Both Evolution and Christianity?

[anglozaxon]

Richard Dawkins once said that creation screams intelligent design, but it was just an illusion. Personally I believe that he and other evolutionists create their own illusion, I know where I place my faith.

 

[wmpratt]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I think everyone’s over thinking it. Any self respecting biologist will tell you that evolution is not about the origin of life but it's about the development of new species. That said, I never believed evolution as currently defined do to evolution itself. My religion isn't a factor. However, I am not a creationist as currently defined either. [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']What’s more, I don't see religion and evolution as opposites. I don’t even believe they're talking about the same thing.[/FONT]

 

[MZS]

For a very good perspective on all this, I would recommend watching "The Truth Project" - ask around and you should be able to find a church or small group that is showing it. My wife and I are currently watching this 12-part series in a small group. A brief version of this meant for college students is "Does God Exist: Building a Scientific Case" - this is also affordable for home purchase and use. A really good (affordable) 3-DVD set is "The Intelligent Design Collection" which contains "Darwin's Dilemma", "The Privileged Planet", and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life".

 

[Eloy]

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!

Stick with God's Book, the proven truth, rather than man's books, the proven lies. Amen? Amen.

 

[stormdancer0]

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?

I don't see any baggage. Unless specifically directed otherwise, I believe the Bible is 100% literally true. If it says "God said so and so" then yes, God said it. Literally said it. There is ample proof that there was a genuine worldwide flood. Ample proof of the parting of the Red Sea.

One of the reasons I home school. I teach my kids that a lot of people believe it took millions of years for all this to form. Then I teach them the truth.

All the testing, the dating - the theories behind the C-14 dating and all - it's all so flawed and assumes so much that it's nearly useless.

Rocks formed by the Mt. St. Helen eruption carbon dated to hundreds thousands of years old. Pieces of a living snail's shell dated to 12,000 years old. It's ridiculous.

 

[Knee V]

If it says "God said so and so" then yes, God said it. Literally said it.

So God, prior to the Incarnation of the Word, has lungs and breaths air?

 

[seekingsister]

The Bible is not a science book. It does not attempt to answer scientific questions, it is telling us the Truth about God and his Creation. There are obviously elements of evolution that are true - for example any Christian accepts that taking antiobiotics improperly can lead bacteria to evolve and develop resistance to our medicines.

We discussed this at church once and the pastor made a great point - 200 years ago no one knew what evolution was and 200 years from now there will be another theory and scientists will think evolution is nonsense. As Christians we need to always acknowledge that God created the world and us in His image - the details of His mechanisms do not need to be known to us and if science reveals some of them it does not mean God is not the author.

Remember Christians used to believe Earth was the center of the solar system because God created Earth and labeled anyone who thought otherwise as heretics - yet this was proved to be incorrect.

 

[seekingsister]

I don't see any baggage. Unless specifically directed otherwise, I believe the Bible is 100% literally true. If it says "God said so and so" then yes, God said it. Literally said it. There is ample proof that there was a genuine worldwide flood. Ample proof of the parting of the Red Sea.

One of the reasons I home school. I teach my kids that a lot of people believe it took millions of years for all this to form. Then I teach them the truth.

All the testing, the dating - the theories behind the C-14 dating and all - it's all so flawed and assumes so much that it's nearly useless.

Rocks formed by the Mt. St. Helen eruption carbon dated to hundreds thousands of years old. Pieces of a living snail's shell dated to 12,000 years old. It's ridiculous.

This may be great for your family's faith but your children will struggle to pursue higher education or careers in science and engineering if you don't want to teach them the theories.

Jesus called us not to be greedy but I see Christians studying free market economics and capitalism without any concerns for their faith. Why is science different?

 

[wmpratt]

This may be great for your family's faith but your children will struggle to pursue higher education or careers in science and engineering if you don't want to teach them the theories.

Jesus called us not to be greedy but I see Christians studying free market economics and capitalism without any concerns for their faith. Why is science different?

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']The "war" started quite some time ago. It goes both ways. I tell someone I oppose evolutionary theory and instantly I'm assumed to be a creationist. [/FONT]

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Your response just seems to repeat young earth doctrine that creation was initially perfect, rather than answering my point or backing up your claims from scripture. Incidentally, the world being carried on elephants is Hindu mythology (or Terry Pratchett) rather than the result of scientific research.

 

[Assyrian]

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...

Psalm 33 doesn't actually say anything about how quickly God's word is fulfilled, you are read the instantaneous into it. It tells us of the certainty and reliability of God's command being fulfilled, but nothing of the timetable or speed. It is other passages in scripture that tell us about that and they warn us we need to wait. Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose. Hab 2:3 For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end--it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay.

The question we need to ask is why the Psalmist brought this up.
Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. What were his concerns that sent him looking to this aspect of God's works? Look at the next two verses:
Psalm 33:10 The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.
He is talking about the nations plotting together to destroy Israel, but he proclaims that the Lord will bring their plans to nothing. The Psalmist is not looking to an instant answer, but a sure and certain one as God works out, the plans of his heart to all generations. This is talking about God fulfilling his plans and counsel over long periods of time.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Your response just seems to repeat young earth doctrine that creation was initially perfect, rather than answering my point or backing up your claims from scripture. Incidentally, the world being carried on elephants is Hindu mythology (or Terry Pratchett) rather than the result of scientific research.

So when God looked back at the end of creation week and said that everything was very good, that means it was not perfect?

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Richard Dawkins once said that creation screams intelligent design, but it was just an illusion. ....

In other words , he acknowledges the obvious truth about creation ... but he doesnt wish it to be true.
Put another way : 'It smells like a Duck, looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck...so its not a Duck' .

 

[Assyrian]

So when God looked back at the end of creation week and said that everything was very good, that means it was not perfect?

Perfect and very good are different aren't they? In fact as you read through Genesis 1 God goes from saying 'good' through most of the chapter, to 'very good' at the end, which means he was distinguishing between the 'good' and the 'very good', clearly the 'good' must have been less than 'very good'. Which tells us God didn't have a problem with creating things that were simply 'good' rather than 'very good' so he shouldn't have had a problem creating that which was 'very good' but not the fullness of 'perfect'. There is perfect but it is still to come 1Cor 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. God's original creation was very good, but not the perfect he has planned from before the foundation of the world. If God had wanted to say 'perfect' at the end of Genesis 1 he could have, but he didn't.

 

[anglozaxon]

In other words , he acknowledges the obvious truth about creation ... but he doesnt wish it to be true.
Put another way : 'It smells like a Duck, looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck...so its not a Duck' .

ROFL!!!!

 

[Soothfish]

It's a waste of time to even argue this, except maybe as an exercise.

The fact of the matter is that we can't definitively prove the origin of species without a time machine. Considerable fossil data has been destroyed by geological forces. Therefore, we are flat out of luck. Many scientists love to brag about how much evidence we found but I suspect that they are just overly elated

The current theory of evolution is based on what we call the "phylogenetic" tree and radiometric dating. Current analysis is consistent with the material that we currently possess. Beyond that there is nothing.

If we look just at the phylogenetic tree, then there is nothing stopping someone from saying that God could have created all life in 6 literally 24 hour days and simply made them very similar in a number of ways. Radiometric dating is a completely different can of worms. I have no idea how to connect a literal reading of Genesis with the current laws of physics and chemistry. If you try to answer that question without new and ingenious mathematics then you are already failing miserably. Yes the problem really does go there.

Have a fun time debating it everyone!

 

[krugerpark]

The Bible is not a science book. It does not attempt to answer scientific questions, it is telling us the Truth about God and his Creation. There are obviously elements of evolution that are true - for example any Christian accepts that taking antiobiotics improperly can lead bacteria to evolve and develop resistance to our medicines.

We discussed this at church once and the pastor made a great point - 200 years ago no one knew what evolution was and 200 years from now there will be another theory and scientists will think evolution is nonsense. As Christians we need to always acknowledge that God created the world and us in His image - the details of His mechanisms do not need to be known to us and if science reveals some of them it does not mean God is not the author.

Remember Christians used to believe Earth was the center of the solar system because God created Earth and labeled anyone who thought otherwise as heretics - yet this was proved to be incorrect.

This post is full of lies. How has anything outside the word been proved to be correct? are we mixing into our beliefs what the secular scientists say?

 

[stormdancer0]

This may be great for your family's faith but your children will struggle to pursue higher education or careers in science and engineering if you don't want to teach them the theories.

Jesus called us not to be greedy but I see Christians studying free market economics and capitalism without any concerns for their faith. Why is science different?

What makes you think we aren't studying science? One of my twins is an avid scientist, and it's his favorite subject.

There are multitudes of science that has nothing to do with evolution, for one thing. For another, there is ample evidence that evolution is inaccurate, if not downright false. Lastly, I specifically said we learn what evolution is. We just do not acknowledge it as truth.

 

[stormdancer0]

So God, prior to the Incarnation of the Word, has lungs and breaths air?

Interesting question.

The Ruach HaKodesh, or the Spirit of God, is literally the "breath of God."

So yes, God always had breath. Was/is it of air? Spoken with literal lungs? No idea.

God (pre-Incarnation) visited Abraham as a man. He presumably had lungs, because He spoke at length to Abraham regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. So yes, God had lungs and breaths of air before the Incarnation.

 

[Adaephon]

What makes you think we aren't studying science? One of my twins is an avid scientist, and it's his favorite subject.

Because Creationists almost universally have no idea how science actually operates...

There are multitudes of science that has nothing to do with evolution, for one thing. For another, there is ample evidence that evolution is inaccurate, if not downright false.

...And because they evince total ignorance of the state of the field.

Lastly, I specifically said we learn what evolution is. We just do not acknowledge it as truth.

Sadly, I don't see much evidence that creationists do.