it made me think about, anyway}, , etc., etc.
As to:
It was really odd {rather surprising} for me to hear what he had to say, Jason!
The reason I say this is: his ideas or hypotheses, like say with "Who were Adam & Eve?", are exactly what I've theorized or come up with as working conclusions. It's strange for me to think that a real scientist & I agree {seeing as I'm no big expert or anything}.
Do you consider Collins' views liberal? I, myself, do not. This goes back to my belief that the biblical writers didn't address [modern] science...and that we would be wrong to "expect them to," imo. I see Collins' view and mine as theologically conservative {as distinguished from fundamentalist}.
Like yourself, I don't buy into "gap theory" though it could theoretically be possible. Unlike yourself, it matters not to me how old the earth is {which is to say, it doesn't bother me at all...which isn't to say I'm not curious}!
Lastly, after hearing these two lectures, I just so happened to watch a PBS episode of Nature last nite. For the first time that I remember...I didn't have any "When did God create all this stuff?" lurking in the back of my mind. I just sat back and watched the program in awe.
Take care,
I've now heard a second lecture @You wrote:Rick, I'm finding that nearly all of the evangelicals that work in the field of biology hold to theistic evolution, at least all the ones who write books. Collins and Polinghorne argue a very good case from science, but a very poor case from scripture. I don't hold a liberal view on this subject but I can see why someone would. I've heard Greg Boyd argue for a modified gap theory which almost makes since, but not quite. As for the age of the earth, I simply don't see 6,000 years as being possible. I don't know if 4.5 billion years makes sense either so perhaps I'm stuck in the land of undecided.
Francis Collins Visits Point Loma Nazarene University, April 11, 2008
This lecture is longer than the former I linked to and also has a Q&A session with some good singing and guitar-playing right at the end! {does Doc Collins play guitar too, I wonder? He surely can sing!}....
The "outline" of both lectures are similar to the point of almost being the same lecture. I'd still recommend both, though reading the book would, obviously, be a good thing to do as well.
I'm not a science buff but am generally interested in: physics, biology, and cosmology. I watch all those PBS science shows like Nova, etc. These programs and/or ideas from science raise questions like: "What could String Theory tell us about the essential nature of the Lord's resurrected body?" {was what it made me think about, anyway},
, etc., etc.As to:
In the mp3s, Collins mentions at different times that he isn't a theologian. However, he still has opinions on "theology & science" matters based in the scriptures. He also doesn't hold back in saying, "I don't know" wrt certain biblical/theological questions....Collins and Polinghorne argue a very good case from science, but a very poor case from scripture.
It was really odd {rather surprising} for me to hear what he had to say, Jason!
The reason I say this is: his ideas or hypotheses, like say with "Who were Adam & Eve?", are exactly what I've theorized or come up with as working conclusions. It's strange for me to think that a real scientist & I agree {seeing as I'm no big expert or anything}.
I don't hold a liberal view on this subject but I can see why someone would.
Do you consider Collins' views liberal? I, myself, do not. This goes back to my belief that the biblical writers didn't address [modern] science...and that we would be wrong to "expect them to," imo. I see Collins' view and mine as theologically conservative {as distinguished from fundamentalist}.
Like yourself, I don't buy into "gap theory" though it could theoretically be possible. Unlike yourself, it matters not to me how old the earth is {which is to say, it doesn't bother me at all...which isn't to say I'm not curious}!
Lastly, after hearing these two lectures, I just so happened to watch a PBS episode of Nature last nite. For the first time that I remember...I didn't have any "When did God create all this stuff?" lurking in the back of my mind. I just sat back and watched the program in awe.
Take care,
Last edited by RickC on Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
I have read Collins book and watched most if not all of his lectures and interviews on YT. I think his theory is probably the most scientific, while not completely excluding God in the equation. It is just a theory and an attempt to reconcile today's knowledge with the Bible, so It is not something that needs to be believed, but rather a series of ideas that should be considered, IMO. I am certain Collins would reject that his ideas become doctrine.
To very loosely paraphrase Collins, it is foolish to limit God's intelligence and capacity simply because are feeble minds could comprehend no more than a simple story when he spoke to us. Who knows, maybe God tried to give Moses the whole story, or maybe he did and what came out was limited by his comprehension of the subject and his life experiences. For example, even today, if God flashed the entire account of the creation before an uneducated person, how would he explain the events?
I don't believe Genesis was suppose to eternally answer the question, how we got here, it seems that given enough time science will be able to accomplish that. What I think it has and will continue to through the ages is answer how we got here, that is, in this condition and with the rest of the scriptures, what to do about it. It answers "why" , and "now what".
To very loosely paraphrase Collins, it is foolish to limit God's intelligence and capacity simply because are feeble minds could comprehend no more than a simple story when he spoke to us. Who knows, maybe God tried to give Moses the whole story, or maybe he did and what came out was limited by his comprehension of the subject and his life experiences. For example, even today, if God flashed the entire account of the creation before an uneducated person, how would he explain the events?
I don't believe Genesis was suppose to eternally answer the question, how we got here, it seems that given enough time science will be able to accomplish that. What I think it has and will continue to through the ages is answer how we got here, that is, in this condition and with the rest of the scriptures, what to do about it. It answers "why" , and "now what".
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
Hi, Rick. I'd consider Collins' view unorthodox but probably not liberal, since he believes Moses wrote the book of Genesis. What you say about the bible not addressing modern science is true, but it doesn't make sense to me that the scriptures would be contrary to what's scientifically accurate. That would call into question the authority of book which espouses the non-truth.Do you consider Collins' views liberal? I, myself, do not. This goes back to my belief that the biblical writers didn't address [modern] science...and that we would be wrong to "expect them to," imo. I see Collins' view and mine as theologically conservative {as distinguished from fundamentalist}.
Jesus spoke of Moses, the author of Genesis, as though he were a true prophet and used illustrations from Genesis and creation to make moral points which wouldn't have be coherent if he didn't believe in the literal characters of Adam, Cain and Noah. We all know Jesus could not have been mistaken about the creation of the world because he's the one who created it! He was actually there.
If pressed to give an opinion, I'd say my views are much more in line with those of William Demski. He believes in an old earth/universe but a young creation of mankind. It's the day-age theory minus evolution. This view gels with modern cosmology but rejects modern biology. I do reject macroevolution, not because I've put God into a box, but because it's an extraordinarily messy and disgusting way to bring about a creature made in God's image. There are scientific issues as well, but I'm not a scientist.
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
jason wrote:
TK
i lent out my hugh ross book "creation and time" and never got it back- but in that book he says something like what you said. paraphrasing, he said that to the extent that there are apparent inconsistencies between science and scripture, it is due to either our misunderstanding of scripture or our misunderstanding of science, or both, that is to blame.What you say about the bible not addressing modern science is true, but it doesn't make sense to me that the scriptures would be contrary to what's scientifically accurate. That would call into question the authority of book which espouses the non-truth.
TK
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
I cannot accept theistic evolution, materialistic evolution, or any other variant of evolution, no matter how sincere its adherents may be for one very simple reason: it relies upon death as a necessary part of God's plan to move from single-celled organism to complex proliferation of species and eventually man. Death had to precede man, not vice-versa. This should cause every thinking Christian to stop and ask whether they are so ready to cheerfully jettison a central tenet of their faith in order to appease "science."
Even a non-literal reading of the Genesis account cannot easily accommodate this difficulty if trying to remain consistent with the rest of what scripture teaches regarding the nature and origin of sin and death. Scripture is not ambiguous about what came first in the world (death or sin). Man entered the world first, then came sin, then came death. Sin may have pre-existed man in the fall of Satan, but sin had no place in the world until man was first created and later gave it entry. Genesis teaches this and Paul repeats it emphatically in Romans 5. He goes on to explain that this death was not just spiritual but was a physical impact on all of creation (Rom 8:20-22) where it has been ”subjected to futility against its will" (i.e., man messed it up through his sin and the resulting proliferation of death that now touches everything from plants to animals to newborn babies).
One does not need to talk science or even interpret genesis chapter 1 literally in terms of the creation account in order to still be left with insurmountable difficulties in reconciling evolution and biblical teachings regarding death and when it began operating in the world. One must jettison Paul's teaching as well as the Genesis account.
Even a non-literal reading of the Genesis account cannot easily accommodate this difficulty if trying to remain consistent with the rest of what scripture teaches regarding the nature and origin of sin and death. Scripture is not ambiguous about what came first in the world (death or sin). Man entered the world first, then came sin, then came death. Sin may have pre-existed man in the fall of Satan, but sin had no place in the world until man was first created and later gave it entry. Genesis teaches this and Paul repeats it emphatically in Romans 5. He goes on to explain that this death was not just spiritual but was a physical impact on all of creation (Rom 8:20-22) where it has been ”subjected to futility against its will" (i.e., man messed it up through his sin and the resulting proliferation of death that now touches everything from plants to animals to newborn babies).
One does not need to talk science or even interpret genesis chapter 1 literally in terms of the creation account in order to still be left with insurmountable difficulties in reconciling evolution and biblical teachings regarding death and when it began operating in the world. One must jettison Paul's teaching as well as the Genesis account.
Re: Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins
I cannot accept theistic evolution, materialistic evolution, or any other variant of evolution, no matter how sincere its adherents may be for one very simple reason: it relies upon death as a necessary part of God's plan to move from single-celled organism to complex proliferation of species and eventually man. Death had to precede man, not vice-versa. This should cause every thinking Christian to stop and ask whether they are so ready to cheerfully jettison a central tenet of their faith in order to appease "science."
I doubt macro-evolution but i don't see why the death of simple creatures could'nt have occured before man since Paul links "sin and death" together i think he is referring to the eternal life man had and why he lost it.
Lower creatures never had eternal life and are not capable of sin therefore the "sin and death" discussion is about mankind only IMO.
I doubt macro-evolution but i don't see why the death of simple creatures could'nt have occured before man since Paul links "sin and death" together i think he is referring to the eternal life man had and why he lost it.
Lower creatures never had eternal life and are not capable of sin therefore the "sin and death" discussion is about mankind only IMO.