Did the angels evolve?

[Marv]

What sayeth science?

[Jack]

 They would have to run Radio-carbon dating tests, to find out. But, they haven't found any solid samples, yet! LOL

[Damian]

Well of course they evolved.  The laws of observational science (empiricism) have clearly observed angelus habilis, angelus erectus, and angelus ergaster transitioning from one form to the next.  Sense perception is the grand arbiter of truth.  Geez Marv.

 

[Dave Hostetler]

They are currently formulating a theory where the angles evolved from moths, who as the earth cooled during the ice age grew larger to catch more sunlight in order to warm their bodies.  Once they were about 6 feet from antenne to the end of the abdomen, they evolved the ability to survive without water, oxygen or food and migrated into space.  In space they were irradiated, where a large portion died, but those who survived took on a brilliant glow... and today you have angels.  Man, that wasn't as hard as I thought it would be... lol 

[Daniel]

Science sayeth nothing about it.  Science doesn't even address their existence.  So why would it propose their origins?

[Jason]

Yes, but they were first amoeba with wing-like protusions.

Dave Hostetler said:

They are currently formulating a theory where the angles evolved from moths, who as the earth cooled during the ice age grew larger to catch more sunlight in order to warm their bodies.  Once they were about 6 feet from antenne to the end of the abdomen, they evolved the ability to survive without water, oxygen or food and migrated into space.  In space they were irradiated, where a large portion died, but those who survived took on a brilliant glow... and today you have angels.  Man, that wasn't as hard as I thought it would be... lol 

[Marv]

But "many scientists believe in God," and by that token, many who are Christians must acknowledge the existence of angels.

 

So to refine the question, do TE believers think that angels too evolved?

Daniel said:

Science sayeth nothing about it.  Science doesn't even address their existence.  So why would it propose their origins?

[Marv]

By the way, I no where indicated this was a joke thread. (though, I know, it was put up by moi... so... y'know..)

But by the reaction of most, it seems to be a self-evidently absurd question.

Which is more or less what Daniel's reaction was... "Science" would not be relevant because even asking about angels presupposes a world view that "science" or "scientists" do not share or acknowledge.

 

To which I say: "Right on, dude!"

 

But if that is so, then why the bleep are we asking them to pass mustard on the origin of all that is, per this world view, per the accounts given in our Holy Scriptures? Why isn't this too, simply a patent absurdity?

[Greg Smith]

This would be an intersting question to run by the increasing number of evangelicals who are becoming infatuated with evolution.  Take Peter Enns.  I am assuming that he believes in angels.  But he also believes in evolution.  So, with all the time it took for humans to evolve, and if evolution was a part of the natural order of things, wouldn't it be reasonable to think it must be at least a possibility for spiritual creatures? 

I recognize the humor in this but I think you are on to something here, Marv.

[Marv]

No... exactly.

I understood it would be met with chuckles, but I do mean it seriously. I mean, not that I want an answer to the question as such, but that the question strikes me as hitting a certain rhetorical point.

I was wondering specifically about Enns. What does he do with angels and such, since he is so determined to push evolution on evangelicalism.

Greg Smith said:

This would be an intersting question to run by the increasing number of evangelicals who are becoming infatuated with evolution.  Take Peter Enns.  I am assuming that he believes in angels.  But he also believes in evolution.  So, with all the time it took for humans to evolve, and if evolution was a part of the natural order of things, wouldn't it be reasonable to think it must be at least a possibility for spiritual creatures? 

I recognize the humor in this but I think you are on to something here, Marv.

[Damian]

I was responding in a light-hearted manner but there is also a legitimate criticism involved.   Your question strikes at the heart of what science is, what it can accomplish.  The reason the question is queer is because science cannot pronounce on non-observed phenomena - i.e. angels or God.  Science can only pronounce, by it's own principles, on the observed, via sense perception.  And even in this task, it fails to meet its own criteria of objectivity, nor can it achieve ultimate truth.  As I said in a recent blog on another site, - Change, inertia, gravity, laws of nature, or any other “scientific” theorems are no more than mythical, occult terms to describe our overwhelming confidence in our complete lack of understanding.

[Jack]

Next question, to follow: Did God evolve, also?

[Marv]

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:1-3 ESV)

 

Quite literally, not from phenomena: μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων. No phenomena, no observation.

 

Ultimately, the process through which WE understand the cosmos to have come into existence involves things not observable.

 

This being the case, science is not the appropriate discipline to provide an explanation for the existence of what exists. You can't do science on what you cannot observe. And if you do science, to the extent that you leave certain factors unaccounted for, you are doing flawed science. You might not want to rely too heavily on your conclusions.