The Instigator
MindMaster
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JimShady
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Theistic Evolution doesnt work with the bible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 105434
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (0)

 

MindMaster

Pro

I believe that Theistic evolution does not line up with Genesis, Con will argue that theistic evolution does work out with Genesis.
How this debate will go down.
Round 1: Con's Arguments
Round 2: Pro's Rebuttal and arguments Con's rebuttal
Round 3: Rebuttal of Rebuttals
Round 4: Final Rebuttals and Conclusion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUST READ RULES:
1. Only accept if your a theistic evolutionist or have been a theistic evolutionist.
2. We are not talking scientifically about what, only biblically.
3. Must back up statements with evidence.
JimShady

Con

I'm a theistic evolutionist, so I accept this debate. However, I will not be making a first round argument. It needs to be fair, so I think we should both have the chance to make opening arguments, not just Con.

Also, I have a problem with rule with rule 2. Evolution falls under science, and we are going to be talking about evolution, so obviously we are eventually going to be talking scientifically as well.

Other then that, gl gl.
Debate Round No. 1
MindMaster

Pro

Theistic evolution doesn't work with the bible.

1. The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6).
With theistic evolution, the events, in the beginning, were naturally caused.

2. Creation order doesn't make sense. According to Genesis, the order of animals is Birds and fish, Land animals, then Humans. But according to the evolution, the first animal to roam on land was around 530 million years ago, and the first birds were in the Triassic period which is 251-199 million years ago. So evolution and Genesis don't line up because Genesis says birds can first then land animals, but Evolution says that land animals are first, then birds.

3. Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:7).

4. So if Adam didn't exist, Jesus doesn't exist. How? In Romans 5:16-18, it says that the Savior Jesus and the Sinner Adam are linked together, so if you don't believe Adam existed, Jesus didn't exist either.

5. In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible.

Man is God"s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
Man is the purpose of God"s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
Man is the purpose of the mission of God"s Son (1 John 4:9).
We are the purpose of God"s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. "Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical."5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

So why would God "write" the bible if its lies and he says to follow it?
JimShady

Con

Science and religion are thought to be enemies of each other, especially in the field of creationism or evolution, but the fact is that both compliment each other, as is the case with theistic evolution.

First off, many people make the mistake of using the Bible as a science textbook. No, the Bible is the word of God, and it reveals everything needed in order to be saved. 2 Peter 1:3 reads "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness."

This is why the Bible doesn't exactly explain science that well and sometimes falsely. Because that's not what the Bible is meant for. It is meant to be read for salvation, not knowledge of the natural world (aka science). With this in mind, theistic evolution works perfectly with the Bible.

Because I wasn't there, I can't say whether the creation story is true or myth. Looking at scientific evidence, I would most likely come upon the conclusion that it is primarily myth. However, this is OK! What the creation story DOES give us is that God is the ultimate creator of the universe and the objects within it. Genesis was inspired by God, but written by man after all, so their may be some factual error within it. But the message, which is the main point, not the science, is truth.

So did God create everything in 7 days? Fossil evidence says no. Evolution is the most likely cause for the origin of species. However, we can attribute natural selection as an instrument of God's to create new species. This may contradict the stories of the Earth's creation in the Bible, but keep in mind there's actually two Genesis stories in the Bible that contradict each other. Clearly, the stories are most likely narratives who two different human authors who had different ideas of how the Earth started. Nevertheless, both of them make the assertion that the primary cause is God, and so while they may be wrong with the details, the overall matter that the universe's creation was brought on by God is considered by theistic evolutionists to be true, and so thus the Bible succeeds in its ordained roll: revelation needed for salvation.

Thank you for reading, I will refute your first argument in my next round.
Debate Round No. 2
MindMaster

Pro

1. If people were to follow it for salvation, why would there be factual errors? If the whole bible is meant to tell us how to be saved, why would God let there be factual errors in the bible?

2. I do agree with the first part that the bible shouldn't be used a science textbook. But when your debating science and creationism, you're bound to look at the bible for evidence.

3. Some parts of the bible are a myth.
2 Samuel 7:28:
"Now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are truth."

John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

Luke 20:21
They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth."

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Here are just 4 of the many verses that prove in the bible that whats in the bible is truth. So if you believe that Genesis 1 is a myth, you would think that all these other verses are false, making you not believe the bible is truth.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com...

4. "but keep in mind there's actually two Genesis stories in the Bible that contradict each other. " Give me the proof and verses.

5. If the message is true, why would God tell it through myth?

6. Fossil Evidence stuff.
https://www.gotquestions.org...
http://www.genesispark.com...

Let's see what you got.
JimShady

Con

Rebuttal to Pro's Round 2 Opening Argument. Other rebuttals will come later.


1. The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6).
With theistic evolution, the events, in the beginning, were naturally caused.

Exactly. God is the "Prime Cuase" as you stated. While evolution might be the cause of new species to emerge, the ultimate/prime cause of evolution is God.

2. Creation order doesn't make sense. According to Genesis, the order of animals is Birds and fish, Land animals, then Humans. But according to the evolution, the first animal to roam on land was around 530 million years ago, and the first birds were in the Triassic period which is 251-199 million years ago. So evolution and Genesis don't line up because Genesis says birds can first then land animals, but Evolution says that land animals are first, then birds.

As I said before, their are scientific inaccuracies in the book, but this is permissable because it is not a science book, but religous revelation.

You might be asking, "Well, if God is so smart and perfect, then why didn't he reveal the truth to the divinely inspired authors of the Bible?" While this is possible for God, I think he simply didn't WANT to do it, because that's not the purpose of the Bible. If God explained how everything works, such as DNA, evolution, and other stuff, then humans wouldn't get the chance to find these things out themselves. So in a way, God is giving us a chance to make great discovereies by not revealing everything.

3. Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:7).
There's almost no way to tell that Adam was the first man, but I'm not gonna rule out the possibility.

4. So if Adam didn't exist, Jesus doesn't exist. How? In Romans 5:16-18, it says that the Savior Jesus and the Sinner Adam are linked together, so if you don't believe Adam existed, Jesus didn't exist either.

First off, this point is a little off topic. But I will say that almost all historians, religous and atheists alike, aknowledge that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Of course there is debate over whether he was the Messiah or not, but here is a source that shows works outside of the Bible that refer to Jesus.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...


5. However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. "Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical."5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

So states evolutionary doctrine, but this is a highly arguable statement. It's very hard to judge if evolution has a purpose or not, but I could easily see it having one if God does exist. Of course, if you are atheist, then there is no purpose for evolution. But I hope you can see just how easy it is for theists to believe that it does.

So why would God "write" the bible if its lies and he says to follow it?
You have to understand that God didn't literraly pick up a pen and write the Bible all by himself. It's believed that human writers were inspired by God and wrote the book through the power of the Holy Spirit (as mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16). So it's understandable that humans are not perfect in knowledge, and they will make mistakes or add their own ideas of science. However, I believe that the parts dealing with religous revelation, the most important part, are the parts that God truly had a hand in.
take a look at this link, it's pretty interesting. https://www.jw.org...
Debate Round No. 3
MindMaster

Pro

1. I can accept this rebuttal. Although all things mean all things. It doesn't mean he created a hyena and it naturally evolved into a whale. You're saying that he created the Hyena then he made it evolve but then naturally it evolved more. If that verse were proved true, it would mean God intentionally evolved the hyena into the whale by making each adaptation. But that would just be a waste because he could have just created the whale. I don't see a purpose, please provide a verse that he would have a purpose to do a thing over time instead of doing it right now?

2. "You might be asking, "Well, if God is so smart and perfect, then why didn't he reveal the truth to the divinely inspired authors of the Bible?" While this is possible for God, I think he simply didn't WANT to do it, because that's not the purpose of the Bible. If God explained how everything works, such as DNA, evolution, and other stuff, then humans wouldn't get the chance to find these things out themselves. So in a way, God is giving us a chance to make great discovereies by not revealing everything."

Give me a verse that states God wants us to do things by ourselves?

3. You're changing the argument. I'm saying based on the theory of evolution, Adam couldn't exist because he could have been created from the dust of the ground as said in Genesis 2:7. With evolution, it's very hard to say defines a human. If you go far back enough, the theory of evolution actually states that the first human was a woman. All I'm saying is that Theistic Evolution doesn't agree with what the bible says.

4. Again, you're changing the argument. I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist. I'm saying that if Evolution says Adam doesn't exist, then, using Logic and reasoning, Jesus doesn't exist.

5. Whats the purpose than if God knew Animals needed adaptations, why wouldn't God put them there when he created them in the first place? Whats the whole purpose of Evolution if God had the power to completely bypass it? As you said in 2 Timothy 3:16, there are also translations that the word inspired in 2 Timothy is replaced with God-Breathed. The Greek word for inspired means God-breathed and inspired. Which means God meant every word in the bible. Then if you think Genesis is a myth, you would say God lied.

In Conclusion, If you choose to believe certain parts of the bible and not believe other parts. That is up to you. The people that canonized the Bible, decided that the books that are in the bible belong in the bible. You disagree with this canonization. The only reason that the salvation parts of the bible are in the Bible, is due to this canonization that you disagree with. Did you know there are other books that are not in the bible that are in account of Jesus and salvation?
JimShady

Con

Refutations to Con's Round 3 Argument, answers to questions in his Round 4, and Final Conclusion.

1. If people were to follow it for salvation, why would there be factual errors? If the whole bible is meant to tell us how to be saved, why would God let there be factual errors in the bible?

Remember, scripture is inspired by God. God did not literally pen the book, and this task was undertaken by men. In terms of religous doctrine and religous reproof, it's thought to be infallible. Also note that science wasn't as advanced back in the days that the Bible was written, so the Earthly writers used what they knew about the Earth. As you say, the whole Bible is meant to tell us how to be saved... not learn about the natural world.


2. I do agree with the first part that the bible shouldn't be used a science textbook. But when your debating science and creationism, you're bound to look at the bible for evidence.

I'm not a creationist. I don't believe that the world was created in seven days (in fact, the word "day" in the English translation was taken from "yom" which can translate into day or other, longer amounts of time.) Therefore I choose not to use the Bible as evidence for creationism, as scientific evidence for evolution is evident. This is why I'm a theistic evolutionist.

3. Some parts of the bible are a myth.


2 Samuel 7:28:
"Now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are truth."

John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

Luke 20:21
They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth."

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Here are just 4 of the many verses that prove in the bible that whats in the bible is truth. So if you believe that Genesis 1 is a myth, you would think that all these other verses are false, making you not believe the bible is truth.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com......

From https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Many use the term myth in a pejorative sense to mean that the stories described are not factually true. Others define myth as non-historical tales that contain a moral message. Both of these definitions miss the richness of the term. Mythology is a form of literature that expresses fundamental truths in a way that ordinary discourse is inadequate to describe."

A literal translation of the Bible obviously will lead to historical truths, but I believe that what God is referring to here isthe ultimate message of salvation... THAT is what they mean by his word is truth.

Never does the Bible say that is is not in error on scientific matters.

"God did not simply give dictation to the human authors of Scripture; their contribution is real. Their personalities, perspectives, and writing styles are all discernable in the text—as are the unique situations and circumstances of those to whom they were writing. Yet God’s universal message is present from Genesis to Revelation."

(from https://www.biblica.com...)

The overall message of the Bible, and the message that God wants to make clear is one of "redemption and revival," and he communicates this through authors who, though they may not have been super-scientists, overall new the message of God and communicated it through their work.

4. Give me the proof and verses.

Genesis Chapter 1 is the first Story of Creation, and Genesis Chapter 2 is the Second Story of Creation (starting from verse 4)

5. If the message is true, why would God tell it through myth?

God uses human authors who are imperfect and don't know everything there is to know about science to write the Bible. Remember, it's not the literally writing of God, but the inspired writing of God. This could also raise the question "Why didn't God just write the Bible by himself and not have to waste him time with inspiring human writers?" Possibly because the main point the Bible is trying to get across is the redemption of the human race, and one of the ways they can possibly redeem themselves is by listening to God's message and producing scripture from it.

6. Fossil Evidence stuff. [links]

Thanks for the links. Although I agree with pretty much everything in them, as I am not a young-Eart Creationist. Fossil evidence is evident enough for me to believe, and theat's why I'm a theistic evolutionist.

Questions from opponent in Round 4:

1. I don't see a purpose, please provide a verse that he would have a purpose to do a thing over time instead of doing it right now?

Now you are getting into Sola Scriptura, or scripture alone. This is not my belief... I only think the Bible reveals what is necessary for salvation, it's entire goal (which explains the scientific shortcomings). As with your question, I'm not aware of any answer to that in the Bible, as their is no need to answer it. Why God does a lot of things, I question. Perhaps he could've made it even slower then evolution, who knows. However, just because we don't know why God employed evolution, doesn't mean there was no purpose to it.

2. Give me a verse that states God wants us to do things by ourselves?

Again, the Bible does not explain everything, but I could point to the fact that God didn't write the Bible outright but left it to human authors. Also, he sent his apostles to help with evangalization. If God wanted too, jesus could've stayed on Earth forever, but instead he left to see if we can help ourselves. While some attribute God/Jesus to a socialist, in that he advocates for giving to the poor, it's also evident that he wants people to help themselves.

3. Whats the purpose than if God knew Animals needed adaptations, why wouldn't God put them there when he created them in the first place? Whats the whole purpose of Evolution if God had the power to completely bypass it? This is a really tough question to answer. Perhaps God wanted to take it slow and let it play out, and perhaps he thought evolution was the best and most natural way to do things. I don't know or claim to know God's intentions in every little detail, but those are what I would probably assume.

4. Did you know there are other books that are not in the bible that are in account of Jesus and salvation?

Yes, I did. In 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage the officially compiled the book, dictating what was inspired by God and what wasn't.

Conclusion:

My opponent makes the mistake of looking to the Bible for scientific evidence about the world, but this is obviosuly not the purpose of the Bible. While he does point out a few scientific errors in the Bible, he does acknowledge that God isn't the direct author of the Bible... God spoke through humans to pass on the ultimate message of salvation and redemption, and imperfect humans did their best to fill in the rest of the book.

We have been side-tracked as to the infallibility of the Bible, but I'd also like to point out that my opponent never proved that theistic evolution is not possible. By looking at scientific evidence, which dissporves creationism, and looking at the divine message that God is the ultimate source of the universe(s), which dissproves atheism, it's logical to fall upon the belief of theistic evolution.

To keep it fair, i've only responded to direct questions from my opoonent's Round 4. I ask that he do the same for me. Thanks for the debate.

Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 month ago
kwagga_la
Correction: Lastly, the addition of seven extra books to the Bible was not endorsed by the councils that the Church of Rome attended.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 month ago
kwagga_la
@JimShady Lastly, the first 8 chapters of Genesis is echoed in Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the epistles of Paul that states God created. If the first 8 chapters are mythological then all these other books must fall in the same category. The RCC claim authority based on the Bible that they present to the world as containing lies and myths which means their authority is based on lies and myths. In the Gospels Jesus refers to Adam and the institution of marriage as a matter of fact and not a myth, did the Savior, God's only Son not know this?
Posted by kwagga_la 1 month ago
kwagga_la
@JimShady Jesus spoke to Peter, not to anyone else. The interpretation held by protestants are that the rock or foundation for the Church was the testimony given by Peter and not Peter himself because others made the same profession as Peter. But let's assume your interpretation is correct. In this case the authority given to Peter ended when Peter died! There is no succession mentioned, there is no transference mentioned, there is nothing mentioned in the passages to even suggest that this authority given to Peter was to be transfered to someone else. That is an invention not supported by the Scripture quoted if your interpretation is correct.

Lastly, the addition of seven extra books to the Bible was such meshing not endorsed by the councils that the Church of Rome attended. The RCC chose to ignore what was agreed as the official books of the Bible by the Universal Christian Church.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 month ago
kwagga_la
@JimShady Sorry for my delayed response. The difference between the the RCC and Universal (Catholic) Church (to name a one): The Universal Church have many apostles and Bishop's in various local Churches of whom the head is Christ and not one man assuming the position of Christ on earth as the leader of the Church. Need I remind you that the Bible states if someone says here is Christ or there is Christ believe them not? The Bible states there are many offices and administrations which includes these positions (plural) and not position (singular). The Vicar of Christ was an invention of the RCC and not held by the early Church as can be found in the Church Father's writings in the first three centuries. If you would like to debate this topic I would be interested to do so because there are too many points to mention here.

The first 8 chapters claim God created which is supposed to be mythological. Either God started everything and everything in the first 8 chapters are not mythological or the joke is on the RCC (so yo speak) who believes self recognized myths as official doctrine which seriously snowballs into worse deductions about the "Ex cathedra" claims by the RCC and the ability to lead anyone in "truth".
Posted by JimShady 1 month ago
JimShady
Sure, we can finish it up in there. Just send me the acceptance debate link.
Posted by MindMaster 1 month ago
MindMaster
Yes, I mean round 4 arguments, I would love to start a part 2 debate. Would you?
Posted by JimShady 1 month ago
JimShady
@MindMaster: Do you mean your round 4 arguments? I figured since you would not have the chance to refute mine, then I would let your final ones go untouched. However, if you say so.... I will do it sometime soon.
Posted by MindMaster 1 month ago
MindMaster
@JimShady

You did not rebut my arguments proving that I have won this debate and that you cannot accept the fact.
Please rebut to my final arguments in the comment section.
Posted by JimShady 1 month ago
JimShady
...They could all be thought of as Catholic, much like the RCC and Orthodox.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

"The Churches established was all the one true Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church." So tell me, where is this one true "Catholic Church" now? What's the only church in present time that claims to be Catholic?
Posted by JimShady 1 month ago
JimShady
@kwagga_la: "These chapters are regarded as a myth by the RCC as you also allude too. So in fact, the RCC has doctrines based on myth that they "swear" by." Show me a reliable source form the Catechism of the Catholic church or something similar. I think the official church stance is that you can choose either way, as long as you believe God is the prime source of creation.

"There is also a big difference between the Catholic (Universal) Church and the Roman Catholic Church, they are not the same as can be seen from the Church Fathers." Such as? I know there's differences from the early church to the modern one, but there's also tons of similarities.

The reason I quote Irenaeus is because he says: "the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." The early Christians regarded the Scriptures as their basis for faith which goes against the RCC and the Pope who can speak "ex Cathedra." I'd say that the holy texts are still the foundation of the church, and actually ex cathedra is actually endorsed by the Bible by Matthew 16: 18-19, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

"The Bible was not established in 397AD. Checking the Church Fathers, all 27 books was quoted before 300AD. They confirmed what was already agreed by believers" Sorry, what I meant to say was that it was officially compiled.

I don't exactly agree with the idea of ex cathedra, as the Pope is only a man. So you have a good point there. But the church has never said "Everything we do is perfect." We've apologized for many past mistakes.

"Reading Revelations there were 7 other early "true" Churches established all over the world." Church that context was a community, and all 7 were Christian. Some were even scolded for false prophets, but in
No votes have been placed for this debate.