Evolution

[Patriot]

I'm not offended as it didn't apply to me or describe me in the least. But I must say that I have not shared your observation. The majority of Christians I know are pretty well-grounded and only take issue with science when it contradicts the Bible. But I'm sure it depends on the group/location. Take the Amish for instance. . .

 

[Lloren]

The majority of Christians I know are pretty well-grounded and only take issue with science when it contradicts the Bible.

Thankfully science never contradicts the Bible in the end.

 

[Abba San]

That is the truth time and time again. Scientists may contradict the Bible - but science always ends up supporting God's truth.

 

[Kendrik]

Thankfully science never contradicts the Bible in the end.

I prefer the expression "all truth is God's truth."

I agree, though; science and the Bible do not contradict each other, though there are times when the interpretation of one must give way to the evidence of the other.

 

[Sassamo]

As in when the interpretation of scientific theories must give way to the evidence given in God's Word!

 

[Kendrik]

Or, you know, when the Bible refers to "the four corners of the earth." We take for granted that that's an expression rather than scientific fact now, but I'm pretty sure the world was once thought to be flat. The literal interpretation had to give way to the evidence of science.

It's a two way street.

 

[Wolfeman]

Or, you know, when the Bible refers to "the four corners of the earth."

North south east and west. Four corners.

When you go North you eventually end up going south. You reach a transition point. Which is why Psalms 103:12 uses east and west for the separation of us from our sins. You never reach an east/west transition point. It is an infinite distance.

To me this clearly indicates that God and the Bible know the world is round at a time that science felt it was not. A literal interpretation of a verse when taken in context with the whole Bible was eventually caught up to by science.

 

[Abba San]

To me this clearly indicates that God and the Bible know the world is round at a time that science felt it was not.

God has always known the world was round. The Bible doesn't make clear statements about its roundness or lack thereof. Science and/or scholars have known the earth was round since thousands of years before Christ - maybe as far back as the Tower of Babel.

Science didn't catch up with the Bible with regard to a spherical earth. Historically, it was religious fanatics who claimed the world was flat and persecuted religious scholars for thinking otherwise. Flat earth is an example of best Bible interpretation and best science being labeled heretical by the religious establishment.

Funny how often the religious establishment can get it wrong.

 

[Patriot]

Apples and oranges. The world can be proven to be spherical. Origins cannot be proven one way or the other. . .only speculated at.

 

[Abba San]

That's right. I had a man, just this week, honestly ask me where God came from. He found it hard to believe that the Bible doesn't try to prove God - but assumes God.

There is a ton of evidence - but no proof. Knowing God is a step of faith. Origins cannot be proven one way or another.

 

[tjguitarz]

I said... "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."

And then Patriot said... "How? In what way?"

This is the primary point I want to emphasize: the dogma and irrational fervor of creationism and creationists is damaging to Christianity and the Good News.

As someone who was educated in biochemistry, I learned the plausibility of evolution. I began reading books by evolutionists and learned of the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution. All this from someone who was raised that creationism was the only way and that Christianity and evolution were incompatible. At this point, I was frustrated with myself for accepting this dogma blindly, and I was frustrated with the Christian community for spreading many falsities to support creationism, so I turned my back on the Christian community. I still believe in Jesus Christ and his work and teachings, but I am embarrassed to associate myself with a community that plainly and blindly rejects science with little evidence or understanding.

There have been many people in my shoes that have not just rejected the Christian community, but the entire faith. They were taught that Christianity and evolution were irreconcilable ideologies. This same belief permeates our culture. In the United States, if you are a Christian then you are a creationist. If you are an evolutionist, then you are likely an atheist. These are hardly stereotypes. I know very few people that buck this trend.

How can it not be that a religion with anti-scientific views is losing face and credibility nationwide? It is common in our culture to mock Christians and creationist views. It is common to call Christians anti-science and, from those most critical, anti-intelligence. Education will always be important in this country, and studies have shown that many of the highly educated reject religion.

That Christians continually are the enemy of evolution spreads the understanding that Christians can't be taken seriously. When the fundamental mission of a Christian is to spread the good news, a damaged ethos makes this extremely difficult. In some cases, it is insurmountable. It was Paul that said he became a Roman to get the Romans and a Jew to get the Jews. I would say Christians should also become evolutionists to get the evolutionists.

 

[Lloren]

Compromising the Bible for the sake of relevance won't get converts to Christianity, but a false version of the gospel which is none at all. If people "lose their faith" (which wasn't theirs to begin with) they never had it in the first place. Our job as Christians is to be ambassadors for Him and showing the veracity of God through creation and even through science and technology.

If we are worried about what man thinks (see Paul) then we are on the wrong railroad tracks.

 

[Patriot]

This is the primary point I want to emphasize: the dogma and irrational fervor of creationism and creationists is damaging to Christianity and the Good News.

As someone who was educated in biochemistry, I learned the plausibility of evolution. I began reading books by evolutionists and learned of the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution. All this from someone who was raised that creationism was the only way and that Christianity and evolution were incompatible. At this point, I was frustrated with myself for accepting this dogma blindly, and I was frustrated with the Christian community for spreading many falsities to support creationism, so I turned my back on the Christian community. I still believe in Jesus Christ and his work and teachings, but I am embarrassed to associate myself with a community that plainly and blindly rejects science with little evidence or understanding.

There have been many people in my shoes that have not just rejected the Christian community, but the entire faith. They were taught that Christianity and evolution were irreconcilable ideologies. This same belief permeates our culture. In the United States, if you are a Christian then you are a creationist. If you are an evolutionist, then you are likely an atheist. These are hardly stereotypes. I know very few people that buck this trend.

How can it not be that a religion with anti-scientific views is losing face and credibility nationwide? It is common in our culture to mock Christians and creationist views. It is common to call Christians anti-science and, from those most critical, anti-intelligence. Education will always be important in this country, and studies have shown that many of the highly educated reject religion.

That Christians continually are the enemy of evolution spreads the understanding that Christians can't be taken seriously. When the fundamental mission of a Christian is to spread the good news, a damaged ethos makes this extremely difficult. In some cases, it is insurmountable. It was Paul that said he became a Roman to get the Romans and a Jew to get the Jews. I would say Christians should also become evolutionists to get the evolutionists.

You only answered one of my questions. But your answer told me enough of your opinion of me and those like me. I could talk about my education in public schools through my bachelors degree as well as my numerous discussions with theistic evolutionists using the talk-origins website (of which I have read numerous articles). But, based on the post above, I doubt anything I say would be considered by you as little more that blind dogma spouted by an anti-science, anti-intelligence, and anti-education religious nut-job. Therefore, we must agree to disagree.

 

[Brydon]

tjguitarz, I just want to extend a big hug to you as a creationist and unite with you in saying that our interpretation of where we came from is not nearly as important as our understanding of WHO we came from and to whom we are returning.

Too often, American Christians see themselves at war with evolution when we SHOULD be at war with despair, hopelessness, and isolation. We should be rescuing the lost, bringing freedom to the prisoner and a crown of beauty to those in ashes, as Jesus did. THAT's what we should "go to war" about.

Someone earlier said that if evolution were undeniably proved true that he would stop being a Christian. That's horrible. I hope that he was being hyperbolic, because nothing that comes out of a lab is going to change the fact that God loved me, Christ died for me, the Spirit lives in me, and I have abundant life today and in eternity. THAT's the gospel.

And while the post after this one will probably accuse me of compromising my faith to be relevant... what I'm actually doing is expressing my humility before God. God's word is infallible, but my (and our) interpretation is plenty fallible.

God's word says just what he intended it to, for the people then and in the thousands of years since then and (Lord willing) for thousands of years more. It says that God started with dark formlessness, created an environment for life, and filled it with living things of which the pinnacle was man. On this you and I can agree. We might quibble about the length of time involved, but that does not change the Author of the story.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this forum, only to apologize on behalf of those Christians in your past who failed (as I have too) to keep their eyes fixed on the character of God, the hope of the gospel, and the promise of the resurrection, which no scientific finding can ever enhance or diminish.

***

I also plead with you (and by doing so, remind myself) that for many the real struggle is not against empirical, evidence-based science; but with the philosophical presuppositions that are sometimes taught under the guise of science. When famous scientists say, "there is no God" or "there is no morality" or "there is no purpose to life" those are religious statements just as much as their reverse would be... whether or not you add the clause "science proves that."


Just as the opposite side confuses the difference between science and religion ("I proved X about natural history, therefore you must believe Y about metaphysics"), so sometimes do we ("You believe X about natural history, therefore you must believe Y about metaphysics"). It is the metaphysical, religious claims that we can (and should) oppose, not the claims about stars or rocks.


I would urge all Christians to read C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain to see an excellent example of a man who can affirm evolution as an understanding of natural history without compromising his understanding of the character of God, the nature of man, or the integrity of scripture.


***

Anyways, that's a long way of saying, that I love you as my brother in Christ (or sister, if that's the case). And I urge you not to abandon the family of God, just because of how a group of people from your past handled a hot button topic. There are plenty good people and churches with plenty better to do than fuss.

 

[tjguitarz]

Compromising the Bible for the sake of relevance won't get converts to Christianity, but a false version of the gospel which is none at all. If people "lose their faith" (which wasn't theirs to begin with) they never had it in the first place. Our job as Christians is to be ambassadors for Him and showing the veracity of God through creation and even through science and technology.

As was stated before, people are entitled to different versions of Scripture that do not compromise the fundamentals of Christianity. I am suggesting that the evidence supporting evolution, and the harm that dogmatic beliefs bring to Christianity, are reasons enough for a Christian to become an evolutionist in order to reach evolutionists.

I could talk about my education in public schools through my bachelors degree as well as my numerous discussions with theistic evolutionists using the talk-origins website (of which I have read numerous articles). But, based on the post above, I doubt anything I say would be considered by you as little more that blind dogma spouted by an anti-science, anti-intelligence, and anti-education religious nut-job. Therefore, we must agree to disagree.

The education system attempts to play the neutral ground by teaching the preponderance of evidence--evolution. It is easy to remain critical given the depth of a public education. I have been in those shoes, and it was easy for me to hold strong to creationist beliefs despite what was being taught. It was when I began reading outside material that led me to question these beliefs. The Bible teaches us to test everything. I believe your faith would not weaken, but be strengthened and changed by reading those books in my original post.

I also plead with you (and by doing so, remind myself) that for many the real struggle is not against empirical, evidence-based science; but with the philosophical presuppositions that are sometimes taught under the guise of science. When famous scientists say, "there is no God" or "there is no morality" or "there is no purpose to life" those are religious statements just as much as their reverse would be... whether or not you add the clause "science proves that."

You have given me something to think about. Thank you for your post. I think you encapsulate the right mindset, but I would still encourage you to read the books on evolution in my original post.

 

[Skibabinz]

As a person who has been on the fence about this subject for a while, I just thought I would drop in to add a few choice words to this discussion.

1. People have this stigma that seems to think that Evolution is evil, perhaps it is the mere idea that anything beyond what the scripture has word for word is absolute false teaching and should be dealt with accordingly. However, one thing we must remember that the Bible was translated from the original text, and was modified God knows how many times by the early Catholic Church. This leads me to my second point.

2. Pray. So many people seem to forget this utmost line we have directly to our heavenly Father. Talk to him. I'm sure you've heard the saying "Give your troubles to God, he's going to be up all night anyway", which mind you I probably quoted completely wrong ( Lord forgive me if I did ), but its somewhat close to that.

3. Untested Faith is weaker than broken faith. What is the point in proclaiming that you have undying faith in our ever Loving God, if you aren't willing to test it? Now don't get me wrong, there are people who are just dying to feed the ones who want an alternative to Christianity. Namely the four horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett, and they'll try to twist and turn the Bible into 9001 (Yes I know its over 9000) directions to make it sound backwards seven ways to Sunday. However, all 4 of these men (and many other atheists) have been smacked around in debates on God's existence by Dr. William Lane Craig who is probably the leading authority on Christian Apologetics. Another note, he's actually never lost a debate with an atheist, agnostic, what have you, so take that for what you will.


Now I'm not saying in any way shape or form that the Bible is wrong, etc. I would never say anything in regards to that. However, I do say that if you are confused, concerned, or anything in regards to it, then by all means PRAY about it. God knows the answers, and as a matter of a fact he IS the answer. Again I say it though, no matter how it is that we got here, we can ALL agree that he did in fact get us here. Now its up to us to make the best of it until Jesus returns for us.

Edit: A video to add to this, if it helps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related

 

[Patriot]

1. People have this stigma that seems to think that Evolution is evil, perhaps it is the mere idea that anything beyond what the scripture has word for word is absolute false teaching and should be dealt with accordingly.

Strawman. No one here has said if it isn't in the Bible than throw it out. What people are contending is where evolution and Scripture seem to be in direct opposition to each other.

However, one thing we must remember that the Bible was translated from the original text, and was modified God knows how many times by the early Catholic Church. This leads me to my second point.

The Old Testament has been used and still is used by the Jewish people. Even if the Catholic Church had tampered with it, we could still go back to the copies held by the Jews. That being said, the Catholic Church has never controlled all the manuscripts that are available (for the New Testament) at any one time (no one has for that matter). A quick comparison between the many manuscripts available would reveal any such tampering.

 

[Skibabinz]

Strawman. No one here has said if it isn't in the Bible than throw it out. What people are contending is where evolution and Scripture seem to be in direct opposition to each other.


The Old Testament has been used and still is used by the Jewish people. Even if the Catholic Church had tampered with it, we could still go back to the copies held by the Jews. That being said, the Catholic Church has never controlled all the manuscripts that are available (for the New Testament) at any one time (no one has for that matter). A quick comparison between the many manuscripts available would reveal any such tampering.

Where in the Bible does it say exactly how old the Earth is? Where in the Bible does it say how long ago God created the heavens and the Earth? It doesn't. The 6 days it mentions that he created everything in could mean 6 literal 24 hour days, or it could represent 6 periods of time since a day to God could mean thousands, heck even millions of years for us. Hence what I said, which mind you I wasn't putting forth an argument, "strawman" or not, I was attempting neutral ground here for both sides since what we need to do is pray about it instead of arguing about it.

 

[Patriot]

Where in the Bible does it say exactly how old the Earth is? Where in the Bible does it say how long ago God created the heavens and the Earth? It doesn't.

The genealogies provided give us a rough estimate of the age of the earth. Assuming a literal interpretation.

The 6 days it mentions that he created everything in could mean 6 literal 24 hour days, or it could represent 6 periods of time since a day to God could mean thousands, heck even millions of years for us.

Then why say days? Why not say thousands of years? Why define that "day" as evening and morning? If it is not meant to be a literal day then it is the only place in the Bible where the word "Yom" (day) is used to represent something other than a day and still have a quantifier (evening and morning).

 

[Avesther]

hmmm...my God is a God of miracles...what about yours?

I don't pretend to understand miracles, I doubt science can cope with miracles.