Evolution

[Odale]

The short answer is: it doesn't say anything specific about the topic. TJ already explained it.

Yes, 6 literal days if you read the words literally and grammatically. Also, as quoted, "God created man is his own image", so I don't believe Adam looked more like an ape.

I don't think the Bible gives a depiction of Adam's looks. Maybe he wasn't an ape - perhaps a neanderthal. Perhaps I'm being too skeptical.

 

[Gaming4JC]

So many choices...
1) God Created Everything in 6 days literally
2) Evolution and years of of natural selection and random goop caused order from disorder. [Don't worry about that little law of thermodynamics.]
3) Theological evolution and God made a bang that caused the entire world to evolve into order!
4) ??? ALIENS ??? :O

Personally I prefer the first option, making excuses for evolution e.g. option 3 is equally weak. I think Roger Oakland, a former evolutionists and science teacher summed it up best. "How can you use Evolution to explain God, when I used evolution to explain away God?".

Answers in Genesis also said it correctly that, "If you don't believe the first part of the bible, what else can you believe". Foundation destroyed, faith destroyed.

Useful links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMbsM87Rztc (5 part series/preview with Roger Oakland)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ - AIG Homepage. Lot's of good reading and video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4 -- The Much hated Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Documentary by Ben Stein.
http://www.icr.org/ --- Institute for Creation Research



There's more good resources too, but I'd rather save my breath.
Oh and here's a cool flash presentation on Creation:
http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Creation.aspx

 

[Kendrik]

"How can you use Evolution to explain God, when I used evolution to explain away God?".

Saint Anselm put forth that "God is that than which no greater can be conceived." Which is the greater act, to create all from naught or to create a system of development?

I wouldn't use that as an argument for evolution, but I wouldn't use it as an argument against it, either. God is a God of order and process, that is abundantly clear in human history... and in the creation account itself. But literal six day creation and creative evolution agree that God is these things. The issue is /how/ He chose to do them.

The creative evolutionists I've read up on tend to say that man is a unique, directly created part of reality. This allows for the rest of the biological system to include macroevolution without hurting the significance of man and his being made in the image of God.

Answers in Genesis also said it correctly that, "If you don't believe the first part of the bible, what else can you believe". Foundation destroyed, faith destroyed.

Believing in creative evolution isn't disbelieving in God's creation, though. It's simply allowing that God used evolution as part of His system. It doesn't undermine orthodoxy or God's character or anything else to allow a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2.

For the record, I am a literal six day creation kinda guy. However, I think that it can be dangerous to get overly dogmatic on the issue for a couple reasons. What if forensic science demonstrated competently that evolution, or the big bang event, were the real deal? Would I do everything I could to undermine the scientific methods because they don't fit with my literal interpretation methods? Worse yet, would I let those findings undermine my faith?

It seems to me that the point of Genesis 1-2 isn't /how/ God created but /that/ He did so.

Take that as you will.

 

[Odale]

... Believing in creative evolution isn't disbelieving in God's creation, though. It's simply allowing that God used evolution as part of His system. It doesn't undermine orthodoxy or God's character or anything else to allow a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2.

This.

I fail to understand why people are on one side of the fence or the other side - why is there a fence?!

The Bible says nothing about it, only that God did it. Arguing over whether evolution occurs is beside the point.

 

[Kendrik]

The Bible says nothing about it, only that God did it. Arguing over whether evolution occurs is beside the point.

I'm not sure it's entirely worthless to discuss it, but I definitely think that it's bad to divide over it. The zeal with which people on either side of the argument tend to approach the issue worries me greatly. I feel quite strongly that that zeal would be much better spent defending things like a proper Christology... or, y'know, in more practical matters like actually preaching the Gospel itself and living lives that exemplify Christ's regenerative work in us rather than dividing over presuppositionally founded hermeneutic practices.

 

[Icthus]

So much juicy goodness here to read.

Thank you guys for not being like nasty.

So much to agree and disagree with yummy!

I especially love the links to others to prove points!!!

Anyways. yeah.

I have studied this in the original <that was for Ewoks- cause he hates when I pull that card> and my personal belief is God could have in fact done creation in an instant. So, 6 days I am okay with too. Or if he chose to do it another way I am fine with that too. What I do know, is God created everything from nothing in whatever time frame He deemed necessary. The time period being 24 hours or 24 million years doesn't matter to me.

Carry on with conversation.

 

[silverleaf]

lots for me to agree and disagree with here.
Don't have time to go through everything (studying for exams).
However agree with one consistent thing:
Everything was God's plan and He could have changed it any time He wanted.
I share the feeling that it is not something we should be divided over as it makes no difference to the way we should live our lives. The problem is when the atheists say all this can happen WITHOUT God.

 

[Patriot]

For the record, I am a literal six day creation kinda guy. However, I think that it can be dangerous to get overly dogmatic on the issue for a couple reasons. What if forensic science demonstrated competently that evolution, or the big bang event, were the real deal? Would I do everything I could to undermine the scientific methods because they don't fit with my literal interpretation methods? Worse yet, would I let those findings undermine my faith?

Well, science cannot prove the Big Bang because it would have to be repeatable/observable. The best it can to is make educated guesses - which is how we got evolution. Regardless, I take everything science says with a grain of salt. Science is constantly changing (hopefully, being refined) and does little other than attempt to explain our world as we understand it currently. Consider things that were thought to be set in stone like Newton's "laws". Einstein and the speed of light come along and throw a monkey wrench in the works. Woops, guess what we were telling you all those years was a bit off, sorry guys. . .

How long till that happens with Einstein?

Also, extrapolate your point above. So throw out proofs and say we are using competent demonstration, what if science "demonstrates" that God does not exist? Do you hold your doctrine so loosely that you can accept that as well? Where do you draw the line and say I will not surrender this regardless of what man's limited science tells me?

The Bible says nothing about it, only that God did it. Arguing over whether evolution occurs is beside the point.

Actually, it says that God did it in six days and gives an account of the order of events. The question at hand is whether the Bible was literal or allegorical/metaphorical.

 

[tjguitarz]

The opposite could be asked as well. What is about Genesis that implies it is allegorical?

Nothing. That's why we have to use the brains God gave us to study the evidence. Scientists have proved that the Earth is really old beyond any doubt. Evolutionary theory is nearly as sound. This necessitates an allegorical interpretation.

I think Roger Oakland, a former evolutionists and science teacher summed it up best. "How can you use Evolution to explain God, when I used evolution to explain away God?".

Answers in Genesis also said it correctly that, "If you don't believe the first part of the bible, what else can you believe". Foundation destroyed, faith destroyed.

Both of these quotes repeat the same creationist dogma--that evolution and faith in Christ are incompatible. Have you thought about these quotes yourself? Can't you see the flaws and fallacies in their statements? As a Christian who accepts evolution as fact, I understand this natural process to have an author. It is fully possible to explain God using evolution. The point I want to stress is that this default stance that evolution and Christianity are incompatible is very damaging to the public view of Christians and to any effort of spreading the Good News.

Believing in creative evolution isn't disbelieving in God's creation, though. It's simply allowing that God used evolution as part of His system. It doesn't undermine orthodoxy or God's character or anything else to allow a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2.

For the record, I am a literal six day creation kinda guy. However, I think that it can be dangerous to get overly dogmatic on the issue for a couple reasons. What if forensic science demonstrated competently that evolution, or the big bang event, were the real deal? Would I do everything I could to undermine the scientific methods because they don't fit with my literal interpretation methods? Worse yet, would I let those findings undermine my faith?

It seems to me that the point of Genesis 1-2 isn't /how/ God created but /that/ He did so.

Well put, Kendrik. I would stress that many bodies of scientific knowledge have demonstrated that evolution and the big bang are the real deal. I would highly encourage you to read some of the books on evolution in the original post.

Well, science cannot prove the Big Bang because it would have to be repeatable/observable. The best it can to is make educated guesses - which is how we got evolution.

Just like you can prove the shooter at a murder scene without video recording or an eye witness, so can you prove a concept like the Big Bang. Educated guesses are class 3 science, meaning they are up for discussion but in general outside the purview of science. Analyses of evidence reproducible across different laboratories with different instruments and scientists are the facts that build a theory. A theory is a constructed analysis of some event that fits all available evidence. In science, theory does not mean "it may be..." or "we think that..." A theory means, "All the evidence points in this direction." Just like blood splatters, DNA evidence, and fingerprints can develop a sound theory of who shot the victim, so can measurements of heavenly bodies and background electromagnetic activity develop a sound theory of the Big Bang.

Regardless, I take everything science says with a grain of salt. Science is constantly changing (hopefully, being refined) and does little other than attempt to explain our world as we understand it currently. Consider things that were thought to be set in stone like Newton's "laws". Einstein and the speed of light come along and throw a monkey wrench in the works. Woops, guess what we were telling you all those years was a bit off, sorry guys. . .

Skepticism is good, but your distrust of all things science either speaks of a misunderstanding of scientific fundamentals or of willful ignorance. Yes, many avenues of scientific exploration change our current understanding of well established processes. This is not bad--it is the nature of the system. But many concepts, like Einstein's theory of relativity, have been supported and strengthened by more research. We only have the data we can gather now. It is scientific progress that elucidates further information for application and to reload the gun for further research. There is a concept called Regulatory Science, or Best Available Science, that may be of interest to you. It is a careful study of what science can be used to make policy or regulatory decisions.

 

[tjguitarz]

Evolution and years of of natural selection and random goop caused order from disorder. [Don't worry about that little law of thermodynamics.]

For the sake of clarification, I wanted to talk about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that a closed system will go from a state of higher order to a state of lower order--the system becomes increasingly disorderly or messy. A closed system is one in which there is no transfer of matter or energy from outside systems to inside the system. Imagine a plastic bottle with an apple inside. An apple is a highly ordered fruit. Over time, the apple will break down into its component parts. Complex proteins will denature and fragment. Nucleic acids and lipids will break down. In the end, you have a pile of dirt.

This concept does not apply to open systems. The reason our bodies don't decay into dirt while we grow into mature and healthy adults is because we are constantly adding energy to our system. In the same way, evolution is not at odds with the second law of thermodynamics because the earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun.

 

[Patriot]

Nothing. That's why we have to use the brains God gave us to study the evidence.

You probably don't mean it but it sounds like you are saying that those who hold a literal view of creation are not using their brains.

Scientists have proved that the Earth is really old beyond any doubt. Evolutionary theory is nearly as sound. This necessitates an allegorical interpretation.

Beyond any doubt? Why is there a debate then? How have they proven it?

The point I want to stress is that this default stance that evolution and Christianity are incompatible is very damaging to the public view of Christians and to any effort of spreading the Good News.

How? In what way?

Well put, Kendrik. I would stress that many bodies of scientific knowledge have demonstrated that evolution and the big bang are the real deal. I would highly encourage you to read some of the books on evolution in the original post.

How does one demonstrate the "big bang"? It is neither repeatable nor observable. How can it even fall within the realm of science? It should be as off-limits to science as God is. . .

Just like you can prove the shooter at a murder scene without video recording or an eye witness, so can you prove a concept like the Big Bang. Educated guesses are class 3 science, meaning they are up for discussion but in general outside the purview of science. Analyses of evidence reproducible across different laboratories with different instruments and scientists are the facts that build a theory. A theory is a constructed analysis of some event that fits all available evidence. In science, theory does not mean "it may be..." or "we think that..." A theory means, "All the evidence points in this direction." Just like blood splatters, DNA evidence, and fingerprints can develop a sound theory of who shot the victim, so can measurements of heavenly bodies and background electromagnetic activity develop a sound theory of the Big Bang.

Except the major flaw of science (in this regard) is that it cannot account for, nor does it take into consideration, the miraculous. Therefore, science must naturally disregard God creating the world in 6 days and continue searching for other alternatives.

Skepticism is good, but your distrust of all things science either speaks of a misunderstanding of scientific fundamentals or of willful ignorance. Yes, many avenues of scientific exploration change our current understanding of well established processes. This is not bad--it is the nature of the system. But many concepts, like Einstein's theory of relativity, have been supported and strengthened by more research. We only have the data we can gather now. It is scientific progress that elucidates further information for application and to reload the gun for further research. There is a concept called Regulatory Science, or Best Available Science, that may be of interest to you. It is a careful study of what science can be used to make policy or regulatory decisions.

Haha, I had this immediate thought of "Your overconfidence is your weakness" with the retort of "Your faith in your friends is yours" followed by the emperor cackling maniacally. Guess I've seen that movie too many times. Of course, this was followed by a "I always assume everything is a trap, which is why I'm still alive." Ahhh, gotta love the classics.

Anyway, you misunderstand (probably because I didn't explain myself good enough). I do not completely distrust all things science. I have no problem with science saying "an object in motion. . .blah blah blah", I just tend to think that the science today is the neanderthal thinking of tomorrow. In my opinion, faith trumps science when the two collide. And before you bring up the flat earth argument let me say that the Bible never makes a claim for a flat earth. It does make a claim for a 6 day creation.

This concept does not apply to open systems. The reason our bodies don't decay into dirt while we grow into mature and healthy adults is because we are constantly adding energy to our system. In the same way, evolution is not at odds with the second law of thermodynamics because the earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun.

Is the universe an open or a closed system?

 

[Gaming4JC]

For the record, I am a literal six day creation kinda guy. However, I think that it can be dangerous to get overly dogmatic on the issue for a couple reasons. What if forensic science demonstrated competently that evolution, or the big bang event, were the real deal? Would I do everything I could to undermine the scientific methods because they don't fit with my literal interpretation methods? Worse yet, would I let those findings undermine my faith?

If science finds it to be undoubtedly true, which it never will, then I will quit being a christian. Strong words, except I take the bible very literally and believe it. Some people may call that traditional and dogmatic. I presume Jesus was pretty narrow minded as well... he just never went with "the flow"

For the sake of clarification, I wanted to talk about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that a closed system will go from a state of higher order to a state of lower order--the system becomes increasingly disorderly or messy. A closed system is one in which there is no transfer of matter or energy from outside systems to inside the system. Imagine a plastic bottle with an apple inside. An apple is a highly ordered fruit. Over time, the apple will break down into its component parts. Complex proteins will denature and fragment. Nucleic acids and lipids will break down. In the end, you have a pile of dirt.

This concept does not apply to open systems. The reason our bodies don't decay into dirt while we grow into mature and healthy adults is because we are constantly adding energy to our system. In the same way, evolution is not at odds with the second law of thermodynamics because the earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun.

As Patriot mentioned, determining if it is open or closed is a big factor. And even if it were true, how can you be a christian and believe in the continual evolutionary process? It will carry on and you will evolve to be like "gods". In that case don't bother worshiping God, just be your own little god. Lots of people already mentioning this in the evolution circles. New Age is nearly scientific, god atoms!...

 

[Odale]

If science finds it to be undoubtedly true, which it never will, then I will quit being a christian. Strong words, except I take the bible very literally and believe it. Some people may call that traditional and dogmatic. I presume Jesus was pretty narrow minded as well... he just never went with "the flow" ...

Science has this thing called carbon dating. In a nutshell, carbon dating measures the amount of carbon in the remains of an organic creature (like fossils) - we can do this because we know how slowly carbon 14 deteriorates.

Science, with the use of carbon dating, has shown us that up until 65 million years ago, dinosaurs roamed the Earth. This same science has also shown us that no humans lived along side dinosaurs because even the earliest human remains aren't old enough. It's pretty widely known that cavemen and cavewomen (think Flintstones) didn't actually exist.

If God created the Earth in 6 days with humans from the very beginning, what are dinosaur fossils doing here? With the physical evidence (dinosaur fossils) how can you read Genesis literally?

As Patriot mentioned, determining if it is open or closed is a big factor. And even if it were true, how can you be a christian and believe in the continual evolutionary process? It will carry on and you will evolve to be like "gods". In that case don't bother worshiping God, just be your own little god. Lots of people already mentioning this in the evolution circles. New Age is nearly scientific, god atoms!...

Like I mentioned before, why do people have to be on one side or the other for this topic? Why can't evolution be seen as an ingenious system developed by God?

 

[Lloren]

I'm so glad carbon dating is referred to as solid science. /s

There are smart people on both sides of this argument, but we may never know until Christ himself tells us.

 

[Sassamo]

Science has this thing called carbon dating. In a nutshell, carbon dating measures the amount of carbon in the remains of an organic creature (like fossils) - we can do this because we know how slowly carbon 14 deteriorates.

Science, with the use of carbon dating, has shown us that up until 65 million years ago, dinosaurs roamed the Earth. This same science has also shown us that no humans lived along side dinosaurs because even the earliest human remains aren't old enough. It's pretty widely known that cavemen and cavewomen (think Flintstones) didn't actually exist.

If God created the Earth in 6 days with humans from the very beginning, what are dinosaur fossils doing here? With the physical evidence (dinosaur fossils) how can you read Genesis literally?

... C14 dating is only theoretically reliable up to 80000 years based on the current accuracy of our equipement. On top of that, the whole foundation for this dating method rests on the assumption that the C14 to C12 ratio was the same when these creatures died as it is now, which is purely a guess. Without this missing factor, C14 dating is merely a guessing game and reduces this 'science' to a faith, a faith in man rather than a faith in God.

Science says man and dinosaur couldn't coexist, God's word said they did(Job 40,41). "It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man."(Psalm 118:8)

Like I mentioned before, why do people have to be on one side or the other for this topic? Why can't evolution be seen as an ingenious system developed by God?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God[d] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

I believe all scripture to be infallible and profitable(it's ALL there for a reason), and I believe we are to know what we believe and why we believe it, and be ready to answer others about our beliefs. Until someone changes my mind, this is what I believe to be true, and I'm not afraid of 'offending' others with what I believe. I'm not offended when they say what they believe, why should I hold back what I have understood from God's Word? I really believe that this is a major problem that is trending in modern christianity, and it grieves me to see so many that are so passive in their faith.

 

[Odale]

I'm so glad carbon dating is referred to as solid science. /s

There are smart people on both sides of this argument, but we may never know until Christ himself tells us.

I never said carbon dating was perfect and infallible. It is what we have come up with to help us understand what we perceive. Science is not and will never be perfect.

... C14 dating is only theoretically reliable up to 80000 years based on the current accuracy of our equipement. On top of that, the whole foundation for this dating method rests on the assumption that the C14 to C12 ratio was the same when these creatures died as it is now, which is purely a guess. Without this missing factor, C14 dating is merely a guessing game and reduces this 'science' to a faith, a faith in man rather than a faith in God.

If that is the case, then why is there a huge disparity between the predicted ages between dinosaur fossils and human fossils? According to carbon dating, dinosaurs showed up hundreds of millions of years ago, whereas humans are only at 400,000 years. If there was more C12, then there would naturally be more C14, right?

Science says man and dinosaur couldn't coexist, God's word said they did(Job 40,41). "It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man."(Psalm 118:8)

I don't think that verse says dinosaurs and humans coexisted so much as it says be quiet and just run with it. I have always been skeptical and being told to just go with the flow has never been an acceptable answer for me. I know that statement might sound like I have absolutely no faith in God... I do have faith, but I don't understand why Christians seem to have such a strong distaste for science. I would much rather critically think about something and come up with a possible cause (science) and be wrong, than simply believe in something because someone else says to.

 

[Patriot]

If that is the case, then why is there a huge disparity between the predicted ages between dinosaur fossils and human fossils? According to carbon dating, dinosaurs showed up hundreds of millions of years ago, whereas humans are only at 400,000 years. If there was more C12, then there would naturally be more C14, right?

Why do you get two different dates when you date a fossil (yes this does happen)? How do you determine the correct date? Well, you use the fossil record, of course! Dinosaurs are old, so this young date must be wrong. Rerun the test and get an older date. Humans are young so this old date is wrong. Rerun the test. How do we know that the fossil record is accurate and humans are young and dinosaurs are old? Well, we used carbon and potassium argon dating. Can't get much better than that!

I sense a cyclical proof. . .

I do have faith, but I don't understand why Christians seem to have such a strong distaste for science. I would much rather critically think about something and come up with a possible cause (science) and be wrong, than simply believe in something because someone else says to.

Nice jab.
I do not have a distaste of science, when it is performed properly and honestly. I just don't put it up on the same pedestal that others do. It is not infallible (quite the contrary as evidenced throughout history) and is certainly not the final word.

I like to think I use critical thinking even though I take a literal view of Genesis. I also like to think that I do not simply believe what I do because others have told me I need to believe it. Quite frankly, I think that would be evidenced by the fact that I do NOT buy into the evolutionary timeline.

 

[Wolfeman]

I have a pretty extensive science background. For a long time it was my god and my faith. It was when I started studying the amazing and unique properties of water and is role in life that I was forced to admit in an outside force that mere chance and science could not account for.

I love science but it is not the infallible excuse for everything that some people make it out to be. People lose a lot of credibility with me when they refuse to look at all sides of an argument. This is a problem most evolutionist have. Macro evolution has been disproved on so many sides it could be claimed as a fact that it doesn't work or exist. Except for humanist there is no other option other than an outside hand and so they are forced to defend it to the extreme. Because macro evolution is so discredited it makes me sad to see people feel a need to add it to God just gain some acceptance for it under the guise of science.

Science is a wonderful tool given to us by God to bring us closer to Him. The more we use it to explain smaller and smaller or deeper and deeper things the close we get to Him and His nature.

 

[Abba San]

Science is a wonderful tool given to us by God to bring us closer to Him. The more we use it to explain smaller and smaller or deeper and deeper things the closer we get to Him and His nature.

That is so important to remember.

 

[Odale]

Nice jab.
I do not have a distaste of science, when it is performed properly and honestly. I just don't put it up on the same pedestal that others do. It is not infallible (quite the contrary as evidenced throughout history) and is certainly not the final word.

That was certainly not a jab towards you, or any other specific person (if it was I would have inserted your name). There's no need to take it personally. It is simply an observation I have made.