Both Evolution and Christianity?

[MZS]

I am running into more and more people that believe in both the theory of evolution and Christianity, or at least a form of Christianity. But I am having a difficult time seeing how the two coexist. It is almost a logical conclusion that Genesis is discarded, for the most part, in an evolutionary mindset. So then where does Original Sin come from? And what about the many New Testament references to Genesis?

It is not difficult to adopt this mindset. We are bombarded with evolutionary teaching at every turn, including children's programming on TV. In fact I even had my doubts. But then I started looking into the origin of life itself. What I discovered was that to believe in life "just happening" in millions, billions, or even trillions of years takes a lot more faith than I could ever muster. Google "Intelligent Design" and "The Discovery Institute" for more info. Then, I found many difficulties with Darwin's Theory itself. It was eye-opening to learn that the very man that co-discovered the structure of DNA, Francis Crick, believed that the first life arrived to earth from outer space (Theory or Panspermia)! My final conclusion was that if God can create from nothing (which I believe), then God is not under any time constraints. Thus a 6-day period is not unreasonable. Evolutionists will scoff at this last statement and ridicule it - but I am finding more and more that it is not science that fuels this scoffing, but rather the principalities we read about in Ephesians 6:12. Here is an interesting tidbit: The book "In Six Days" documents how 50 scientists with advanced science degrees from secular universities believe in 6-day creation!

 

[hedrick]

If you take Genesis as a pair of stories that show the Hebrew's understanding of creation, then the point of Gen 3 would be that humans are inherently imperfect, and have been that way from the beginning. The first time temptation arose, they were unable to resist it. There are differing orthodox understandings of original sin. The one that would be the hardest to deal with is that we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin. If there's no literal Adam and Eve, then there's no action for us to inherit the guilt of. But that's by no means that only understanding. Calvin, for example, denies that. He says that what we inherit from the Fall is a flawed nature. That doesn't require a particular act as described in Gen 3.

The danger here is making God the author of sin. But that's a problem anyway. If you take Gen 3 literally, God still created Adam and Eve with a nature that was unable to reject temptation. That's what original sin really is, in my view. God didn't make anyone sin. But temptation is bound to arise, and he chose not to make us able to withstand it on our own. For one reason or another God seems to have intended us to depend upon him for grace. Rom 11:32.

 

[Bella Vita]

It all comes down to if people believe that the scripture is literal those things happened as the scripture say they happened exactly. Or do they believe they are poetic take on what happened but it didn't literally happen that way.

For example a person who believe the scripture is literal really believes God created the world in 7 days as Genesis explains. And they believe it happened in the order the scripture provides.

A person who just uses scripture as a guideline but doesn't take it literally would believe that maybe every "day" was actually 1,000 years so it actually took 7,000 years for God to create the world.

So it's really a matter of how the person interprets scripture. For me personally I believe it is literal. And I think people need to stop adding on to scripture and adding in their own thoughts and theories, and just read what is there. It is so much easier we as human beings have this need to make everything ten times harder and more complicated than it really is.

 

[MZS]

No doubt, it takes faith to believe in Creation, as in "Created from nothing", since this implies an all-powerful Creator. This is why I posted this in this Christians-only area. In this day and age, many anti-Christian evolutionists will not even consider a Creator and will quickly ridicule the idea - I believe they have their own fearful reasons for scoffing at this concept. The miracle of the feeding of the 5000 is an example of such Creation similar to as described in Genesis. Bread, in its fully usable form, was made instantly as much as was needed, with no limitation of time or needed materials.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

OP, You have raised some very valid points indeed about Theistic Evolution. Here is a list of 10 big Theological problems with the fallacy of God using the popular secular theory of stellar and macro evolution compared to the straight-forward text of Genesis 1 which our Creator wanted everyone to plainly understand how he created without inserting a hybrid formula between verses : 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution - Answers in Genesis

The problem today, is, a good many Christians place such high allegiance to secular Science since it is foisted on us from numerous angles and find it stylish to listen to the latest 'discovery' from fallable Men who have acquired great acclaim (aka: Science Gurus such as Hawkings , Dawkins, and the late Carl Sagan.

 

[Assyrian]

I am running into more and more people that believe in both the theory of evolution and Christianity, or at least a form of Christianity. But I am having a difficult time seeing how the two coexist. It is almost a logical conclusion that Genesis is discarded, for the most part, in an evolutionary mindset. So then where does Original Sin come from? And what about the many New Testament references to Genesis?

It is not difficult to adopt this mindset. We are bombarded with evolutionary teaching at every turn, including children's programming on TV. In fact I even had my doubts. But then I started looking into the origin of life itself. What I discovered was that to believe in life "just happening" in millions, billions, or even trillions of years takes a lot more faith than I could ever muster. Google "Intelligent Design" and "The Discovery Institute" for more info. Then, I found many difficulties with Darwin's Theory itself. It was eye-opening to learn that the very man that co-discovered the structure of DNA, Francis Crick, believed that the first life arrived to earth from outer space (Theory or Panspermia)! My final conclusion was that if God can create from nothing (which I believe), then God is not under any time constraints. Thus a 6-day period is not unreasonable. Evolutionists will scoff at this last statement and ridicule it - but I am finding more and more that it is not science that fuels this scoffing, but rather the principalities we read about in Ephesians 6:12. Here is an interesting tidbit: The book "In Six Days" documents how 50 scientists with advanced science degrees from secular universities believe in 6-day creation!

It isn't a question of whether God could create the world in six day or not, he is God. The issue is whether he did it that way or not, and the more we study the universe he created the more the evidence tells us it is billions of years old and that life evolved. But that is only a problem if you insist the creation accounts in Genesis have to be read literally, the problem with that is that the bible shows us over and over that God loves to communicate with us in metaphors and parables. All it means if the earth is billions of years old is that the assumption Genesis accounts are literal is simply a mistake. We got it wrong, but it is no big deal. God is bigger than our misunderstanding Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

 

[hedrick]

10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution - Answers in Genesis

The article referred to is pretty bogus.

Summary paragraph: In no way does theistic evolution deny that God is Lord of everything. It is based on God being Lord of everything. We all agree that the universe normally functions according to rational laws. Through most of Christian history this was taken to reflect God's own rational nature. That creation also occurs in this way is completely consistent with God as Lord.

1. God created animals, plants and humans as mortal. That's true whether Gen 3 is literal or not. It's far from clear that God intended us to be immortal. I rather doubt it. Calvin speculates that what the fall did was change what should have been a transition from mortal life to life with God into something full of fear and pain, but that our mortal lives would always have ended. That distinction probably does not exist for animals. I very much doubt that God ever intended for every animal ever created to live forever. Does any creationist seriously believe that God created carnivores, intending them not to eat other animals?

2. God normally works through rational laws. Everyone agrees with that. Creationism says that in this specific case he chose to ignore that.

3. Evolution does not deny central Biblical teaching. This point is bait and switch, because by the end of the paragraph we are no longer dealing with central Biblical teaching but a specific theory about Biblical inspiration, which is not itself Biblical.

4. Huh? Of course evolution knows no sin. We don't expect to find the definition of sin in the operation of natural law. We expect to find it in God's word.

5. Huh? this is a complete non sequitur

6. The basis of Jesus' work of redemption is his life, death and resurrection. We do not consider those mythological. Paul and others saw Jesus as a new Adam, creating a new humanity rooted in his work of redemption. The whole comparison with Adam is a metaphor or symbol. It is not affected by whether Adam is literal or not.

7. This is equivalent to 3. If you follow what it's really saying, it says that if we don't take Genesis as literal, than the timeline in Genesis isn't literally true. Yup.

8. The doctrine of creation is about God's lordship over creation, our responsibilities to him for it, and other things like that. This point is simply observing that if we don't take Genesis literally, then we think some aspects of the Genesis account aren't literally true. Yup. It hasn't established those points as basic to the Christian concept of creation.

9. Again, this simply states that if you don't think Genesis is literally true, then Genesis isn't literally true. Yup.

10. I believe we accept the statements of purpose listed, mostly. I'm a bit concerned about the exegesis of 1 Pet 1:4, but that has nothing to do with the creation story.

 

[Knee V]

I considered myself a Theistic Evolutionist for quite some time, although I no longer do. So I understand where you're coming from.

The reason that many people adopt evolution as a matter of absolute fact is because physical evidence - including methods of dating using various radioactive isotopes - most often seems to indicate that the earth, as well as the whole universe, is very old. And I still concede that the evidence that we are able to see paints that picture.

But what they fail to remember is that, according to the witness of the New Testament (and the Old Testament as well, but much more directly in the New Testament) death, corruption, and decay only entered this world after our first parents sinned. What that would mean, therefore, is that many of the conditions that we find in our world have not always been in place: atoms are not supposed to decay; the universe is not supposed to be expanding and tearing itself apart; life is not supposed to have to compete for survival; this earth and universe are not supposed to be hostile to life.

So when we look at the expanding universe and ignore the fact that the decay of the fabric of the universe was introduced after it was created, then it is easy to be led to believe that the universe has been expanding for its entire existence, and thus it is easy to be led to believe that it started at a single point from which it began to rapidly expand.

When we look at the decay rates of various radioactive isotopes and ignore the fact the the decay of matter was introduced after it was created, then it is easy to be led to believe that those elements have always been decaying at the same rate, and thus it is easy to be led to believe that what we find in the earth is much older than it actually is.

Also, when we look at DNA itself and ignore the fact that the breakdown and mutation of DNA and the overall hostility of this world to life was introducted after it was created, then it is easy to be led to believe that DNA has always been mutating for as long as it has existed, and thus it is easy to be led to believe that all life comes from a single common ancestor.

Yes, our universe expands. Yes, atoms break down. Yes, genes mutate and species change. But have they always?

Most of our modern dating techniques rely on the assumption that things have pretty much always been the way they are right now, and that rates are always constant. But we know from Scripture and the historic witness of the church that the universe has not always been as it currently is, nor will it remain this way forever.

That is why I no longer believe that evolution is compatible with the Gospel. That is not to say that I think that one cannot be a Christian and still believe in evolution. However, I do believe that evolution is ultimately faith-destroying. It replaces the need for God in a person's life, and makes it harder and harder to for a person who believes in God to continue justifying a belief in God.

 

[Knee V]

And to piggy-back on something that hedrick said:

Denying the modern idea of "evolution" as a normative principle throughout the history of the universe also does not necessarily imply a "literal" reading of Genesis. "Literal" has way too much baggage, and way too many problems, especially if we apply that as an absolute rule when reading Genesis 1.

For example, did God literally say "Let there be light"? Does God literally breath literal air from a literal atmosphere, and pass it through literal tubes in his literal chest, and make literal sound with a literal voice box, and make literal syllables with is literal tongue and literal lips? Is that what it means when it tells us that God "said" something?

So although I deny theistic evolution, and although I hold creation to be a miracle, just like Christ's miracles that He performed when He walked the earth, I also deny the necessity to hold to an absolute "literal" reading of Genesis... unless we'd like to maintain that the sun, moon, and stars are literally underneath a massive body of water.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

The article referred to is pretty bogus.

Summary paragraph: In no way does theistic evolution deny that God is Lord of everything. It is based on God being Lord of everything. We all agree that the universe normally functions according to rational laws. Through most of Christian history this was taken to reflect God's own rational nature. That creation also occurs in this way is completely consistent with God as Lord.

1. God created animals, plants and humans as mortal. That's true whether Gen 3 is literal or not. It's far from clear that God intended us to be immortal. I rather doubt it. Calvin speculates that what the fall did was change what should have been a transition from mortal life to life with God into something full of fear and pain, but that our mortal lives would always have ended. That distinction probably does not exist for animals. I very much doubt that God ever intended for every animal ever created to live forever. Does any creationist seriously believe that God created carnivores, intending them not to eat other animals?

2. God normally works through rational laws. Everyone agrees with that. Creationism says that in this specific case he chose to ignore that.

3. Evolution does not deny central Biblical teaching. This point is bait and switch, because by the end of the paragraph we are no longer dealing with central Biblical teaching but a specific theory about Biblical inspiration, which is not itself Biblical.

4. Huh? Of course evolution knows no sin. We don't expect to find the definition of sin in the operation of natural law. We expect to find it in God's word.

5. Huh? this is a complete non sequitur

6. The basis of Jesus' work of redemption is his life, death and resurrection. We do not consider those mythological. Paul and others saw Jesus as a new Adam, creating a new humanity rooted in his work of redemption. The whole comparison with Adam is a metaphor or symbol. It is not affected by whether Adam is literal or not.

7. This is equivalent to 3. If you follow what it's really saying, it says that if we don't take Genesis as literal, than the timeline in Genesis isn't literally true. Yup.

8. The doctrine of creation is about God's lordship over creation, our responsibilities to him for it, and other things like that. This point is simply observing that if we don't take Genesis literally, then we think some aspects of the Genesis account aren't literally true. Yup. It hasn't established those points as basic to the Christian concept of creation.

9. Again, this simply states that if you don't think Genesis is literally true, then Genesis isn't literally true. Yup.

10. I believe we accept the statements of purpose listed, mostly. I'm a bit concerned about the exegesis of 1 Pet 1:4, but that has nothing to do with the creation story.

The biggest problem is , it calls into question the very character / nature / and person of God as a perfect , consise , deliberate , loving Creator . Further, it is futile to think God would look back on his Creation filled with bloodshed , death, cancer in animals, animals ripped to pieces from gross disharmony , etc.... yet call it 'Good , very good' . Such things can hardly be considered a good Creation by any standard..least of all by a personal theistic Creators standard.

No...I choose to take God at his Word as reported in Genesis and Psalm 33, that he created very consisely in addition to FULLY FORMED / FULLY FUNCTIONING animals, plants, oceans, planets, sun, moon, space with its many laws of physics and Life Enabling Constants working in precise unision...and finally People crafted in his very image . I refuse any competing secular thought and philosophy ... especially coming from Men called Scientists who are in the process of discovery and who were not there at the beginning ; this includes that our Moon arrived from a massive asteriod breaking off a chunk of Earth / that big bang gasses coalesced into planets and stars naturally / that our laws of physics and life enabling constants just came along for the ride / that first life on earth was a one celled pond protozoa coming from non living material and chemicals / and other psuedo-science favorites . I personally think its shameful for a Person who holds the BIble in high regard , yet force such popular secular ideolgy into Gods inspired revelation to appease our anti-biblical Counterparts.

 

[MZS]

No...I choose to take God at his Word as reported in Genesis and Psalm 33, that he created very consisely in addition to FULLY FORMED / FULLY FUNCTIONING animals, plants, oceans, planets, sun, moon, space with its many laws of physics and Life Enabling Constants working in precise unision...and finally People crafted in his very image .

I agree with this. One may look at the origin of life from a purely secular point of view and still conclude that it was just "too much". The mathematical improbability prohibits chance formation of what is needed for life, and without life itself, there can be no "struggle and survival" that is core to Darwinian evolution. But then when one puts their faith in an all-powerful Creator, one may, as you state, believe in fully formed creation and even fully formed geologic features of the earth. With a fully formed earth, with needed topsoil and other life features, the "geological evidence" vs. "young earth" difference is reconciled. A person doing radiometric dating at the time of creation would conclude the earth was already quite old. If this is the case, which I believe it is, no amount of scientific study by either evolutionist or creation-scientist will ever prove or disprove the creation of a fully formed earth. Some of these things may be shown scientifically, and some must be taken by faith.

 

[Assyrian]

The biggest problem is , it calls into question the very character / nature / and person of God as a perfect , consise , deliberate , loving Creator . Further, it is futile to think God would look back on his Creation filled with bloodshed , death, cancer in animals, animals ripped to pieces from gross disharmony , etc.... yet call it 'Good , very good' . Such things can hardly be considered a good Creation by any standard..least of all by a personal theistic Creators standard.

The problem with this argument is that it is inconsistent with God's revelation of himself in the bible, God who describes himself as providing prey to ravens and young lions. If the death of animals in the natural world was so terrible, so imperfect, how could a righteous and holy God play any part in it?

What are creationists doing still eating meat? At least I haven't come across any who became vegetarians when they realised killing animals and shedding their blood was so intrinsically terrible.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

The problem with this argument is that it is inconsistent with God's revelation of himself in the bible, God who describes himself as providing prey to ravens and young lions. If the death of animals in the natural world was so terrible, so imperfect, how could a righteous and holy God play any part in it?

What are creationists doing still eating meat? At least I haven't come across any who became vegetarians when they realised killing animals and shedding their blood was so intrinsically terrible.

Both of you guys are missing it. Firstly when God said his creation was good, this was before sin entered the world and everything was perfect. God did not play a part in sin entering the world. Sin brought death and bloodshed. not God.

When sin entered the world thorns and thistles began to grow. God did not create thorns to prick people. When sin entered, blood had to be shed for the remission of the sin. So do not blame God for things going wrong after he create the world. By one man's sin, sin entered the world, and death by sin. That is what the bible tells us.

I apologize if I am misunderstand the intend of your post.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Well, I used to believe in a literal Creation, and it was based on my thinking that death didn't occur before the Fall. The problem with the whole "death before the Fall argument" is:

Adam and Eve at fruit before the Fall. And their digestive systems would have destroyed all living organisms within the fruit. So death happened before the Fall... So yeah...

Anywho, let the debates continue until a mod decides to take us down.

 

[Assyrian]

Both of you guys are missing it. Firstly when God said his creation was good, this was before sin entered the world and everything was perfect. God did not play a part in sin entering the world. Sin brought death and bloodshed. not God.

The bible only says that sin brought death to humans, Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. It says nothing about the death and bloodshed of animals being the result of sin. You also need to remember that the bible uses the same word death to refer to physical death or spiritual death. Paul wrote to the Christians in Ephesus, one who were still physically alive when he wrote and said: you were dead in your transgressions and sins Eph 2:1. They were spiritually dead in their sins, not physically. Remember Adam was warned he would die the day he ate the fruit, yet he did not die physically for many years after, he did die spiritually that day.

God's plan from before the foundation of the world was to redeem a people for himself through the death of his son. Death in the natural world was not a flaw an imperfection, it was part of God's perfect plan from the very beginning.

When sin entered the world thorns and thistles began to grow. God did not create thorns to prick people.

The purpose of thorns is for plants to defend themselves against being eaten, which even creationists admit went on before the fall. The bible doesn't say thorns only began to grow after the fall, just that Adam's attempts at farming after he was kicked out of the garden would be better at growing these weeds than crops.

When sin entered, blood had to be shed for the remission of the sin. So do not blame God for things going wrong after he create the world. By one man's sin, sin entered the world, and death by sin. That is what the bible tells us.

I think the natural world is amazing, the bible says that we see God's wisdom and handiwork in the created world.
Psalm 19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalm 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps,
8 fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!
9 Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars!
10 Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds!
Psalm 104:24 O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
That is the bible's attitude to the natural world, not that it is fallen and corrupt but that it is God's handiwork and gives him glory. It is God's creation you see on those wildlife programs or when you walk in the hills, God's wonderful marvellous creation, not the ruined remains after the fall but God's handiwork. It is only affected by man's sin when our greed exploits and destroys them for profit.

I apologize if I am misunderstand the intend of your post.

No you seem to have understood

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

The problem with this argument is that it is inconsistent with God's revelation of himself in the bible, God who describes himself as providing prey to ravens and young lions. If the death of animals in the natural world was so terrible, so imperfect, how could a righteous and holy God play any part in it?

What are creationists doing still eating meat? At least I haven't come across any who became vegetarians when they realised killing animals and shedding their blood was so intrinsically terrible.

The arguement isnt a problem because God provided food for ravens, lions, and (in the new testament) birds ..... AFTER the fall of man . Before that the world was in a non-chaotic state and Gods Word tells us everything was in a perfect harmony state . In the last book of the Bible, we are told that the Lion will once again lay down with the Lamb when God redeems the physical Earth in the future...thereby restoring it back to a pre-Fall condition.

As for what creationists are doing eating meat : We are told in the New Testament and by CHrist himself, that, we are not subject to Dietary Laws any longer / whatever we put into our mouths as food is permissible and its what comes out of our mouths in speech is what we need to watch for / and God has placed Humans in charge of how we handle the animal kingdom since we are in authority over it. The only caveat to this is : We need to be aware that while everything is permissible to eat now, not everything is truly healthy for us to eat (IE: Oysters that carry parasites , over indulging in red meat due to fat that clogs arteries, or drinking alot of eggnog which is essentially fluidic cholestrol , et al )

 

[Quasicentennial]

Immortality not just only involves Jesus and all faith-believing brothers and sisters of Christ - but also the planet Earth itself where a disaster-free peaceful and most oddly enough, virtually no water-affected areas such as oceans, icebergs, rivers or ponds - as revealed in Revelations of the Word of God. Scientists can congratulate themselves when they achieve human immortality through the discovery of the genome - but at the expense of a fossil fuel profit-driven global economy as governments unite to find clever ideas through science and technology to fight global warming, especially when the weather and the environment have joined forces to create destructive forces of mother nature - and no court of justice or military can protect any citizen either innocent or with a criminal history. It make's logical sense to accept Jesus without procrastination, knowing that his Second Coming will bring eternal youth and perfectly measured bodies - so that no one will have to suffer the agony of being too tall/small/fat/thin.
All of the sophisticated mysteries of the atom that shape our lives and the universe will be answered with ease: once Jesus has equipped us with perfect and flawless understanding with new Christ-transformed minds with forget-proof memory intelligence.;*;. as we socialize with Jesus every day inside the kingdom of God - our ultimate green clean community-built city where there is no reliance on unemployment benefits or food charities, virtually free accomomdation and free meals and pure water.;*;.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I agree with this. One may look at the origin of life from a purely secular point of view and still conclude that it was just "too much". The mathematical improbability prohibits chance formation of what is needed for life, and without life itself, there can be no "struggle and survival" that is core to Darwinian evolution. But then when one puts their faith in an all-powerful Creator, one may, as you state, believe in fully formed creation and even fully formed geologic features of the earth. With a fully formed earth, with needed topsoil and other life features, the "geological evidence" vs. "young earth" difference is reconciled. A person doing radiometric dating at the time of creation would conclude the earth was already quite old. If this is the case, which I believe it is, no amount of scientific study by either evolutionist or creation-scientist will ever prove or disprove the creation of a fully formed earth. Some of these things may be shown scientifically, and some must be taken by faith.

Examining Psalm 33:6-9 as follows :
Psalm 33:6-9

New International Version (NIV)

6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea into jars[a];
he puts the deep into storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

We can plainly see that God make the entire heavens suddenly, instaneously, and completely functioning by the very word of his command. There was nothing ...then they immediately came to exist. Same for the rest of the creation events --- animals were made fully formed and functioned immediately / the earth came to be in a fully completed way and began functioning with all the required physics, chemistry, mathematical Laws to govern it and to keep it daily sustained in addition to the (so far discovered) 150+ Life Enabling Constants (anthropics) of the Cosmos all working in precise unision for it all to work flawlessly with some of these Constants being to the 120th decimal point in allowable tolerance otherwise the equation crumbles including our existence.

Only the above comes from an incredible , non wasteful , time of the essence , perfect in all he does including power/design/engineering.....personal theistic Creator. And that pales in comparison by trying to infuse popularized secular scientific THEORIES which run counter to Gods person, nature, and character ... into his infallable Word .

Psalm 33 and Genesis 1 tie in perfectly together and compliment each other precisely. The same cannot be said introducing stellar and macro evolution THEORIES by trying to give them a home in Gods Word. Further, real modern Science has disproven the outdated Theory of Darwinnian Evolution on several levels, including what Darwin himself said would render his Theory nullified if certain things could be shown (IE: irreducible complexity of organs such as the human eye) .

Its high-time Christians stop allowing themselves to be persuaded by strongly popularized psuedo science ... and as one Evolutionist himself stated : 'Macro Evolution is based purely on faith alone' while another says : 'One day the theory of Darwinnian Evolution will go down as the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind' . True Christians dont deviate from the revealed instantaneous creation events of Genesis which God made quite plain for all to understand how he specifically fashioned the Universe.

 

[Assyrian]

The arguement isnt a problem because God provided food for ravens, lions, and (in the new testament) birds ..... AFTER the fall of man .

Actually the descriptions of God feeding lion cubs and ravens come in the creation accounts in Job 38 and Psalm 104, but that isn't the problem I was referring to. If God is holy and perfect and the death of animals is as ugly and terrible as creationists claim, then God would have no part in predation. He might allow lions to kill and eat a zebra but he would not feed them the prey himself.

Before that the world was in a non-chaotic state and Gods Word tells us everything was in a perfect harmony state . In the last book of the Bible, we are told that the Lion will once again lay down with the Lamb when God redeems the physical Earth in the future...thereby restoring it back to a pre-Fall condition.

That is in Isaiah rather than Revelation, though it is as you say a prophecy about the future. The thing is it doesn't say the Lion will once again lay down with the Lamb, it says Isaiah 11:6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. It is a prophecy about the future not a description of the past or a promise to restore the earth to a pre-fall Eden.

Another problem with this popular creationist interpretation is that this description comes in the middle of a highly figurative prophecy where the Messiah grows from a tree stump, has a rod in his mouth and is wearing righteousness and and faithfulness around his waist.

As for what creationists are doing eating meat : We are told in the New Testament and by CHrist himself, that, we are not subject to Dietary Laws any longer / whatever we put into our mouths as food is permissible and its what comes out of our mouths in speech is what we need to watch for / and God has placed Humans in charge of how we handle the animal kingdom since we are in authority over it. The only caveat to this is : We need to be aware that while everything is permissible to eat now, not everything is truly healthy for us to eat (IE: Oysters that carry parasites , over indulging in red meat due to fat that clogs arteries, or drinking alot of eggnog which is essentially fluidic cholestrol , et al )

I could understand a change in dietary laws if the prohibition was only symbolic like wearing mixed fibre clothes or bread made with yeast on the Passover, not if there was something intrinsically wrong with killing and eating animals. You might argue it was something God allowed like when Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of people's hearts. Maybe you are allowed meat because of inadequate diet or even the hardness of your hearts (or arteries ) But that means that while you are allowed to eat meat, it is still intrinsically wrong, like divorce is, and should be avoided by anyone who seeks to walk in holiness. Here is an opportunity for creationists to live out something of the world to come where lambs go with lions, not mint sauce. But it never seems to cross their minds. There is a disconnect between their teaching of how terrible animal death and predation is and contentedly living as predators themselves.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Actually the descriptions of God feeding lion cubs and ravens come in the creation accounts in Job 38 and Psalm 104, but that isn't the problem I was referring to. If God is holy and perfect and the death of animals is as ugly and terrible as creationists claim, then God would have no part in predation. He might allow lions to kill and eat a zebra but he would not feed them the prey himself.........

The bottom line is this : God made a PERFECT creation initially ...and it was perfect in every way considering the perfect nature and character of God. We are told that God will one day redeem the Earth as his final act of redemption with Man already having the opportunity of redemption provided. Im not convinced that God designed animals to be ripped to pieces by other animals in his initial design ; it could very well be that he provided for their sustenance by other food channels. IN conclusion though, we can have confidence that God made a perfect world in every way .. and it came about suddenly and completely once he had the distinct desire for it to occur ; and none of this billions and billions of years rhetoric for gradual/eventual creation regardless of what the science of our day teaches. At one time, science had the earth being carried on the backs of giant Animals as it made it way around the Solar System., there were only 1100 stars, the earth was flat , all stars were the same, air was weightless, wind blew straight, sick people must be bled, and the ocean floors were flat -- so much for secular science from Men who know precious little for fact. Trust in the Bible for creation and youll be a Winner every time., and read the account of Genesis creation just like you would a newspaper because God wanted it understood in very simple terms without confusion.