Does the theory of evolution really negate God's existence??

[MasterpieceMesias]

at least when it comes to the whole evolution theory?? I've heard from many other people that it is false and that if you believe in it that you are contradicting God's faith. . . . really?? It doesn't really seem this way, maybe I'm mistaken (if I am please correct lool) but it seems to me that the belief in evolution is harmless to one's faith as to how God revealed his creation. Do some folks tend to take Genesis' verses out of context?? Are some things misused to support or debunk evolution??
I personally am undecided when it comes to this thing, so I have no particular creationist or theistic evolutionist leanings, either.

 

[Keachian]

No it doesn't, mostly the negation argument is said by either creationists or by militant antireligious materialists.

One of the problems I have seen in my own understanding as I shifted from YEC to TE was that I held what I now come to see as a deistic view of God in regards to his creation. This is about a year or two ago, the problem I came across and what made me think deistically is what is known as the God of the Gaps. The problem with it is that it does lead to God being squished out of our understanding as our scientific understanding grows and it does lead to deism unfortunately.

 

[MasterpieceMesias]

I see, interesting, it's twelve o'clock where I'm at, tell me more about how you came to Biblical Deism if you will, seriously you've peaked my interest. Elaborate if you don't mind

 

[rcorlew]

Here is my take on the whole debate served in the form of a question to engage a personal introspection.

When you find the chef's kitchen filled with cookbooks and ingredients negate the fact that he "created a masterpiece"?

To me, viewing evolution is no different than watching a cooking show or home renovation show; evolution is merely the snapshots along the road of progress to get us where we are at. Even more than that, materialistic evolutionists are showing up at the construction project every night at 9 pm to view the progress of the work and not seeing who is actually doing the work itself and concluding that the house must be building itself. Theistic evolutionists are showing up at 9 am and view the work in awe because of Who is doing the work and why the work is being done.

 

[Keachian]

I see, interesting, it's twelve o'clock where I'm at, tell me more about how you came to Biblical Deism if you will, seriously you've peaked my interest. Elaborate if you don't mind

Why? It's not a position I support any longer, nor would I encourage anyone to it. Biblical Deism is also a bit of an oxymoron, the Bible describes a Theistic God and the realisation of this is what brought me to where I am now from what was a deistic evolutionary stance with Christ tacked on.

The whole reason I got into what I'd call a deistic worldview looking back was from a YEC position it looked good it made my idea of God more powerful to me, that he would create this stuff and set it moving like a clock. The problem with this as I previously stated was that it was a God of the gaps understanding of God and as I learnt about evolution and the formation of the cosmos I just moved God that bit further out of it, I didn't even think about the idea I know now of as the Omphalos Hypothesis, which states that God created everything with inbuilt age. To me that was never an option it just seemed a flawed idea based on the fact that we could have been created last Thursday, or some other time in the recent past. So yeah now my God was relegated to setting off the Big bang and that's about it and as I learnt more about theology and God's relationship with his Creation I felt that this was an impossible stance to take in regards to Christianity which is very much a theistic religion.

 

[elopez]

Evolution explains the origin of species. The theory does not negate the existence of God as it is not meant to do such, but again, only explain the origin of species. Anyone who espouses such misconceptions are either ignorant of evolution or are simply spreading lies, or both.

 

[MasterpieceMesias]

Why? It's not a position I support any longer, nor would I encourage anyone to it. Biblical Deism is also a bit of an oxymoron, the Bible describes a Theistic God and the realisation of this is what brought me to where I am now from what was a deistic evolutionary stance with Christ tacked on.

The whole reason I got into what I'd call a deistic worldview looking back was from a YEC position it looked good it made my idea of God more powerful to me, that he would create this stuff and set it moving like a clock. The problem with this as I previously stated was that it was a God of the gaps understanding of God and as I learnt about evolution and the formation of the cosmos I just moved God that bit further out of it, I didn't even think about the idea I know now of as the Omphalos Hypothesis, which states that God created everything with inbuilt age. To me that was never an option it just seemed a flawed idea based on the fact that we could have been created last Thursday, or some other time in the recent past. So yeah now my God was relegated to setting off the Big bang and that's about it and as I learnt more about theology and God's relationship with his Creation I felt that this was an impossible stance to take in regards to Christianity which is very much a theistic religion.

oh. . . ok, then

 

[PROPHECYKID]

at least when it comes to the whole evolution theory?? I've heard from many other people that it is false and that if you believe in it that you are contradicting God's faith. . . . really?? It doesn't really seem this way, maybe I'm mistaken (if I am please correct lool) but it seems to me that the belief in evolution is harmless to one's faith as to how God revealed his creation. Do some folks tend to take Genesis' verses out of context?? Are some things misused to support or debunk evolution??
I personally am undecided when it comes to this thing, so I have no particular creationist or theistic evolutionist leanings, either.

Understand evolution based on what is seen and proven is fine because God reveals himself through nature to us. Trying to stretch it to undermine the wonders of God's creation as recorded in the bible is the problem. God spoke and it came into being. This is the origin of the species because science would prove that it would be impossible any other way. Everything beginning from the big bang theory, to an bacterium suddenly getting the ability to breakup water into oxygen and hydrogen to be released into the atmosphere to the impossibility to have enough precise random mutations to be able to form just one amino acid, gives evidence that the creation of the world is something that was supernatural and intentional. I did an entire presentation at my church outlining the problems with the evolutionary theory of human evolution and Old Earth. God has put certain things in place for us to discover and realize his awesomeness and not for us to use these discoveries and come up with alternative theories to what the bible states.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Science by it's very nature does not deal with the supernatural in any form. As others have said. The whole evolution is an evil communist/atheist/secular/take your pick conspiracy to remove God from the universe is sociopolitical fear mongering.

 

[Schroeder]

Evolution explains the origin of species. The theory does not negate the existence of God as it is not meant to do such, but again, only explain the origin of species. Anyone who espouses such misconceptions are either ignorant of evolution or are simply spreading lies, or both.

yea right tell that to atheists. one reason for not believing in God is the thoery if evolution. And it would be a very good one not to believe in God if it were true but its not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

yea right tell that to atheists. one reason for not believing in God is the thoery if evolution. And it would be a very good one not to believe in God if it were true but its not.

I've never met someone who became an atheist because they accepted evolution.

On the other hand I've known a lot of people who have become atheists because they were told they had to be young earth creationists and that evolution was satanic and atheistic and, therefore, abandoned Christianity.

That certainly proves nothing in and of itself, though even enough anecdotal testimony, if consistent enough, starts to seem rather telling.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[begt]

yea right tell that to atheists. one reason for not believing in God is the thoery if evolution. And it would be a very good one not to believe in God if it were true but its not.

Almost all biologists would disagree with you.

Evolution is as proven as anything in science. Look it up yourself, do not trust creationist propaganda.

 

[jpcedotal]

Dr Vernon McGee:

I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it is the answer to the origin of this universe.

There are three essential areas into which evolution cannot move and which evolution cannot solve. It cannot bridge the gap from nothing to something. It cannot bridge the gap from something to life. It cannot bridge the gap between life and humanity—that is, self-conscious human life with a free will.

 

[jpcedotal]

Evolution is not proven science; it is simply a religion and should be taught in a "church" setting...not in public schools.

 

[begt]

Dr Vernon McGee:

I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it is the answer to the origin of this universe.

There are three essential areas into which evolution cannot move and which evolution cannot solve. It cannot bridge the gap from nothing to something. It cannot bridge the gap from something to life. It cannot bridge the gap between life and humanity—that is, self-conscious human life with a free will.

I'm afraid you do not have a solid understanding of evolution.

Evolution does not explain how life originated, but how it has diversified.
Abiogensis explains how non-living matter can become living, only then does evolution "take over".

Evolution can explain conciousness and it can explain moral behavior, so your point is?

 

[begt]

Evolution is not proven science; it is simply a religion and should be taught in a "church" setting...not in public schools.

Its just as proven as anything in science. There is no debate about the overall certainty of evolution among scientists. The principle of evolution is used in vaccines, aerodynamics etc.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Dr Vernon McGee:

I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it is the answer to the origin of this universe.

Of course, none of that is true. Nothing about evolution rejects God, divine revelation, the fall, the reality of sin or the virgin birth.

There are three essential areas into which evolution cannot move and which evolution cannot solve. It cannot bridge the gap from nothing to something. It cannot bridge the gap from something to life. It cannot bridge the gap between life and humanity—that is, self-conscious human life with a free will.

Evolution doesn't try to solve the "gap from nothing to something", thus that's a moot point.

Evolution doesn't try to solve the "gap from something to life", thus that's a moot point.

Evolution doesn't try to solve the gap that distinguishes man as a spiritual creature made in the image and likeness of God, and again is thus a moot point.

What evolution does solve is explaining the biodiversity of our planet. Evolution happens, organisms adapt and evolve and have been for hundreds of millions of years.

Dr. McGee should have at the very least read an elementary level book on the topic or even just asked someone who had.

It's this level of misinformation and ignorance that St. Augustine addresses in De Genesi ad Litteram.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jpcedotal]

Its just as proven as anything in science. There is no debate about the overall certainty of evolution among scientists. The principle of evolution is used in vaccines, aerodynamics etc.

I respectfully disagree. It is at this point the most disagreement arises. It is at this point that there will always be disagreement and one side will never win out. It is at this point that science stops and religion starts.

 

[jpcedotal]

Of course, none of that is true. Nothing about evolution rejects God, divine revelation, the fall, the reality of sin or the virgin birth.

Evolution doesn't try to solve the "gap from nothing to something", thus that's a moot point.

Evolution doesn't try to solve the "gap from something to life", thus that's a moot point.

Evolution doesn't try to solve the gap that distinguishes man as a spiritual creature made in the image and likeness of God, and again is thus a moot point.

What evolution does solve is explaining the biodiversity of our planet. Evolution happens, organisms adapt and evolve and have been for hundreds of millions of years.

Dr. McGee should have at the very least read an elementary level book on the topic or even just asked someone who had.

It's this level of misinformation and ignorance that St. Augustine addresses in De Genesi ad Litteram.

-CryptoLutheran

Can evolution exists with a divine architect that is sovereign from the evolutionary processes, who does not adapt, who does not change?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can evolution exists with a divine architect that is sovereign from the evolutionary processes, who does not adapt, who does not change?

Yes.

How would the adaptability and changing nature of created things impair or negate the unchanging nature of the Almighty?

-CryptoLutheran