Evolution in a Theological context

by PSacramento 56 Replies latest watchtower bible

cofty

Shelby, I have spent countless hours over the last couple of years trying to help ex-jws appreciate the wonders of evolution. It is the most wonderful and awe inspiring thing you could possibly study. If you like I will post links to some of the relevant threads on JWS there are many many helpful threads around here that would correct many of the dreadful misconceptions in your post above.
To have a discussion about these things there needs to be some common ground and a desire for both sides to deal honestly with evidence. I remember a biologist explaining why he doesn't like to debate with creationists, he said it was like somebody coming to your house and spending 10 minutes making as much mess as possible and then challenging you to tidy it up in exactly the same time.
Your understanding of the most basic facts of biology is so woeful it is almost a characterture of creationism. Where would we begin?
In the thread about "If there was no Adam who did Jesus die for" you rightly criticised others for failing to properly understand the bible before they object to its contents. Perhaps you should apply the same standard of intellectual honesty to yourself. When it comes to science you can have your own opinions but you cant have your own facts.
There are many excellent books that will help you grasp the basics, (and no, books writen by creationists about the evils of evolution don't count) how about you make a New Year resolution to study some proper science? Here are a few suggestions..
Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin
The Greatest Show on Earth - Dawkins (review of book on JWS)
Why Darwin Matters - Michael Shermer
Evolution; What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters - Donald Prothero
Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne
bohm
Aguest: (peace to you!)
You ask for specific things in your post that those who believe in evolution will object to, and i will give you three.
1. misunderstanding what evolution is all about. Dont sweat it, i get plenty of things wrong with the bible to. You wrote: "For example, a lion will never evolve into a bull ... A lizard will never evolve into a frog".
  Thats completely true, moreover, that these things will never occur is one of the cornorstones of evolution. Specifically, these events would go against 1) principle of gradualism and 2) that evolution tend to go towards less generalized forms. So when you critisize evolution because these things do not occur, its like saying "gravity is wrong because the moon only go around the earth and not mars".
2. Counterfactual statements. You wrote: "If evolution is a fact , why don't genuses and kinds still evolve ?". But they do, they do! Who told you otherwise? It just happends very gradually, over millions of years, so what is it you expect to observe that we do not observe?
3. Strained explanations. On the subject of humanoid fossils you wrote:
  "What of fossil skulls that "suggest" that humans and other hominines originated from the same common ancestor? My common sense says they've ruled out the highly likely possibility of nothing more than common deformity and/or mutation... due to many things, including lack of nutrition, environmental conditions, and the overall health of the mother... so many, many years ago. I mean, imagine if scientists 10's of 1000's of years from now found the skeletal remains of someone who had, say, severe rickets, should they conclude that we were all bow-legged... or rode horses? I know, I know, we have documentation now. Well, I haven't seen any cave drawings showing the humans dragging their knuckles. Until I do... I have to stick with the "evidence" - they all stood upright from day one."
  Then why dont you write nature and tell them that more than 100 years of paleotology need to be redone because they have missed such an obvious explanation? I find it arrogant (for lack of a better word) that you -I assume you have never read a textbook on the actual remains- believe you can invalidate thousands of archeological and paleotological finds with a speculation you have not tried to validate against the actual evidence.
  What if an atheist who had never read any of the sources of the new testemony or biblical archeology believed they could all be explained away as a complete fabrication made in year 240, and that was just a "highly likely possiblity" christians had missed for the last thousand years because they had been to dense to figured it out by themselves?
  You introduced the example of a scientist from 1000 years from now, lets work with it. Suppose scientists 1000 years from now find 100 skeletons of random people (women, children, men, old and young) from a very large area. What is the likelihood that ALL 100 will have a brain capacity just a little above that of a modern chimpanze? What is the likelihood they will ALL show the same signs of severe rickets (including the infants, and the young and strong men)? What is the likelihood that NONE of them will show a somewhat normal human with normal human brain capacity and stature? Is this the scenario you find highly likely?
PSacramento

psac, what an extraordinary article. Thanks for posting a link. I marked several points for more thought and will come back later. But I would like to hear your thoughts on the following
Iliked it too, that is why I shared it.
The Augustine Iraeneus opposition. Which side of the debate are you on if the debate is framed as Murphy describes it.
Well, I believe in Evolution, it is how man has chosen to describe the process by which God has created the universe and we have gotten to this point.
What Murphy says about the human capacity for misunderstanding scripture and for actually being wrong about our interpretations (for example he very clearly says Paul is wrong in his conclusion about sin). Do you agree?
Yes, we all make mistakes, even the most inpired of us, why?
Because we are simply human, no more and no less and even divine revelation is still filtered through that humanity hence the various opinions and views the apostles had.
My own position on scripture is that we look into a mirror when we read the bible. We then see aspects of creation and creating (I mean creation in the sense of something made/crafted rather than fixed and fully formed and as coming out of nothing all at once, somewhat in the sense that Murphy uses the term - an evolutionary participation between God/all). Regarding my mirror analogy, I quite like Pauls description of the mirror - that it is hazy and is like looking into a glass darkly (1cor13:12).
I agree, we do the best we have with what we have and Paul was no different, we was pigheaded at times, his zeal was a bit much but that is why Christ choose him, his later letters thoguh show a change in temperment and more mellow - in 1Corinthians when he tells the church to expell the sinner if he doesn't repent, you can see that brashness of speking for himself and Not Christ, in the secone letter you see him telling them to take him back and to forgive him and to forgive Paul his harsh words.
edit: I hope I sound coherent. typing in a hurry as I have to hand my computer over for a short while.
Very coherent.
PSacramento

There are some excellent books on evolution written by Christians:
A nice selection is here -
http://biologos.org/resources/books
cofty

Surely reading books on evolution written by evolutionary biologists would make more sense?
AGuest

Shelby, I have spent countless hours over the last couple of years trying to help ex-jws appreciate the wonders of evolution. It is the most wonderful and awe inspiring thing you could possibly study. If you like I will post links to some of the relevant threads on JWS there are many many helpful threads around here that would correct many of the dreadful misconceptions in your post above.
Actually, I would like you to articulate YOUR belief, dear Cofty... vs. sending me to the writings of others.
To have a discussion about these things there needs to be some common ground and a desire for both sides to deal honestly with evidence.
That would require each to accept the others' SOURCE for such evidence, wouldn't it? I have no problem with yours... but I am not sure you will say the same thing about mine: Christ. NOT Christ of the Bible, but Christ, the Son and Holy Spirit... who was there when the physical universe came into existence. Would you have a problem with that?
I remember a biologist explaining why he doesn't like to debate with creationists, he said it was like somebody coming to your house and spending 10 minutes making as much mess as possible and then challenging you to tidy it up in exactly the same time.
Well, if that's your opinion of me, I guess the deck's already stacked [against me], yes? How could a fair discussion take place under such circumstances?
Your understanding of the most basic facts of biology is so woeful it is almost a characterture of creationism. Where would we begin?
Well, I would say that since my understanding of the facts "is so woeful"... you would have to be the one to determine that. I'm all ears, though...
In the thread about "If there was no Adam who did Jesus die for" you rightly criticised others for failing to properly understand the bible before they object to its contents. Perhaps you should apply the same standard of intellectual honesty to yourself. When it comes to science you can have your own opinions but you cant have your own facts.
Not true. My facts may be basic, even limited... but they are accurate. I mean, I did at least bother to learn about the theory. When I left the WTBTS and returned to university, I purposefully took classes to help me learn. Earth Science. The Phyiscal Earth. Anthropology. Creationism (which I also agree is severly lacking and largely made-up). I didn't read ALL of the books on evolution, but I did read several. And all of the chapters in them. My statement was as to one book... and all of the chapters in IT. I mean, if one is going to take issue with what's in it and all...
There are many excellent books that will help you grasp the basics, (and no, books writen by creationists about the evils of evolution don't count). how about you make a New Year resolution to study some proper science?
I have read books on the subject, truly. Would you like to see my university transcripts? In the meantime, I could offer that you make a resolution to read the Bible, but why?? While some of what I share is in there... it really isn't necessary. How bout YOU, then, make a resolution to exercise just the tiniest bit of faith... and simply ask the same Source that I do?
Here are a few suggestions...
No need: I don't have that kind of time. Besides, I'll take your word for it that they say what you say they do. Any chance you'll take mine... and go to the One who teaches me and ask HIM if what I share is true or not as regards the creation, evolution, man, spirits, etc.?
I await your response(s)... with bated breath, of course.
Peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
AGuest

Aguest: (peace to you!)
The greatest of love and peace to you and yours, too, dear bohm!
You ask for specific things in your post that those who believe in evolution will object to, and i will give you three.
Okay!
1. misunderstanding what evolution is all about. ... Evolution tend to go towards less generalized forms. So when you critisize evolution because these things do not occur, its like saying "gravity is wrong because the moon only go around the earth and not mars".
I understand what you're saying... and I was generalizing and shouldn't have, I know. While you may think that what I stated "is like saying"... it really isn't. I understand that the moon goes around the earth because of it's proximity to the earth... and earth's gravitational pull on it (though, I do find it interesting, even somewhat contradictory, when folks say "there's no gravity in space"... yet, the moon... and earth... are "in space"). But my point is still valid: if we started from one entity... and all came from that one entity in the manner that evolution theorizes. Whatever "it" was... evolved... eventually... into what is now a lion... and what is now a bull. Yet... well, I will discuss that "yet" momentarily...
2. Counterfactual statements. You wrote: "If evolution is a fact, why don't genuses and kinds still evolve?". But they do, they do! Who told you otherwise? It just happends very gradually, over millions of years, so what is it you expect to observe that we do not observe?
IMHO, that is speculation... as to what "happens very gradually, over millions of years." Because no one has been around millions of years to so observe... and thus state with certainty (well, except One, okay, two... and so I prefer to listen to what that One says occurred). But if nothing has "happened" in, say, the 10s of thousands of years that we KNOW man has existed... because we have evidence, including writings, my common sense says I should pretty much stick to that... unless someone who WAS around... can vouch for something else "happening." Again, there is One... or two...
3. Strained explanations. On the subject of humanoid fossils you wrote: "What of fossil skulls that "suggest" that humans and other hominines originated from the same common ancestor? My common sense says they've ruled out the highly likely possibility of nothing more than common deformity and/or mutation... due to many things, including lack of nutrition, environmental conditions, and the overall health of the mother... so many, many years ago. I mean, imagine if scientists 10's of 1000's of years from now found the skeletal remains of someone who had, say, severe rickets, should they conclude that we were all bow-legged... or rode horses? I know, I know, we have documentation now. Well, I haven't seen any cave drawings showing the humans dragging their knuckles. Until I do... I have to stick with the "evidence" - they all stood upright from day one."
Then why dont you write nature and tell them that more than 100 years of paleotology need to be redone because they have missed such an obvious explanation?
Because (1) I don't care enough to (anymore than I care to write to the WTBTS and tell them of the obvious explanations they've missed), and (2) they wouldn't believe/agree with me, anyway, but consider me "arrogant", so that (3) they would utterly dismiss what I have to say... and the Source from which I receive it. So, what would be the point, truly?
I find it arrogant (for lack of a better word) that you -I assume you have never read a textbook on the actual remains- believe you can invalidate thousands of archeological and paleotological finds with a speculation you have not tried to validate against the actual evidence.
See? And you aren't even in their league!
What if an atheist who had never read any of the sources of the new testemony or biblical archeology believed they could all be explained away as a complete fabrication made in year 240, and that was just a "highly likely possiblity" christians had missed for the last thousand years because they had been to dense to figured it out by themselves?
I dunno... what if? I mean, I would suggest they also go to the true Source... but I wouldn't lose any sleep if they chose not to...
You introduced the example of a scientist from 1000 years from now, lets work with it. Suppose scientists 1000 years from now find 100 skeletons of random people (women, children, men, old and young) from a very large area. What is the likelihood that ALL 100 will have a brain capacity just a little above that of a modern chimpanze?
I think that would depend upon a few things: first, the "largeness" of the area. Second, their community environment during that 1,000 years. If, say, they had all existed in a fairly aboriginal/tribal community... yet, the chimpanzee had been worked with to develop greater technological thinking abilities... I would say the likelihood would be pretty good. If, on the other hand, the chimp had been left to itself, either in the wild or perhaps a "zoo" environment, yet the people were part of a community that had advanced their thinking abilities through challenges presented by their needs and/or observations made on what occurred previously... I would say slim to none. Or maybe I have that backwards - I dunno... my husband's off today and rumbling around distracting me. But I think you get my drift: it would depend on several factors and variables.
What is the likelihood they will ALL show the same signs of severe rickets (including the infants, and the young and strong men)?
The same it would, for example, the prevalence AIDS among millions of people in certain (large) areas of Africa...
What is the likelihood that NONE of them will show a somewhat normal human with normal human brain capacity and stature?
Depending on what you mean by "normal"... please see my response, above.
Is this the scenario you find highly likely?
I'm sorry, dear one, but one "Toumai" skull fossil (which is probably an extinct species of chimpanzee or gorilla genus and has absolutely nothing to do with the homo genus, but since one "notable" professor "suggested" that it may be a direct ancestor of humans - albeit, many other "professors" disagree - who can argue?)... or one "Lucy" skull fossil... doesn't make the scenario you're trying to create. And to my knowledge, there's pretty much only been one... of each... "discovered."
Sorry, dear one, but the "evidence" hasn't convinced me. I get that it appears more reliable to you and others than what I have come to know by means of faith... in Christ... from whom I receive what I do. I get that... and I don't fault or take issue with you for not understanding.
I do, however, sometimes take issue with folks who purport to have studied, even taught, the Bible... for years... yet, have no clue as to what's actually in it... or not, though. I happened to cast a brief minute of the Tyra Banks show the other day (I was flipping through the channels) and overheard one 19-year-old young lady say that "the Bible says you're not supposed to marry outside of your race - at least, that's what my parents and grandparents say it says." Yikes.
Anyhow, I hope I've explained. If not, let me know where I'm not clear and I'll take another shot. In the meantime, peace to you and yours... and happy whatever-it-is-you-folks-celebrate-if-anything!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
bohm

Peace to you, Aguest, but be warned that i am suffering from a bad cocktail of moms cooking, wine and no girlfriend that have put me in a strange mood :-).
With respect to item 1: I understand you agree with me you was not describing evolution, and actually critisizing a non-evolutionary idea.
If your underlying point was that a bull and a lion has a common ancestor, and that it takes a leap of faith to believe that, i will completely agree with you -- we got to examine the evidence and see if they support such a claim.
Item 2:
IMHO, that [that kinds evolve right now] is speculation.
No its not, its observed in laboratories and in the field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment.
As to what happends over millions of year, well, there are several lines of evidence that provide testimony and we can allways discuss that. but that evolution is ongoing is an undeniable fact (you might choose to call it variation within a kind, but that you have another name for it hardly prevent it from happening). Also, we cant just dismiss some theory because there are no eye-witnesses to it; if we did that we had to throw away most of cosmology and plate tectonics.
If God is telling you personally that evolution did not happend i cannot really argue with that -- but i am sure you understand that if I told you that Zeus had told me that evolution DID occur you would not see that as a particular convincing argument.
We can only discuss the physical facts in a meaningfull way, and if one or both of us has a personal revelation from God we should properly leave that out of the conversation.
Item 3:
Because (1) I don't care enough to (anymore than I care to write to the WTBTS and tell them of the obvious explanations they've missed), and (2) they wouldn't believe/agree with me, anyway, but consider me "arrogant", so that (3) they would utterly dismiss what I have to say...
If you wrote a scientist and told him that you had not examined any physical evidence, or read any books on the subject, but you nevertheless had an idea that prooved his life work wrong, yah, he would properly be quite sceptical and ask you to read a basic book on anthropology before you spoke. But would you really be acting in line with the bible (or plain common sence) in doing so?
Im not sure i understand the zoo-idea, could you perhaps describe how it affect humanoid fossils found in africa and china?
The problem is not that there is 20-odd fossils that may have been very ill or deformed -- its that ALL which are "old" show the same type of deformeties. You suggest there may have been a wide-spread disease like AIDS which has caused this, but its pretty strange this disease altered the morphology of the skeletons to such an extend, and that NO normal humans are found which date to that age.
At any rate one can imagine many fancifull explanations -- the simplest explanation is that the hundreds of fossils actually represent what lived in those days.
TD

Hi Shelby,
I'm not trying to argue. --Just curious where you stand.
Would you accept that the Bengal tiger and the Sumatran tiger probably had a common ancestor because they are both very similar creatures and are fertile together? (In this case, Bengal is the species type and the Sumatran tiger is a subspecies)
If so, would you accept that the African lion and the Asiatic lion had a common ancestor for the same reasons?
Would you accept that the lion and the tiger probably had a common ancestor because they can produce offspring even though the males of such unions are sterile?
If so, Would you accept that the horse and donkey had a common ancestor for the same reasons?
Would you accept that camels and llamas had a common ancestor because crossing them (By artificial insemination) produces an unusual creature called a Cama that has a partial hump like a camel, but the cloven feet of the llama?
Would you accept that sheep and goats probably had a common ancestor, because once in a great, great while crossing them will produce an unusual hybrid called a Geep? (Most of the time, the offspring are stillborn or they are unable to conceive at all.)
Would you accept that the Water buffalo and domestic cattle probably had a common ancestor because conception is possible even though the embryo dies in its very early stages and no offspring are ever produced?
You're a smart lady and you can probably see where I'm going with this. If you accept that isolated groups of creatures with a common ancestry gradually diverge, become different in appearance and that fertility between them tapers off accordingly, then you actually accept the basics of evolution. You probably wouldn't have a huge problem with the idea that the dog and racoon had a common ancestor. (Have you ever seen the racoon dog?)
What you probably reject are the more inferential implications that are derived from this --that all the manifold diversity of life on earth has arisen via the same processes(?)
Curtains

thanks for the further link psac. It is always interesting to me when theologians take evolution on board and then go back to the scriptures and are honest enough to take a new look at their cherished beliefs. John Shelby Spong was another such guy. What they seem to do is confront belief in God as a dilemma and, to me, they seem almost to be atheists when they do so. Murphy also comes accross to me like this. I remember being very unsettled by Spong but I now feel at home about entertaining an atheistic position. For this reason I have come to value CREATIVE IMAGINATION as it enables me to go to a place that used to be occupied by an all good God and still experience the same or even better effects of peace and tranquility yet still be tuned to the dilemma of being a multifaced me.
To me this latter point is a crucial aspect of belief in God. Murphy in his essay does seem to keep the tension of good and bad as existing in God through the passion of Christ. Whereas in my former belief in God I located evil in man and in the creation leaving God to occupy the spot of total goodness. Nowadays it seems to me that if one locates good and bad within God then one is more of an atheist than a believer.

Evolution in a Theological context

Share this