Talk:Theistic evolution

• Archive 1: From Talk:Evolutionary creationism
• Archive 2: From Talk:Theistic evolution

Page move and archives

Right, I hope that this will sort out the current confusion. Ed Poor moved Evolutionary creationism to Theistic evolution, leaving a bit of a mess behind. To sort this out, I've archived the old talk pages, as shown above.

Ed also moved the page without seeking to build a consensus first. However, after the move there appeared to be a consensus that it had been moved to the right page (see Archive 2). So, rather than moving it back again, I propose that we keep it here unless a consensus develops that it's in the wrong place. I hope that this is OK. --G Rutter 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I protest the move, which should be reverted. The term evolutionary creationism emphasizes its commonality with creationists, no matter how much other creationists may dislike it. This move was done against prior consensus: it was debated a long time back, and consensus was to leave it evolutionary creationism. Pollinator 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's the point, TEs do NOT consider ourselves creationists at all. Evolutionary creationism unfortunately, is a very non-NPOV term. Dracil 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, I think it'll be good for a new debate. One of the biggest problems was that the original creator of the TE and EC was already biased towards EC being the dominant term, and a couple years of the pages being left that way sort of reinforced Wiki people's views that that was indeed correct, regardless of how the non-Wiki world felt. Dracil 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about EC being "non-NPOV"- it's the one I personally prefer to describe myself, as I think it better emphasises the two halves of the argument but I have no problems with using TE as well/instead. Nonetheless, it does seem that TE is more widely used. Whether some TEs don't consider themselves creationists doesn't change the fact that from NPOV they clearly are- and as Pollinator notes this desire for disassociation cuts both ways! Anyway, let's re-examine the consensus of where this page should be:

• Arguments for TE: Google has it as more widely used, it highlights the fact it is closer to evolutionary views than other creationist views.
• Arguments for EC: Does Google really count in things like this? It highlights the fact that it is actually a form of creationism (whether you like it or not!).

I'm sure there's other arguments on both sides, so lets see what people think and then move the page to the appropriate place (if I can be this bold, can we ignore the fact of where the page is and the fact that Ed certainly didn't follow procedure to get it here and concentrate on where the rest of us think it should actually be?). For the record, my vote is currently for EC. --G Rutter 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Either heading is fine by me: at one time I thought two articles would be appropriate, but from discussion with Pollinator and G Rutter was persuaded that the continuum of overlapping ideas described by both terms makes a single article better, and accepted their preference for EC. This has the advantage of emphasising faith in Creation at the same time as agreeing/accepting evolution. TE makes it clear which side of the "Creationism" argument proponents fall and so could reduce confusion, at the expense of making a black and white argument out of more nuanced theological distinctions. Either way I think the "Creationism" template should include a link to this page to cover the continuum. One thing that seems to have been lost is a usage of EC to describe a fusion of Jewish sources with string theory, as I recall. There was a link for that , but it seems to have been removed apart from a hint in the last paragraph of the intro. ...dave souza 22:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say TE is a form of Creation, but can no longer be under the umbrella of Creationism. "Creationism" has become a tainted term, from a practical side. When people talk about Creationists trying to get rid of evolution in classrooms, are they talking about TEs? No. When people bring up Creationists on the streets handing out leaflets about how neo-Darwinism is some racist conspiracy theory by scientists, are they talking about TEs? No. When fundies talk about their fellow bible-believing Creationists brethren, are they usually including TEs? Again No. And so on. So why, when TEs are not even considered part of Creationism by and large by most people involved in these discussions/debates, should we be associated with it?

In any case, I've put the link to this discussion on christianforums.com (the largest Christian message board on the net) in the Creation & Evolution board, as well as the Theistic Evolution board, to see how people there feel about the issue. Dracil 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, for completeness sake, the links to the pages are Creation&Evolution forum discussion on this and Theistic Evolution forum discussion on this, in case people want to hear what non-wikipedians think. Dracil 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dracil, it may be your POV that "creationism" is "tainted" and that you don't want to be "associated with it", but from an NPOV TE/EC is a form of creationism (defn: "belief that God created the universe") which believes that God used/uses the methods/ways discovered by modern science. I agree entirely that people don't usually mean TEs when they talk about creationists, but I don't think that that really proves anything.

Dave, thanks for your points- I agree. I'll try and look for the Jewish reference you mean. --G Rutter 16:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But similarly, it is your POV that they are not. If you agree that people aren't talking about TE when talking about Creationists and pushing Creationism into classrooms, then you've agreed that to most people, TE does not fit under Creationism. Yet there seems to be this logical disconnect to try to stuff it under there anyway. By saying the term is tainted, I mean that the word has taken additional connotations that are outside the original definition of the word itself. Words do not exist in a vacuum isolated from their usage in the real world and their practical definitions change. It's like how the word "gay" has now become a word used primarily to mean homosexuals, rather than the original definition of being happy and lively. Dracil 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here. I think that creationism is one of those (many) words where there's a popular definition and a more precise definition, which don't necessarily correlate precisely. I don't know how you can claim that using creationism to describe TE is a "logical disconnect"- I've given a definition of creationism which logically includes TE. I also think that that definition would be accepted by the majority of people if they thought about it, rather than simply thinking "fundamentalist crackpot" (or whatever) when the word is mentioned.

As a Christian who belives in EC/TE myself I do get embarrassed at my fellow Christians who are Young Earth Creationists, etc. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop using the word creation- it just means I have to qualify it more than I otherwise would. However, this is all off the point really, which is, is TE or EC the most widely used phrase to describe this set of beliefs? --G Rutter 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your 'more precise' definition is a pretty obscure one. Almost every discussion of creationism I've been involved in has used a definition which excludes TE. Both dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's online service give definitions which reflect that common usage. And even the Wikipedia definition of creationism excludes TE, since technically a TE need invoke no supernatural intervention. The commonly accepted definition serves a useful purpose; it draws a distinction between those who accept the mainstream scientific description of origins and those who reject it. I'm afraid I find your definition rather unhelpful. It's just not the way the word is used, and will only serve to muddy the waters.

Oh, and as you've probably guessed already, TE is the term I'm more familiar with. In my experience, it's overwhelmingly more common than EC. ~ Tsumetai 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I actually agree with your interpretation of Merriam-Webster's definition: "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis". Usually implies "not always". I also note that M-W has an entry for "scientific creationism" which seems to undermine your argument as I guess that it will define this as creation through evolution (although I am guessing as I have no intention of handing over my credit card details to get the actual definition). I'm also confused about your argument that TE doesn't invoke a supernatural explanation? Can you give your definition of TE please? --G Rutter 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The important part of the M-W definition is 'out of nothing'. TEs don't believe that the various forms of life were created ex nihilo. And 'scientific creationism', as I understand the term, is synonymous with 'creation science' - the attempt to construct apparently scientific theories based in creationist beliefs, as an alternative to mainstream science. As to my definition of TE, I'm happy with the one given in the article. However, it fits a deist who believes that God created the Universe and let it run by the rules he set down. I don't think that scenario necessarily fits the Wikipedia definition of creationism, though I'll admit it could be argued either way. ~ Tsumetai 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To Grutter's 19:03 reply above, I wouldn't stop using the word "creation" either, but I *do* stop using the word "creationism." Creation as used in the discussions is not such a loaded term unlike the -ism version.

But I agree, the main point IS which is the most widely used phrase to describe this set of belief. I have given (with a few more here) several pieces of evidence that it is TE. 1) Google. 2)The largest Christian messageboard itself splits the Christian-only discussion into Creationism subforum, and a Theistic Evolution subforum. 3)I have just posted another link to the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of Christian scientists, and even they use Theistic Evolution more often, and more often than not, when they use the EC term, they use it without the -ism at the end, plus the EC term when used, is usually bracketed and/or following the Theistic Evolution term. 4)There is a theistic-evolution.org site, there is no evolutionary-creationism.* site. 5) So far, there does not seem to be any evidence from the EC side showing that their term is in more popular use, and the arguments for it have only been from the semantic and philosophy of language side. Dracil 09:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Of the 3 responses I've had so far on the links I gave above, 2 people also feel that TE is better, while another feels that both are bad, and feels that preferably, a new term "Evolutionary Theism"/"Evolutionary Theist" should be used, which I agree would be more NPOV, but is not something that's in common usage. Dracil 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One puppy's opinion: I concur with Tsumetai on this one - I support TE, I'm not going to fuss if EC is chosen. I'd like to see it settled so I can fix all the pipes and redirects. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Tsumetai, you linked to the Wikpedia article on Creationism for definition: please read further in the article and note that Creationism#Types of creationism includes TE / EC. ...dave souza 22:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that the American Scientific Affiliation, a pretty big (from what I can tell) organization of Christian scientists, also seem to mainly prefer the use of Theistic Evolution. When EC is used, it's often "Evolutionary Creation" without the -ism, bracketed, and/or following Theistic Evolution in precedence. In other words, it's generally treated as a secondary term. If push comes to shove, I would probably be fine with this version as a compromise. Dracil 09:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that, especially with the arguments already given in Archive 2, we can regard the consensus as settled on TE. Dracil, if you're refering to my arguments when you talk about arguments from the "semantic and philosophy of language side", I was arguing that it's perfectly appropriate to regard TE as a form of creationism, whatever we choose to call it. For example, a quote from a letter sent to Tony Blair from the British Christians in Science group: "The term 'creationism' is often applied to this view [Young Earth Creationism], sometimes to the disquiet of those of us who also believe in divine creation but do not find it necessary to reject mainstream science." I hope that we can agree that: a) This page stays at TE and b) This page stays in both the Evolution and Creationism categories. --G Rutter 09:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fine. Dracil 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Should the ID stuff be in the article? Considering that ID is different from Theistic Evolution. Dracil 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so either- I've removed the ID template. --G Rutter 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Requesting for input and perhaps assistance about TE-ers thoughts on ID

Some people (including myself) mistook ID as TE/EC when we first heard about ID. There's a discussion in the ID/Talk about whether or not to include a distinction between ID and TE/EC in the ID article. So far, it's 4 oks & no nays to include such a distinction.

[[1]]

Would like to hear opinion from TE/EC editors before we directly mention TE/EC in the ID article. Will understand if there's opposition.Lovecoconuts 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing inherent in Intelligent Design that precludes Evolution.Pollinator 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say include the distinction. Generally speaking, many IDists are really Creationists in disguise (see the word replacement fiasco in the Of_Pandas_and_People article). Also Behe's irreducible complexity stuff is pretty core to the ID philosophy, which is not a part of TE/EC. ID is not science, while TE is scientifically indistinguishable from materialistic/atheistic evolution (which is why they're allies against ID being taught in science classes). Dracil 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Distinction has been added in the ID article. It's just one sentence, which I hope will be enough.Lovecoconuts 11:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just popping in to say, sentence added is: "Intelligent design stands in contrast to theistic evolution, which does not conflict with scientific theories."

ID article is overlength, we try for maximum info with minimum verbiage. If this statement is inaccurate or could be improved, please enter your thoughts at Talk:Intelligent_design#Archival - thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

intro: methodology

I find "methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism," presumably in oblique reference to methodological naturalism, a bit confusing. "Philisophical naturalism" links to the naturalism article, which does include the varying types of naturalism including MN. But the term "philosophical naturalism" itself is usually taken to mean ontological naturalism, which the methodological naturalism of theistic evolutionists is definitely not. I've remove the word "philosophical." --ragesoss 14:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism?

Is the Hinduism reference really necessary? Generally the Creationism-Evolutionary debate is limited to Abrahamic religions. For that matter, why not include Buddhist, Shintoist, Neopagan and tribal "attitudes" toward the subject as well? I feel the "Hindusim" section should be removed. Kazak 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Certain participants in the debate often argue that all religions hold their (usually creationist) belief, and an "Other religions" section would be useful to avoid misconceptions. Of course Buddhists are not necessarily theists. ...dave souza 11:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To make such a reference encyclopedic, you would need to cite one of these theists making the claim that all religions are creationist, and then provide facts to the effect that Hinduism is not. Endomion 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

"For strictly scientific purposes, the theistic evolutionary point of view about evolution is indistinguishable from the evolution as proposed by people who consider themselves as materialists or atheists."

Is the above affirmation true? If the answer is yes, I’d like to add it into the article. --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is broadly true: you might put it like this "From a strictly scientific point of view, the theistic evolutionary view of evolution is indistinguishable from that of people who consider themselves materialists or atheists, since belief in the ultimately divine source of creation is not considered to require any different approach to scientific method or reasoning." Myopic Bookworm 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Theistic Evolution specific to Christianity?

I don't understand why the first paragraph seem to specify Theistic Evolution has a "christian" view. Many religion would and are compatible with theistic evolutionary views. --207.216.251.85 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, will change that. --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Shortening this article

This article is now very long, and I think it is being overbalanced by very detailed discussion (including long quotations) of particular Christian debates over the interpretation of the creation story in the book of Genesis. Althugh this issue is obviously at the centre of the disagreement between theistic evolutionists and literal creationists, I don't think it's actually central to the topic of theistic evolution. The whole stance of theistic evolution is that we study the physical world through science, and therefore have to approach the Bible with the knowledge we gain from it. Wikipedia needs to have somewhere a presentation of the debate about literal and non-literal Biblical interpretation, but this isn't the place. (Tolkien's comment about myth as truth was actually directed at the myth of the resurrected god, manifest as true in the story of Christ, and had nothing to do wth creation.) Myopic Bookworm 22:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I just read through the article and was thinking the same thing. I would support your effort to shorten it. - Jersyko·talk 22:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. But I think we should keep in this article some of the debate about "literal" and "non-literal" Biblical interpretation. A (quick) mention to Augustine's allegorical interpretation of the creation story is especially relevant, since many mistakenly believe that Christians only started to read Genesis as a non-literal text after science "proved it wrong". --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 02:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. However, given that this is a highly controversial topic, I suggest all removals be oked on the talk page first. JoshuaZ 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

After some time thinking, I suggest that we copy everything currently in "Evolution and Christian interpretations of Genesis" to a separate article called "Allegorical interpretations of Genesis"... and then proceed to trim this article. Then we would have an easy way to reinsert polemical removals, etc. (and allegorical interpretations of Genesis is by itself a relevant topic). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

PS.: Well, I just created the "allegorical interpretations" article… --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm being bold and removed some quotes to shorten the article (they still can be found in: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis).
I was also intending to remove the quotations from "Contemporary Christian Considerations", but then I noticed that they are not summarized in any way. To remove them now would be equal to remove all mention of these ideas from the article.--Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Creation and Evolution are not compatible

I am going to say this right now. The Biblical creation account and the Theory of Evolution are not compatible. Evolution requires death and suffering to come into the world before man. This would mean that man's sin is not the cause of death and suffering. So, now God is a liar. This also means that if death and suffering is not a result of the Fall then Jesus Christ's death on the cross was for naught. This then means Jesus is not the Savior. Anyone who is a Christian should understand how deadly that thought is. Evolution and Creation are diametrically opposed to each other. You have to accept one or the other not both. I have heard of the Day Age Theory and most Hebrew scholars have said that the days of Creation are literal days. Also, why would morning and evening be used if the days were figurative? The Day Age Theory does not line up with the Bible nor does any other attempt to mix Creation and Evolution. 209.145.244.126 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is relevant to the article. What changes to the article are you proposing? Guettarda 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anon, take it up with the Pope: you'll find he disagrees with you. ...dave souza, talk 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Biblical creation account, taken as a literal historical narrative, and the Theory of Evolution are not compatible. But many Christians don't believe that they have to accept the Biblical creation account as literal historical narrative. They believe that it is a parable about God as the source of all being and ultimate creator (not a historical account of how he did it) and also a parable of human relationship to God, which is marred by human disobedience. God is not a liar, but as we know from reading the teaching of his Son, he is most certainly a storyteller. I don't believe that the Prodigal Son was a real individual person: does that make Jesus a liar? Myopic Bookworm 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever seen "Pulp Fiction"? A writer, using poetic expression, does not necessarily put things in their correct chronological order. Let us assume that Moses is the author of the creation story and that God revealed the actual way in which he created the universe (Evolution). What could Moses say when science itself was not part of his vocabulary, nor the concept of systematic analysis. Moses did what many people in his situation do; he resorted to poetry. The jist of what he says is: God created all things out of goodness and love. Man was "Formed", as the potter forms the clay through many transitions (Evolution) until he reaches the desired shape. To say eloquently, God formed man from the dust of the earth - Organic Life from inorganic. Man was innocent (animal) until he reached a level of consciousness that he found himself accountable for his actions (The choice to learn the difference between good and evil through "observation" or "participation"). Man chose "participation" and thus changed his nature. Up until this point death was a meaningless statement, things lived and died, things ate and were eaten with no consequence. But once man understood accountability, death gained a tremendous psychological power over him, as did sin and suffering. Once again, what Moses says is poetry, but it is also truth when one analyzes it. To continue, because man's nature was changed, because he chose participation in sin, he was fated to suffer forever. The only way for God to save man from this eternal suffering was to change man's nature again. He accomplished this by uniting himself (his divinity) with humanity thus changing our nature (what it is to be human). This is what Christ saved us from, the fate of hell. —This unsigned comment was added by Phiddipus (talk • contribs) .

So you're saying God looked on a world that was tearing itself apart through death and suffering and called it 'very good'? God called death an enemy in Hebrews and then he also called it 'very good'? Genesis explicitly says that God called his Creation 'very good'. We run into these contradictions when we take man's ideas and use them to reinterpret God's Word. That is what is done when you mix Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution. I do agree there are many examples of parables and poetry throughout the Bible. Creation is not a parable or poetry. Jesus treated Genesis as if it happened, though. Alisyd 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jesus treated Genesis as it happened" is only true if you accept the premise that the Bible, or at least the New Testament, is infallible in the first place. But let's not rehash the old earth vs. young earth vs. evolutionist and literalists vs. non-literalists debate here. As no one has offered any substantial way to improve this article in this subsection of the talk page, I suggest the discussion should probably be dropped. - Jersyko·talk 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The above argument is why so many people needlessly reject the Christian faith: because "man's ideas" include the notion of truth, and the truth is that the literal Genesis story is not consistent with what we know about the world. Many would accept Christ, but they can't accept Adam: insist on Adam, and they will reject Christ. For me, as a science graduate, I have only two options: (1) accept the facts discovered by science, and reconcile them with the truths of the Christian faith; (2) accept the facts discovered by science, and reject the Christian faith altogether. I'm not prepared to pretend that "truth" should mean something different to Christians. (Jesus, even if divine, was incarnate as a Jewish preacher of the first century: he treated the Bible according to the understanding of the people of that time.)

But I agree that further debate here probably isn't useful. Myopic Bookworm 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't continue the debate, but I must say I fell great sorrow for anyone wishes to accept man's teaching over God's and then claim they are a Christian. Alisyd 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In order to accept the point of view that some portions of some books of the old testament must be taken literally is to deny the very history of the text(s); to imagine that the “bible” is one book, to imagine that God wrote it, to deny human fallibility and the limits of human understanding, to ignore the limitations of language in expressing truth or conveying truth, to imagine that it is a complete story, to imagine that if one part (written 5000 years ago) has the same impact as another part (written 3500 years later).

On the other hand, if one accepts that the collection of texts represents the human understanding of mysteries revealed through time by God, then one must ask why God took 3500 years to write his book(s). The obvious answer being that humans in Moses’ time were more primitive and could not grasp more complex concepts; that it required time in order to form the concepts and language necessary. And if this is true we can easily understand why Abraham understood our God to be one of many Gods (El Shadai – God of the mountain) while later the prophets might have called him greatest of all Gods, still later God of Gods and Lord of Lords, then the Only God, and later still, the Triune Godhead. This all represents the evolution of ideas expressed through time to a limited human understanding.

I realize this is the subject of the article; creation vs. evolution; but I posit that for Christians to even consider this an issue is to ignore the bible itself (you claim to read it, but you are lying out of desperation to support your irrational argument). And anyone of science who in turn uses this ignorant viewpoint and an argument against the truths revealed in the bible is likewise foolish rejecting what is a valuable piece of wisdom literature as unworthy of consideration.

Here is truth: If there is a God that does not make us any less human. Humans communicate using language. Language cannot convey absolute truth because every word is interpreted by the recipient. Even if God himself wrote the text, chose every word as the perfect word, every phrase perfect, this would not change our flawed perception, we would still not understand perfectly. Humans are limited by their senses. Anything outside our senses is invisible and it is ridiculous and arrogant for us to assume our senses are all encompassing. If the various texts of the bible were inspired by God, if truth was revealed to man, then we must bare in mind those human limitation in the writer and know that he could only come close to understanding what he saw, and came even less close in conveying that to us through the text. Christians are not bound (and have never been bound) by the Old Testament. They have never been required to keep the 600+ Jewish laws. Why imagine that we must accept as absolute fact a text that cannot possibly be absolute fact. I am not saying to reject it, I am saying to draw the truth from it.--Phiddipus 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

to accept man's teaching over God's That the Bible must be taken literally is man's teaching. If it were God's teaching, it would not conflict with his world. (Thanks for your thoughts, Phiddipus.) Myopic Bookworm 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I didn't clarify myself. What I meant to say is this: If one believes Christianity(man's fall, Christ dying for sins, believe on him and you will be saved, God's Word {The Bible} is infallible) then in order for one to also accept evolution is to accept man's teachings. If Genesis is to be taken as figurative, can not the Gospels then be taken figuratively. Josh McDowell, a theologian said in his book A Ready Defense, "If the literal sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest you come up with nonsense." Scripture should be interpreted as literally as possible and if that is impossible, one must move to figurative interpretation. The Bible itself says it is truth and if you believe it is infallible then you must believe it to be true. Evolution is not compatible with the literal account of creation. I hope this clears up my views. Alisyd 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I guess this explains strict constructionism. In any event, I'm still not sure what changes are being suggested to improve the article. - Jersyko·talk 17:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Alisyd, The fundamental problem with such logic is that it assumes if one part is not to be taken literally, then all parts likewise share the same scrutiny. This makes some seriously specious assumptions: 1. That the bible is one book. 2. That from page one to page last, it is all the same, completely denying its 3500 years of creation. 3. To treat the question as if the complete text was “discovered” and a religion grew up around it and not the other way around.

Flawed human nature makes us resistant to growth. Everything we read in scriptures indicates that God does not want us to remain ignorant, but rather to grow in our understanding of Him and his creation. He makes it clear, by coming to earth and preaching “Love thy Enemy” that he constantly wants us to strive to be better and better, to become “like” Him. But the devil whispers to us, “use the scriptures to justify ignorance and hatred, after all its God’s word”. But this is a lie, Christ is God’s Word incarnate. Christ never justified the Pharisees in their strict keeping of the law but rather reminded us that Love is all important. From the moment that God united himself with man, human nature changed. When Christ and the apostles entreat us to reject the wisdom of men, they were referring to those various pagan philosophies of the day (especially rhetoric). What comes afterward, after Christ, is the wisdom born out of the church (Christ’s Body) which he established, over which the Holy Spirit presides, and promised would remain forever pure. So likewise a clear vision of logic and science was also born out of the church in opposition to rhetoric. While it is true that some have gone too far and used science to deny God; when one applies careful and objective science the only logical scientific conclusion about Gods existence is “We Don’t Know”, which is perfectly fine considering that science is not theology. However, the one thing that science must concede is that the strict limitations of science make it impossible to “Prove” or “Know” anything absolutely. A true scientist would never presume to overstep the boundaries or limitations of science. --Phiddipus 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity(man's fall, Christ dying for sins, believe on him and you will be saved, God's Word {The Bible} is infallible) -but that is not a valid summary of Christianity, since many Christians hold that God's infallible Word is not simply to be identified with the book called The Bible. Scripture should be interpreted as literally as possible and if that is impossible, one must move to figurative interpretation, and a very large number of Christians now recognize that the literal interpretation of Genesis is impossible, because it conflicts with what they see in creation, and have moved to figurative interpretation.Myopic Bookworm 09:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The days in Genesis can only mean literal days in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word 'yom' is used for the word day. This is combined with numbers such as first, second, third, and the phrases morning and evening. 'Yom' is used throughout the Old Testament to convey a 24-hour day. If God had wanted to show that it was a long period of time, there are at least ten ways that this could have been done. 'Qedem' means 'ancient' or 'of old'. 'Dor' means 'an age' or 'generations'. 'Tamid' means 'continually'. 'Ad' means 'unlimited time'. 'Orek' when used with 'yom' is translated 'length of days'. 'Shanah' means 'a revolution of time'. 'Netsach' means 'for ever'. 'Yanim'the plural of 'yom' would have meant God called it the first days. 'Yom rab' would have meant 'a long day'. Lastly, instead of morning and evening, light and darkness could have been used because of their ambiguity elsewhere in the Bible. None of these words are used to describe the days in the Genesis account, just 'yom' with a number and morning and evening. Jesus and Paul quoted Genesis as truth and not allegories. Professor James Barr professor of Hebrew at Oxford University says he knows of no professor of Hebrew who would translate Genesis as other than the literal account. Lastly, if the days in Genesis were only literal, God would have misled his people for thousands of years. Only recently has there been an attempt to reinterpret the Bible using evolutionary presuppostions. Alisyd 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you on the Hebrew, because I think you are by and large correct there (although there are a few occasions in Tanach where Yom is used to mean a time period, that doesnt seem to make much sense contextually here). However, interpretations of the text in a non-literal fashion are in fact quite old, some of which are in the talmud. JoshuaZ 17:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So now we argue the meaning of "days" in a text that tells us that the sun and moon and stars were not created until the 4th day. In a void universe with no sun, moon, and stars...what is a day? And what was God thinking when he created all those trees and grass and fruit before the sun? And who created the Earth and water? The text practically makes a point of telling us Earth and water "Existed" even before light, dark and "Sky". Sorry, if its not a poem, then God should have planned it out a little better...maybe with a few days planning he could have done it all in an instant. Oh Also, apparently God doesn't work at night either, and how could their be evening and morning before sun and moon? - Its poetry! And another proof of this is found in the same text - Genesis 1:11 makes it clear God made all the plants on the 3rd day (before the sun) and man on the 6th day (genesis 1:26) but Genesis 2:4 makes it clear God made man before plants appeared - When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Two completely different accounts.--Phiddipus 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may be missing something here. What point are you trying to make? JoshuaZ 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, that insisting on taking 'day' literally is actually absurd, since 'day' cannot mean 'day' if there's no sun, and that Genesis contradicts itself if consistently taken literally. (I wonder how many prophetic passages about the day of the Lord have to be interpreted as predicting the 24-hour sovereignty of God?) Myopic Bookworm 10:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First, God is light and in him there is no darkness.(1 John 1:5) God called the light day and the darkness night. And evening and morning were the first day.(Genesis 1:5) And the city(the New Jerusalem) had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.(Revelation 21:23) God does not need the sun and moon to create light or days. He can walk on water and bring the dead back to life and you don't think he can sustain plants for two days without the sun? As for Genesis 1 and 2, it says plants of the field. This means cultivated plants not plants in general. Also, Jesus quoted both Genesis 1 and 2 in the same sentence: Have ye not read, that he at the beginning made them male and female(Gen. 1), and said For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be flesh?(Gen. 2) Would he have regarding them as contradictory if he had combined them? If you are going to interpret Genesis as figurative, there are two horrible ramifications for Christians. Jesus is a liar or at least confused because he regarded Genesis as truth. And how do we know that the whole crucifixion and ressurection stories aren't just figurative? If God can stretch the truth in one historical account(Genesis), why not the whole rest of the historical accounts in the Bible? If Genesis is not literal, where does God start being literal? These serious questions arise when we try to reinterpret God's Word with man's philosophies. 209.145.244.126 15:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This information is irrelevent for the article. Our purpose here is not to state what is or is not; merely what others believe. You could be absolutely right or completely wrong and it would not affect the article. You should take this to a discussion forum if you want to pursue the matter in more depth. --Davril2020 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Where would I find one? Alisyd 17:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it doesn't really matter if it's compatible or not... It's obvious that many people posting here are incapable of seeing things in a non-pov way. The purpose of this article is to describe what many people believe, not what is right or wrong, or even if it's possible for this belief to be logical. If you don't like that some people believe this, that's too bad for you. Wikipedia will document this belief anyway, as it does with all beliefs known to us. Vancar 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Length of this article

I see that efforts were made in March to shorten this article, but it is still very long. Perhaps the entire section Evolution and Christian interpretations of Genesis could be briefly summarized since it has been essentially duplicated in Allegorical interpretations of Genesis. There is also a separate article about Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church; perhaps that section could be more brief in this article. Finally, the Contemporary advocates of evolutionary creationism is a list; perhaps it could be moved to a separate article.

What do you think? Aardvark92 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets be Reasonable

There is no reason why I can't put the Evolution bar next to the "Creation" bar. After all Theistic Evolution can be seen as a combination of the two.