Creation / TOE

[handy]

This is a spin-off from the 4004 BC thread. The kids are studying the creation story in catechism. And, they have already been learning some of the Theory of Evolution, next year my daughter will go into TOE much more in-depth.

I dislike the idea that there must be polarized conflict between the two. When my hubby and I married, he was TOE all the way, having his BS in Biology. I was a dyed-in-the-wool 24/6 day creationist. It lead to some interesting conversations at my house, to be sure. Since this wasn't an issue to divorce over, I was forced to listen and learn the ins and outs of TOE. Since Steve wasn't going to leave me over either, he became more open to the Biblical account.

We've learned together and it's been a good process for both of us.

I want the kids to gain an ability to process conflicting information without losing faith or irrevocably damaging relationships. So, our approach to Genesis 1:1-2:3 has been to emphasize the similarities and the differences between the creation story and the TOE.

One of the things that both the creation story and science agree upon is that life is "from the earth", or, more scientifically, a carbon-based life form. The creation story speaks of plants and beasts in terms of "let the earth bring forth". No, it doesn't speak of aquatic creatures and birds in exactly the same way, but there is nothing that conflicts with the idea of all life being "of the earth" either. And, naturally we all know the story of God forming Adam out of the dust of the ground.

I just think it is fascinating that the ancient texts and modern science are in agreement about the essential element of life on this planet.

Another area where science and the creation story are similiar is that in the beginning when the earth was covered with water, there was no free oxygen. I do remember this from my Biology 101 course in college. According to the Genesis account the earth was one massive ball of water, then came a "separation" where the atmosphere separated land from outer space.

Also, the idea of there being a super-continent. In Genesis, God said, "Let the waters be gathered into one place and let dry land appear." According to science, the formation and breaking up of super-continents is a part of the geological history of the earth.

Then there is the concept of the first living creatures being formed in the waters, rather than being land creatures.

There are differences, of course, between scientific models and Genesis, and there is no use pretending that they don't exist. But, the similarities are striking and certainly can be a good jumping off point for discussion.

Several other things that we discuss with the kids is that Genesis is not meant to be a science book, nor does Genesis provide us with an exact age of the earth (nor does any other book in the Bible). Also, Genesis does show that God used a process in the creation of the earth, again a similarity to TOE. Now, God is powerful enough that He could have called the entire planet, rocks, trees, cattle, platypodes and men into being with just one call. But, He didn't do that, and Genesis records an order in which God created things. This order is very balanced, looking like this:
Days 1-3 Days 4-6

Light/Dark Sun, Moon, Stars

Water/Sky Fish/Birds

Land/Seas Land dwelling Animals & Man

I have found that studying the similarities and differences between the Creation account and the various scientific theories about our early planet to strengthen my belief that God (Who was there) inspired the writer of the Creation story. I've also found that discussing how things are similar and different between the ancient text and modern science is far more conducive to meaningful dialog instead of arguing.

Just some thoughts on the subject.


​

 

[jasoncran]

This is a spin-off from the 4004 BC thread. The kids are studying the creation story in catechism. And, they have already been learning some of the Theory of Evolution, next year my daughter will go into TOE much more in-depth.

I dislike the idea that there must be polarized conflict between the two. When my hubby and I married, he was TOE all the way, having his BS in Biology. I was a dyed-in-the-wool 24/6 day creationist. It lead to some interesting conversations at my house, to be sure. Since this wasn't an issue to divorce over, I was forced to listen and learn the ins and outs of TOE. Since Steve wasn't going to leave me over either, he became more open to the Biblical account.

We've learned together and it's been a good process for both of us.

I want the kids to gain an ability to process conflicting information without losing faith or irrevocably damaging relationships. So, our approach to Genesis 1:1-2:3 has been to emphasize the similarities and the differences between the creation story and the TOE.

One of the things that both the creation story and science agree upon is that life is "from the earth", or, more scientifically, a carbon-based life form. The creation story speaks of plants and beasts in terms of "let the earth bring forth". No, it doesn't speak of aquatic creatures and birds in exactly the same way, but there is nothing that conflicts with the idea of all life being "of the earth" either. And, naturally we all know the story of God forming Adam out of the dust of the ground.

I just think it is fascinating that the ancient texts and modern science are in agreement about the essential element of life on this planet.

Another area where science and the creation story are similiar is that in the beginning when the earth was covered with water, there was no free oxygen. I do remember this from my Biology 101 course in college. According to the Genesis account the earth was one massive ball of water, then came a "separation" where the atmosphere separated land from outer space.

Also, the idea of there being a super-continent. In Genesis, God said, "Let the waters be gathered into one place and let dry land appear." According to science, the formation and breaking up of super-continents is a part of the geological history of the earth.

Then there is the concept of the first living creatures being formed in the waters, rather than being land creatures.

There are differences, of course, between scientific models and Genesis, and there is no use pretending that they don't exist. But, the similarities are striking and certainly can be a good jumping off point for discussion.

Several other things that we discuss with the kids is that Genesis is not meant to be a science book, nor does Genesis provide us with an exact age of the earth (nor does any other book in the Bible). Also, Genesis does show that God used a process in the creation of the earth, again a similarity to TOE. Now, God is powerful enough that He could have called the entire planet, rocks, trees, cattle, platypodes and men into being with just one call. But, He didn't do that, and Genesis records an order in which God created things. This order is very balanced, looking like this:
Days 1-3 Days 4-6

Light/Dark Sun, Moon, Stars

Water/Sky Fish/Birds

Land/Seas Land dwelling Animals & Man

I have found that studying the similarities and differences between the Creation account and the various scientific theories about our early planet to strengthen my belief that God (Who was there) inspired the writer of the Creation story. I've also found that discussing how things are similar and different between the ancient text and modern science is far more conducive to meaningful dialog instead of arguing.

Just some thoughts on the subject.


​

lol, only if aig and icr were aroud then as they state that. and i have a bio professor friend who is a creationist and even states that.

 

[coffeeelover]

One can believe that God created life and TOE.

 

[jasoncran]

the word create and elvolve arent synomous but rather exclusive
natural selection has no intellegence, there fore create wouldnt be the word for that.

you are thinking the idea of God using natural processes to make things. that is called thiestic evolution.

 

[coffeeelover]

the word create and elvolve arent synomous but rather exclusive
natural selection has no intellegence, there fore create wouldnt be the word for that.

you are thinking the idea of God using natural processes to make things. that is called thiestic evolution.

Could be either or I would think. God could have just created the whole universe and left it all alone after that to follow natural processes forever, or God could intervene to create the first life after that. I don't see why they would have to be mutually exclusive. Meaning God created life to evolve and advance.

 

[Sparkey]

Contrary to what has been stated, I personally would find it very difficult to think that God created the Theory of Evolution (TOE).

As far as reconciling the Genesis account with the compendium of current scientific knowledge and thought? It is beyond my capacity. I don't even know what would cause me to want to try.

Handy, I like the way you think and agree that pointless arguments are ahhhh.. pointless.

 

[coffeeelover]

Contrary to what has been stated, I personally would find it very difficult to think that God created the Theory of Evolution (TOE).

As far as reconciling the Genesis account with the compendium of current scientific knowledge and thought? It is beyond my capacity. I don't even know what would cause me to want to try.

Handy, I like the way you think and agree that pointless arguments are ahhhh.. pointless.

Why is it pointless to want to understand the world around you? Why is it impossible to form an opinion based on evidence?

Also God didn't create the TOE. God created life that changes and adapts. Mans observation of this fact is the TOE.

 

[Sparkey]

One can believe that God created life and TOE.

I would assume that your many questions are rhetorical.

 

[coffeeelover]

I would assume that your many questions are rhetorical.

Do you believe being persnickety makes one intellectual?

 

[Strangelove]

I think what the OP is getting at is called Intelligent design. I think this is very dangerous with regard to what is taught in schools>>

My thoughts are summed up in the following article.

Intelligent Design Pitfalls:

Is "ID" A Genuine Threat To The Evolution Monopoly?

Or Is It A Tricky Compromise To Save Factless Evolutionism?

There is a well-financed strategy all across the USA which is dominating challenges to the evolution monopoly in the schools. This strategy advocates teaching ID ("Intelligent Design") and let students draw their own conclusions about the Designer.

As shown in this link about Atheism and Agnosticism, the Intelligent Design argument is indeed deadly to those two isms. No one who claims to be honest can agree to pick from any dozen of a blue million real phenomena, analyze the ineffable complexity of the design features involved, and honestly resist the inescapable conclusion that such Design must have a Designer. That done, one might as well call this Designer "god". From that point on, both "atheism" and "agnosticism" become inaccurate labels.

So, without argument, the Intelligent Design Strategy is unbeatable for attacking and nullifying atheism and agnosticism...isms which are both completely dependent upon a secular evolutionary explanation for all that exists.

But is the ID Strategy one that really challenges evolutionism per se? Or, is it a strategy with the agenda of salvaging evolutionism through compromise with ID??

In other words, is ID a cleverly conceived strategy for protecting the belief in a "scientifically certified" evolved universe, earth, and mankind while permitting belief in some kind of "god" who designed it all? And is this "permission " granted just so long as the choice restricts this "god’s" identity to one who has created everything through the evolutionary process and not through the Biblical process?!

Is the elimination of literal Biblical Creationism the unchanging, real ball game being played out through the ID initiative?

One thing is certain: This sort of compromise or "cooperation" between "science and religion" is usually called "theistic evolutionism" and it is not new. Various recent polls in the USA show that there are three groups that have now taken shape in the irrepressible County and State challenges to the evolution monopoly: 1) One group represents c. 30% of those who protest the evolution monopoly but are content with the "god did it through evolution" compromise,; 2) A second group of c. 30% insists that no challenge to evolution be allowed at all; and; 3) The third group of c. 40% (repeatedly defeated by the "Establishment Clause" ruling) is rewording its challenges, with the Intelligent Design advocates getting most of the media attention, but with those calling for the teaching of secular scientific facts arguing that this is the only way to be legal, get the truth out, and beat evolution with scientific facts at the same time. .

Scientific facts--it is confidently and accurately believed by those in this third group--will expose and destroy all the theoretical claims of the evolutionists in short order once certain students and academics get hold of them. This in turn will lead to a Constitutional prohibition against all evolutionary explanations for the origin of the universe, earth, and mankind as "false science" in the USA first , and will leave the courts only one alternative, viz., teach the secular scientific facts.

While it is quite true that teaching the facts would indeed produce that result, it is naive to think that the enormous power and self-interest attached to the evolution enterprise would not see this coming and head it off by one means or another.

Hence the reappearance of the oldest anti-evolution argument around (Intelligent Design) which can be--and already is--being labeled as just another attempt by Bible Fundamentalists to get "religion" into the tax-supported education apparatus.

In short, this ID label is just baiting the Fundamentalists. They are to believe that if they can succeed in getting Intelligent Design into the curriculums, they have scored a big victory against evolutionism. In fact they are just stepping into a trap set by those who are quite willing to back off from pure atheist evolutionism, and to allow some kind of "god" into the creation business... just so as long as it is not the God of the Bible Who emphatically rules out evolutionism in all of its guises.

Said yet another way, the "theistic evolutionist" position controlling some 30% of the challengers to the evolution monopoly represents people who have accepted evolution as a scientific fact but want "god" directing the creative process. These people are very open to the ID concept. Perhaps half of these would welcome hard scientific facts which would destroy the evolution paradigm altogether, while the other half wants evolution to stay and will join with the atheist evolutionists if necessary to keep evolution-destroying facts out of the schools.

Both of these groups of "theistic evolutionists" agree that the design evident in all that exists is too incredibly complex to have happened by random accident evolutionism, so there had to be some supernatural Designer behind it all. That’s where the ID movement locks in the whole 30%. Never mind that probably half would prefer that evolution be proven false and the other half would hate to see that proven. The reality is: That by accepting the ID "theistic evolutionist" concept, both sides are accepting the evolutionary process which began with a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, produced the earth about 4.6 billion years ago, and finally "evolved" mankind about a million years ago.


cntnd....

 

[Strangelove]

cntnd...

This acceptance by "theistic evolutionists" accomplishes three things:

1) In spite of the facts that could destroy it, this concept prevents those facts from being taught and certifies evolutionism as valid science and winner of the contest;

2) In spite of the fact that the Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm is demonstrably the "Origins Scenario" of the Pharisee Religion, that Paradigm would remain intact under the Intelligent Design compromise and would continue to commit train loads of tax money in support of THAT Religion’s "Origins Scenario" in violation of the U. S. Constitution;

3) In spite of the fact that the Copernican Model is wholly assumptive, factless, vulnerable, and the Keystone of the entire Pharisaic Big Bang Evolutionary Model it would remain untouchable in the ID compromise.

Therefore, it could not be more clear that "Intelligent Design"--while it is wonderful for nullifying atheism and agnosticism--leaves the Pharisee religion’s evolutionary paradigm in absolute control of the theoretical science establishment and succeeds thereby in outlawing the teaching of scientific facts which are capable of overturning the whole lying masquerade.

So, when one factors in the recently available and highly explosive fact that Evolutionism itself is a "creation scenario" from a holy book (Zohar/ Kabbala) of the religion of Phariseeism and hence is subject to the "Establishment Clause" prohibition in the USA--it can readily be seen why the "Intelligent Design" strategy has suddenly been called upon to rescue not only evolutionism, but the entire Pharisaic Cabal.

That cabal now controls the world’s most rudimentary knowledge about the Origin of everything . That cabal has succeeded by clothing itself in the priestly robes of "theoretical science" and has very nearly brought about the triumph of the Kabbala’s "Origins Scenario" while simultaneously very nearly discrediting the Bible’s "Origins Scenario" even in professed Bible churches.

With a fortune in the 600 millions, Howard Ahmanson--it turns out, has been a big contributor to the ID movement, particularly to the current leader of that movement, The Discovery Institute in Seattle. Some of Ahmanson’s other views-- basically Reconstructionist Post-Millennial eschatological utopianism--are Scripturally impossible, but that’s his bag, his business, and another story

As for the Discovery Institute’s Director, Stephen C. Meyer, he has accomplished a lot in a short time with the big money that has come his way. Senator Rick Santorum (R. PA) used his material. Scholars from Baylor, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, etc., are on board and drawing attention to the ID strategy.

All of this (and a lot more!) is escalating awareness about the most fundamental weakness of pagan evolutionism, namely, the fact that it can not explain the ineffable complexity of design that is intrinsic in a blue million actual examples. Basically--though I was just as obtuse as the next one--it is just plain stupid to say that all this inescapable design came to be as it undeniably is without a Designer.

Thus--let it be stressed again--the "Intelligent Design" argument completely pulls the rug from beneath the huge atheist and agnostic populations of the world. That in itself is a great gain for Truth.

However, this warning must be repeated and made unmistakably clear so that no reader misses it: If getting ID into the education system is the ultimate goal of those who want to combat evolutionism , it is the wrong goal for those who want the whole Truth. The ID plan will leave all the essentials of evolutionism in the textbooks. The only change that will be noticed is that students will be driven logically to accept some kind of supernatural intelligence which has used evolution to create everything over some 15 billion years according to the Big Bang Paradigm.

Thus, there is only one real victor that is certain to arise if the ID tactic for breaking the evolution monopoly is allowed to be the ultimate goal of any challenge to the evolution monopoly. That victor will be the Pharisee Religion from whence is derived the 15 billion year old evolution paradigm via the Kabbala. The big loser with such a tactic is the Christian Religion from whence is derived the literal six-day ("evening and morning") anti- evolution paradigm via the Bible.

 

[handy]

Actually Strangelove, I hadn't even considered ID. I'm not a big proponent of ID.

I have no problem with the historical understanding of a 24/6 day creation model. I really don't. However, I'm also not all that sure, sure to the point of being dogmatic, about the earth being only 4000-10,000 years old either. As a matter of fact, I lean towards the earth being much older.

My point to this thread is that there are points of similarities between the creation story and TOE that can lead into meaningful discussion, rather than arguments.

 

[Strangelove]

Actually Strangelove, I hadn't even considered ID. I'm not a big proponent of ID.

I have no problem with the historical understanding of a 24/6 day creation model. I really don't. However, I'm also not all that sure, sure to the point of being dogmatic, about the earth being only 4000-10,000 years old either. As a matter of fact, I lean towards the earth being much older.

My point to this thread is that there are points of similarities between the creation story and TOE that can lead into meaningful discussion, rather than arguments.

I wonder if you could list the similarities in a bullet point style for me handy.

Nice to meet you by the way.

 

[Sparkey]

Actually Strangelove, I hadn't even considered ID. I'm not a big proponent of ID.

I have no problem with the historical understanding of a 24/6 day creation model. I really don't. However, I'm also not all that sure, sure to the point of being dogmatic, about the earth being only 4000-10,000 years old either. As a matter of fact, I lean towards the earth being much older.

My point to this thread is that there are points of similarities between the creation story and TOE that can lead into meaningful discussion, rather than arguments.

I understood you. It's perfectly okay to know that we have limitations (crucial, in fact).

To those would would disagree? Take a trip sometime to the Lewis and Clark Caverns in Montana. Or go deep into the earth somewhere near where you live. Turn off all the lights. Wait.

The darkness is so heavy you can feel it.
You might want to be sure that you are next to something that you could grab onto because in that deep darkness dizziness isn't unusual. Palpable darkness.

Now, ask the Lord what He meant when he said He made the darkness. Ask Him to show you what it means to have cloaked something in darkness. It isn't simply the absence of light. Seriously.

- [20] He removes the speech of those who are trusted, And takes away the understanding of the Zakenim. ... [And takes away the discernment of the elders] [22] He uncovers deep things out of darkness, And brings out to light the shadow of death. ... [24] He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the eretz, [He deprives of intelligence the chiefs of the earth's people] And causes them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way [ and makes them wander in a pathless waste]. [25] They grope in the dark without light. He makes them stagger like a drunken man.

[Job 12:20, 22, 24-25 HNV]

I think that I've read somewhere that the Lord delights in making the self proclaimed wise to be fools. Can ya help a brotha' out? Know that Scripture, maybe?

 

[Pard]

I some what agree with Handy. There are lots of similarities between the science story about origins of life and the Biblical creation account. However, I am anything but surprised. The Bible is God's Word, He decided on every Word that is contained in the Bible. He also created everything that we see. So there is no surprise, from me, when people show the similarities between the Bible and science.

I would love to have productive discussions about science; I hate arguing science. I have tried to have productive discussions on this site and with friends and family. What I have discovered is that, ironically, I cannot find a group of "scientISTS" (capitalizing is intentional) who are willing to have a productive discussion. I am not saying that creationists do not begin arguments, I just find that the TOE guys are far more prone to beginning the debating, which makes it hard to have a good and productive discussion.

I got no clue what ID is, sounds like a way of making "creation" politically correct... News flash, Christians should not worry about being "politically correct" they ought to worry about being "Biblically correct"!

 

[coffeeelover]

I would love to have productive discussions about science; I hate arguing science. I have tried to have productive discussions on this site and with friends and family. What I have discovered is that, ironically, I cannot find a group of "scientISTS" (capitalizing is intentional) who are willing to have a productive discussion.

I am glad you would like to have a discussion. Why not deal with the science I posted in the 4004 thread or show back up in one of the flood threads? There is ample opportunity for discussion.

 

[Sparkey]

One of the difficulties that we face comes whenever we try to objectify God. He is called the "Altogether Other" -- it's one of His names, showing that our Creator is so different from us that our language itself can not depict Him.

When He first "identified" Himself what Name did He choose? "I AM" as in, "Tell them that 'I AM' sent you." No man can know the whole mind of God, the degree of sophistication and the amount of knowledge amassed does not change this simple fact. Is it arrogance personified to think otherwise? Let us for a moment examine that question.

In it's simple form, Algebra is a well known mathematical process that allows us to assign numbers and variables to different situations and helps us understand how things relate to each other. Let's pretend that we (all mankind) has advanced so far in mathematical study and knowledge that there is no longer any mystery left. Calculus and mathematical theory (in this scenario) is now merely outdated concepts that only served as stepping stones to our super-knowledge.

Still, when trying to quantify God, the equation, "Infinity minus X = Infinity" might be one such attempt.

But what does this mean? Can we consider this even now? It means for one thing, that the same amount of 'difficulty' (or lack of difficulty) is encountered by God to have created the entire universe (something we consider "large") as would be encountered for Him to do any thing, even to answer a single prayer, mine or yours.

The process is further complicated when we understand the basis of our "mathematical science". Consider for a very brief moment the symbol used by the Ancient Egyptians to express the mathematical term, "infinity":

You may recognize the symbol. That is Ouroboros. In the Pyramid of Unas dated between 2375 BC and 2345 BC, hieroglyphs on the west wall gable of the Sarcophagus chamber can be read: "A serpent is entwined by a serpent" and "the male serpent is bitten by the female serpent, the female serpent is bitten by the male serpent, Heaven is enchanted, earth is enchanted, the male behind mankind is enchanted".*

"In Gnosticism, this serpent symbolized eternity and the soul of the world."

Regarding Science and those qualified to speak of such perhaps Einstein said it best.

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

I've read that our Father chooses the beggerly elements of this world to better show forth His Glory. I am one such beggerly element, thank God.

____________________________
Footnotes, Credits & Accreditation
*Ouroboros quote from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jasoncran]

sparrow calculus is a very real and applicable math and we are using its apps to use the internet as physicists and engineers use it often.

btw a christian man aka sir issac newton the discover of gravity is also acredited with calculus.

 

[coffeeelover]

In it's simple form, Algebra is a well known mathematical process that allows us to assign numbers and variables to different situations and helps us understand how things relate to each other. Let's pretend that we (all mankind) has advanced so far in mathematical study and knowledge that there is no longer any mystery left. Calculus and mathematical theory (in this scenario) is now merely outdated concepts that only served as stepping stones to our super-knowledge.

Still, when trying to quantify God, the equation, "Infinity minus X = Infinity" might be one such attempt.

But what does this mean? Can we consider this even now? It means for one thing, that the same amount of 'difficulty' (or lack of difficulty) is encountered by God to have created the entire universe (something we consider "large") as would be encountered for Him to do any thing, even to answer a single prayer, mine or yours.

Infinity - X is meaningless. Infinity is not a number, but a concept. Might as well say Apple divided by Pepsi.

The process is further complicated when we understand the basis of our "mathematical science". Consider for a very brief moment the symbol used by the Ancient Egyptians to express the mathematical term, "infinity":

The process is complicated because you try and make it complicated. You are trying to make things look unintelligible so that in the end your argument that there is no real knowledge and we are to dumb to know anything sound plausible.

As for the basis of our "mathematical science" it has nothing to do with an ancient Egyptian snake or cult.

Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics


You seems to be suggesting that because we can't or don't know everything, that in turn we can't know anything. I simply reject this idea outright. We as a species have figured out quite a lot about the world around us. The world is a much better place because of science. Diseases have been eliminated, Food production increases have led to less starvation. We get to communicate with each other through the marvel of the internet on these wonderful computers.

We should continue to learn explore and figure things out. If everyone had always just accepted the answer we can never know or God did it then we would still be using stone tools and cowering in caves when it thundered cause God was mad.

 

[jasoncran]

sparrowhawke i am not a subscriper to the toe god did and does allow us to study the creation he made. and me thinks that he would want us to as it make us glorify him even more.

even the athiests marvel at nature.

science isnt well we cant know this or that, its lets inquire and learn from what we can and continue to learn.