Genesis and evolution existing comfortably together

[jt1]

I believe in evolution and do not believe that Genesis is a historical document. Nonetheless, let me put forth the following suggestion to see if it holds up.

God created all the species that have ever existed in a linear fashion, creating new ones and letting them supplant the older similar models or in some cases, like with the Dinosaurs, letting entire species completely die out before creating new species to re-populate the Earth. And the last species he created was H. Sapiens. It can even be said that Genesis allows enough room for this intepretation.

FOR EXAMPLE, when H. Erectus populated the Earth, God created a H. Sapien male from the Earth and soon after gave him a mate. Those two togther lived in paradise until the female disobeyed God. They were cast out of paradise but continued to fight for survival. Together, they had one son that grew to mating age. He chose a H. Erectus female to marry. And from there the H. Sapien species took root and gradually spread to supplant the existing H. Erectus.

Can the fossil record, carbon dating and proof of micro-evolution disprove this theory? Does Genesis allow for such an interpretation?

[bunny]

I dont think this linear approach is consistent with evolution. I dont think that species A exists for a while, then suddenly species B pops up. As far as I understand it, it is much more nebulous and messy than this. Species A exists, theres a bunch of different populations for a while, some of them recombine after a degree of separation, others stay apart...many years later there are many different new species - B, C, D, E, F...etc.

It is incorrect to assume that species are ever static, remaining constant until supplanted by a new species. In the situation outlined above, beginning with one group defined as species A - then after many generations there are NO more living specimens of species A, just a whole bunch of related species who have all arisen round the same time.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think this linear approach is consistent with evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to imply that evolution wasn't messy or was strictly linear. I simply meant to see if science can prove that we definitely evolved from H. Erectus. And if Genesis is flexible enough to support the one time existence of now extinct hominids and other species.

[ QUOTE ]
It is incorrect to assume that species are ever static, remaining constant until supplanted by a new species. In the situation outlined above, beginning with one group defined as species A - then after many generations there are NO more living specimens of species A, just a whole bunch of related species who have all arisen round the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is incorrect to assume that species are ever static, remaining constant until supplanted by a new species. In the situation outlined above, beginning with one group defined as species A - then after many generations there are NO more living specimens of species A, just a whole bunch of related species who have all arisen round the same time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.




[/ QUOTE ]

Nevermind, I just figured it out. I have a tendency to quick read on forums like these and when I can't figure out the jist, I just assume the author screwed up.

[bunny]

It's entirely possible that I have screwed up. To clarify:

It seemed to me that your scenario of h erectus being in existence, then one h sapiens male appearing and gradually supplanting h erectus through being superior in some sense is too simple.

I think it is more likely that h erectus, h sapiens, etc etc all evolved from the same ancestor - not that h sapiens evolved from h erectus.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to imply that evolution wasn't messy or was strictly linear. I simply meant to see if science can prove that we definitely evolved from H. Erectus. And if Genesis is flexible enough to support the one time existence of now extinct hominids and other species.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think Genesis is inherently flexible or otherwise, I think it is the approach you take in interpreting it. If you are a literalist you are adopting a less flexible position than if you treat the bible as allegory.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to imply that evolution wasn't messy or was strictly linear. I simply meant to see if science can prove that we definitely evolved from H. Erectus. And if Genesis is flexible enough to support the one time existence of now extinct hominids and other species.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think Genesis is inherently flexible or otherwise, I think it is the approach you take in interpreting it. If you are a literalist you are adopting a less flexible position than if you treat the bible as allegory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isnt there a problem with taking Genesis (or any part of the Bible) as allegory? If its just an allegory, no matter how 'true' or profound it may be, it still makes the Bible unnecessary. Unless its actually the literal word of god, IMO, its just another really good book.

[kurto]

We should link this to the incest thread.

I haven't looked at a Bible in quite awhile. Someone who knows it fill me in:

God makes Adam and Eve and no one else, right? Then, they're kicked out of the Garden of Eden and give birth to the entire human race. So, the entire human race is naturally born out of countless incestual unions.

So... if this is true, why exactly would incest be considered immoral by Christians? Seems Christians would have a lot of goodwill towards the concept.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt there a problem with taking Genesis (or any part of the Bible) as allegory? If its just an allegory, no matter how 'true' or profound it may be, it still makes the Bible unnecessary. Unless its actually the literal word of god, IMO, its just another really good book.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is allegory. It is a creation myth, similar to the countless other creation stories found in other cultures and religions.

Aside from the strictest literalists, I don't think anyone assumes that every word in the Old Testament must be true in order to prove its divine inspiration. That God created man, the world, and the universe, is the message.

As to whether evolution is compatible with Genesis - one is science and the other is myth. There is no reason to worry about them being compatible. If you believe God is the creator, then the details of the myths should not be so important (aside, once again, from the strictest literalists).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt there a problem with taking Genesis (or any part of the Bible) as allegory? If its just an allegory, no matter how 'true' or profound it may be, it still makes the Bible unnecessary. Unless its actually the literal word of god, IMO, its just another really good book.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is allegory. It is a creation myth, similar to the countless other creation stories found in other cultures and religions.

Aside from the strictest literalists, I don't think anyone assumes that every word in the Old Testament must be true in order to prove its divine inspiration. That God created man, the world, and the universe, is the message.

As to whether evolution is compatible with Genesis - one is science and the other is myth. There is no reason to worry about them being compatible. If you believe God is the creator, then the details of the myths should not be so important (aside, once again, from the strictest literalists).

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but I could write a book that told the same story, perhaps with different characters, maybe a talking pig thrown in, and if its just the 'message' that matters, why is my book inferior? In other words, why do we need the bible at all? Aesop's book ought to be good enough.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but I could write a book that told the same story, perhaps with different characters, maybe a talking pig thrown in, and if its just the 'message' that matters, why is my book inferior? In other words, why do we need the bible at all? Aesop's book ought to be good enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. You'll have to ask others why. Even after 12 years of Catholic school, I never thought of the Old Testament as anything more than a bunch of myths and stories, no better than any other book of mythology. Then again, I never though the stories about boats that carried all the world's animals, or people living inside a whale for 3 days, were the product of divine inspiration. They were always just stories to me. The New Testament was always the focus of my religious beliefs.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
God ..

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt there a problem with taking Genesis (or any part of the Bible) as allegory? If its just an allegory, no matter how 'true' or profound it may be, it still makes the Bible unnecessary. Unless its actually the literal word of god, IMO, its just another really good book.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is allegory. It is a creation myth, similar to the countless other creation stories found in other cultures and religions.

Aside from the strictest literalists, I don't think anyone assumes that every word in the Old Testament must be true in order to prove its divine inspiration. That God created man, the world, and the universe, is the message.

As to whether evolution is compatible with Genesis - one is science and the other is myth. There is no reason to worry about them being compatible. If you believe God is the creator, then the details of the myths should not be so important (aside, once again, from the strictest literalists).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misjudge the size of the body of literalists.

The people who fight against evolution, for instance, are large and vocal enough to have had some scary effects.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt there a problem with taking Genesis (or any part of the Bible) as allegory? If its just an allegory, no matter how 'true' or profound it may be, it still makes the Bible unnecessary. Unless its actually the literal word of god, IMO, its just another really good book.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is allegory. It is a creation myth, similar to the countless other creation stories found in other cultures and religions.

Aside from the strictest literalists, I don't think anyone assumes that every word in the Old Testament must be true in order to prove its divine inspiration. That God created man, the world, and the universe, is the message.

As to whether evolution is compatible with Genesis - one is science and the other is myth. There is no reason to worry about them being compatible. If you believe God is the creator, then the details of the myths should not be so important (aside, once again, from the strictest literalists).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misjudge the size of the body of literalists.

The people who fight against evolution, for instance, are large and vocal enough to have had some scary effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

For real. Literalists are like, super fat. 3 bills at least. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to imply that evolution wasn't messy or was strictly linear. I simply meant to see if science can prove that we definitely evolved from H. Erectus. And if Genesis is flexible enough to support the one time existence of now extinct hominids and other species.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think Genesis is inherently flexible or otherwise, I think it is the approach you take in interpreting it. If you are a literalist you are adopting a less flexible position than if you treat the bible as allegory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isnt there a problem with taking Genesis (or any part of the Bible) as allegory? If its just an allegory, no matter how 'true' or profound it may be, it still makes the Bible unnecessary. Unless its actually the literal word of god, IMO, its just another really good book.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if this is a problem or not. For what it's worth, I think God gave visions to prophets who wrote down stories to try and encapsulate their divine revelation. I dont think it detracts from the bible's value to say that those stories didnt literally occur as described.

I still think it is "necessary" (or useful) because if god exists, and if the bible contains the results of divine inspiration, then it is better than nothing. I struggle to understand how it can be literally true that god made humans on the 4th day of creation and on the 6th day. Or how scientific evidence points to the world being millions of years old and primitive creatures evolving into more complicated ones if god made everything "fully formed" and in the timescale indicated in the bible.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
We should link this to the incest thread.

I haven't looked at a Bible in quite awhile. Someone who knows it fill me in:

God makes Adam and Eve and no one else, right? Then, they're kicked out of the Garden of Eden and give birth to the entire human race. So, the entire human race is naturally born out of countless incestual unions.

So... if this is true, why exactly would incest be considered immoral by Christians? Seems Christians would have a lot of goodwill towards the concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

No man Jesus is down with incest. Lot got freaky with his daugthers.