It may surprise some of you to read this, but I wish I was an evolutionist. It would be the easiest path to take considering how widely accepted evolution is by the public and Christian communities. Although, I do not consider Genesis 1 and 2 be a literal account of creation. I do consider it to express that God created the world. I tend to think God spoke all of creation into existence simultaneously.
I used to think it would be so cool if God used evolution to create the world and now in my mind it would make life much easier to just be a theistic evolutionist, so I wouldn't have to deal with constant confrontation. The one hurdle in my acceptance of evolution is not Scripture or belief, but ration. As one who has traditionally been an evidentialist, concerned with what we can prove, all the evidence that has been presented to me by evolutionists does not allow me to accept an evolutionary approach. The probability of evolution being a reality is so astronomical that it goes against my "good sense" to put any weight in it. Even with God directing the process of evolution the latest datings of the earth still do not allow the necessary time for the current developments we experience. This is the primary inconsistency I have encountered in speaking with evolutionists and I wish I could make my life easier, but reason does not allow me to make this blind leap.
4 comments:
hey dave. i don't understand one sentence. you write, "Even with God directing the process of evolution the latest datings of the earth still do not allow the necessary time for the current developments we experience."
first, what processes do you have in mind? development of language?
second, would God directing the process make 'necessary time' rather ambiguous? if one can believe that God created all things simultaneously with and by his Word, then couldn't a model that employs some elements of evolution have God 'tweak' the time that one might otherwise think some developments would take? in other words, if God is involved in the evolutionary process, then time becomes a negotiable factor, it seems to me.
Unfortunately, we are forced to state terms w/out qualifying them unless we wanna spend all day setting up each term so even in my qualify it won't be exhastive. Thanks for asking the questions. Here's my best short rersponse
The process I have in mind is the "bare essential" elements that God would have put in place when "time began" and from these elements developing into solar systems and then through some catalyst, perhaps by God, would bring forth a single cell organism. Then this single cell developed into a multi-cellur and continuing on with "sponateous jumps" until we have human beings, or possibly some more complex being.
I would argue that if God were to "tweak" the process. Then the process, as we understand it, did not actually happen. Of course this will most likely result in needing further qualifying.
I truly appreciate you engaging me on the subject
of course the process is always a model, the best likeness we can get of what happened. i am still not understanding why evolutionary process is automatically ruled out by time, however. what about all micro-evolutionary process makes them impossible, given what we know of time?
I would consider myself a micro-evolutionist. I would see a vast difference between micro and macro evolution,though. I also fail to see how adaptation within a species or genus necessitates or "proves" macro-evolution. That would appear similar to holding the Toronto Maple Leafs are going to win the Stanley Cup, because they won a couple of games in a season. Because something happened on a smaller scale within more limited confines does not necessarily mean it is going to happen on a "grander" scale.
I rule it out because a process, which is constantly building upon itself, is contingent on time. A must happen in order for B and A through X must be accomplished for Z. Now evolution is a vastly larger and complex A through Z series. The incosistency I'm seeing is even with the most generous granting of an old Earth all of this to have happened by 6 000 BCE does not appear possible.
I know this is simply a more exhaustive explanation of what I have previously stated. Perhaps there is an assumption I'm making or some information you have that I do not. Could you explain what it is that allows you to reconcile the seeming "time-result" conflict I perceive.
Post a Comment