Bible Students

Kinds of Plants and Animals

In the beginning, God made plants and animals in kinds. These kinds are similar to taxonomic classifications, but can not be equated to one or another. Taxonomic classifications are determined by qualifications not valued by the biblical author, who places animals into groups according to function (swimming, flying, grazing, etc.). 

Imaging in Life

Man was made in the image of God, and his children were made after his (Adam’s) image. Man is made like God, and animals are made like man. Man is not God, and animal is not human, but there are important connections to God and creation which man stands in the middle of. All three groups stand unique to one another. The Son is the exact image of God. Imaging is the copying of oneself, usually done through DNA replication in new organisms. DNA, an information data-base, images the incredible information-rich Word of God, capable of setting the world into motion with a word. 

The Spirit Giving Life

The Spirit of God, the same word for wind, gives life to living things, though particularly man. The Spirit gives life from death, and is initiative-taking. This means that, just like a plant, man can not cause the breath of life (the Spirit’s work) to go into him. A plant can not breathe in CO2, but rather the CO2 comes in the form of a wind. 

Purposefulness in Life

Mankind images God through purposefulness. We fulfill our duties as humans not through strictly physical processes, but through teleological working. Being in the image of God, we have trans-biological duties. 

Power and Control in Living Things

Human beings have the means and responsibilities of controlling animals and other natural processes. These means are given by God, and the responsibilities are commissioned by God. Humans are to bring order out of chaos, imaging God. 

Evaluating Evolution

Macroevolution lacks the desired consistent evidence of full ancestral trees. After a priori ruling out evolutionary naturalism based on a presupposed theism (which, given that science presupposes philosophy, this is not a knock at fiat creation), in addition to the lacking support mentioned above, macroevolution is hard to justify. 

Secondary Causes

God is the first cause. He both moves effects and moves movers. In other words, God’s sudden fiat creation and the creation of constant laws (weak, strong, electro-magnetism, and gravity) are not in opposition. 

Exceptions in the Means for Producing New Individuals

Continuing the above statement, God can act ex nihilo, not depending on any natural phenomenon. No natural phenomenon would have borne Christ to the virgin Mary. 

Creation of Eve from Adam’s Rib

Though the word for rib could be denoting Eve as a kind of alter-ego of Adam, the detail given to the closing of the flesh seems to allude to a more literal reading, though the allusory reading has some validity. 

Initial Creation of Kinds

The Bible seems to document the unusual, supernatural origins of gender and kinds. This poses challenges for even theistic macroevolution. 

Alternative Views About the Origin of Different Kinds

There are a few widespread scientific frameworks for the timeline of the creation account. These include fiat creation (literal 24-hour days), theistic evolution (departing from the literal biblical data), and progressive creation (a long but ordered timeline similar to Genesis 1). The unique nature of the creation account leaves room for speculation, especially when considering its nature and purpose. 

Proceeding with Imperfect Knowledge

As stated above, the biblical data in the creation account is unique, and many have labored to understand it. We may never know the true nature of the text, but one thing must be clear: the creation account gives undeniable theology. God created the world, including man as His image, and saw it was good. Speculations aside, the theology of the creation account must stay in tact. 

Evaluating Macroevolution

As stated in a previous section, macroevolution is found lacking outside of a naturalist worldview. While supernatural things can account for certain phenomena, proper science should hold to a preference for natural explanations. The natural causation of an event (the birth of a human, for example) and the teleological causation (this human has a calling by God) can stand hand in hand. 

Discussion

Life is something for which there is no clear definition. There are some attributes which life has, but there is by no means a consensus on what life actually is. On the most basic level, life is the cooperation of cells to make an organism. A possible way to avoid the complexity of defining life is by embracing a kind of organismic nominalism, in which “life” is only existent in individual cells, and that the whole organism is really only a convenient label we give for individual cells working together. In other words, there would be no living human, but only the multiplicity of individual living cells. Overall, however, it would seem defining life continues to be evasive.

Viruses are a very in-between organism. They function almost like a computer virus, not really existing apart from real living cells. They can only function by taking over cells. The problem with defining life is that these definitions draw the lines at almost arbitrary places between living and non-living things. Steven A. Benner seems to vote that viruses are alive. The near-arbitrarily chosen limits of life tempt me to be a nominalist in this area. It may be that some definitions simply are arbitrary, and should only act as rough short-hand for much, much more complex ideas.

Life on earth began by a creator. The universe itself was brought into order that it may hold life, and life was brought about by God. Mankind was made different from the animals in some aspect, for he is made in the image of God. Creation and life was made to worship God and declare His creative power. As for the timeline, I believe the text is cryptic, at best. However, it is undeniably clear that all of creation was made by God in some aspect, and made for Him.

Evolution can account for changes, but demonstrating how that process worked going further in time is difficult. Science makes claims on things which are testable. Historical reconstruction is a different kind of science which is much more difficult to solidly justify. Additionally, science can not make philosophical claims, and neither can science claim to be the only bearer of truth (for that itself is a philosophical claim). I just finished reading a book that had a significant section on ID, so I was able to hear a bit by Meyer and some other ID advocates, which sounded at it’s core a lot like this. Additionally, Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt seems to be promoting similar ideas. Evolution is not adequate, though it may be useful, for constructing a clear history of life on earth.