1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolutionary debate

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Idonotagree, Feb 17, 2010.

Evolution

  1. Belive in evolution

  2. Don't belive in evolution

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    No one "believes" in evolution. We don't "believe" scientific theories. We accept or reject them based upon the data. When the data changes, then we change the status of the theory. Since science works by falsification, this means that a theory goes from being accepted to being rejected.

    This is what happened to young earth in the period 1800-1831 and special creation in the period 1830-1880. Both once were accepted scientific theories that were shown to be false.

    Christians don't have a problem with evolution. Biblical literalists/Fundamentalists do.

    In every court case trying to keep creationism out of public schools, the people bringing the lawsuit have always been Christians. For instance, in the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas case, there were 26 plaintiffs. 23 were ministers or rabbis. The lead plaintiff was Rev. MacLean of the Presbyterian Church USA. The other 3 plaintiffs were teachers/educators and they were all Christian.
     
  2. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    Creation is not the antithesis of evolution. Instead, evolution is how God created.

    The "antithesis" of creation is creationism.

    Jesus was fully human. That means that he was limited to the knowledge humans had at the time.

    But there is one famous quote where Jesus made a mistake. He said that "this generation would not pass away" until all the events he talked about for the end of the world had happened. Those events did not happen.

    The 2 times Jesus mentions Genesis 1-8, he is not affirming them as historical events. Instead, he is using them for theological messages. The theology works under evolution.

    When was that? The only time I can think of was when he said he did not know the hour and day that the when God would end the world. But he did pin it down to his generation.

    Can you give us more examples?
     
  3. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    The reason you pets did not "evolve" is because evolution happens to populations, not individuals! Think about it. We die with the same alleles (forms of genes) that we are born with.

    The genetic composition of populations change over generations. That is, after many generations some alleles will be lost and new ones gained.

    And yes, this has been observed in real time in organisms that have short generation times. Drosophila has been a good experimental animal because their generation is only 1 week. So new species of Drosophila have been observed over 50 to 2500 generations.

    Some parts of the fossil record are fine enough that we can trace transitional individuals from generation to generation to the formation of new species to new species to new species so that we observe the formation of new genera, families, orders, and even classes. I used to have post of some of these sequences. Let's see if it still works:
    http://www.christianforums.com/t43227
     
  4. LittleNipper

    LittleNipper Contributor

    Messages:
    9,105
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    One would have to look at these individuals and their reasoning for bringing their lawsuits. My guess is that they are not at all spiritually motivated but materialistic in nature.
     
  5. Hespera

    Hespera Junior Member

    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Buddhist

    is it being materialistic (and somehow bad or wrong) to do your duty to your kids and community in trying to assure that they have the best education, free of sci-fi religious nonsense posing as science? Christians have the same duty as everyone else in this regard. Its a very competitive world out there.

    Its absolute dereliction of duty of the most egregious sort to allow "creationism' of any sort to be taught as if it has a legitimate place in anything but religious studies.
     
  6. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    What "materialistic"? What do the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, and African-Methodists bishops for Akansas gain materially from preventing creationism from being taught in public schools? More money?

    There is spiritual motivation. Creationism is bad science. But it is even worse theology. It is heresy. Shoot, Francis Bacon saw that back in 1608!

    Let me show you one spiritual reason those ministers brought the lawsuit, the prevention of the destruction of Christianity:

    "In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
    It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
    The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.
     
  7. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    That could be one motivation. However, there is another spiritual motivation of not committing false witness to our children. But there are huge theological reasons, too.

    What most people do not realize is that, however bad creationism is as science, it is soooo much worse as theology.

    As another example, creationism accepts, as true, the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. Besides giving credence to atheism, this violates one of the basic beliefs about God, that He sustains the universe.
     
  8. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting Member

    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Anabaptist
    They are both error-free accounts and both written for your benefit.
    Once you accept there is no error, then you can learn what
    God is telling you. Without that premise, one is doomed
    to endless logical circles and doubts.
     
  9. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting Member

    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Anabaptist
    Evolution is the observation of how populations change over time.
    It is not connected with the creation of said populations
    nor is it a force capable of creating life from scratch.

    God's written explanation covers the creation process much more credibly.
     
  10. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting Member

    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Anabaptist
    Your right.
    Most people do not realize that God's word,
    as written and read for the last 2000 years,
    has been the basis for bad theology.

    I think you're the first. It's about time you showed up.
     
  11. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting Member

    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Anabaptist
    This world has another god.
    This is the "natural" world we live in.
    It's not God's kingdom.
    Ever notice pain or anxiety? Or death?
    That's not God's kingdom.
     
  12. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    Wow. Talk about bad theology!

    1. Yes, death was in the world to begin with. Check Genesis 1:25-27. God gives humans plants to eat. Why do we have to eat? To keep from starving to death. The death in Genesis 2:18 is spiritual death, not physical death. If it was physical death Adam would not have lived over 900 years after eating the fruit.

    2. You are going to base this on 2 Corinth 4:4? Paul isn't talking about another supernatural being, but about the inability of people to listen to the gospel. If you really think "This world has another god." then you have given up monotheism.

    3. Standard Christian belief is that God sustains the universe. This means that none of the "natural" processes happen unless God wills it. God just wills it every time.
    "A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726,

    Look up "secondary causes". So gravity depends just as much upon the will of God as the miracle of the loaves and fishes.
     
  13. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    They can't be literally error-free because they contradict on major points. If you read them literally, one of them must be wrong.

    You can only learn what God is telling you when you stop trying to read them as literal history and how God created and instead read them as the theology they are. Genesis 1 is directed at showing that the Babylonian gods do not exist. Genesis 2-3 has multiple messages: a swipe at the Egyptian religion, allegorical explanation why each of us is cut off from God, and some touching, but naive explanations why farming is difficult, childbirth painful, why women will want sex even after the pain of childbirth, and the enmity between humans and snakes.
     
  14. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    Yes, it is. Part of evolution is diversification, which leads to entirely new populations: the creation of new species.

    It never claimed to be. All scientific theories have limitations and all assume the existence of certain things. Relativity assumes the existence of matter and spacetime. Evolution assumes the existence of life. Once you have that life, evolution explains the origin of all the diverse species on the planet.

    Abiogenesis deals with how life arises from non-life. God created life by chemical reactions, not poofing it into existence.

    A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 contradicts what God left for us in His Creation. As I already mentioned, a literal reading of Genesis 1 contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 2. That tells you that neither is an explanation of how God created.
     
  15. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    And here you continue the tradition of bad theology from scripture with your misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 4:4 and your insistence that Genesis 1-3 are "error free". How ironic.
     
  16. LittleNipper

    LittleNipper Contributor

    Messages:
    9,105
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    A "christian" is not doing his/her "christian" duty when he/she places materialism above a focus on GOD as being at the center of everything. It is a horrifically warped sense of community where "christians" encourage secular rationalizations to be expressed religiously and funded without any consideration of a Biblical model. An excuse that science isn't about the "supernatural" is not a sufficient excuse for any "christian," were he/she accepts that GOD is a reality. The "christian" knows that science is but a tool, and opinions (no matter how expert sounding) are opinions were experimentation cannot achieve the very same results again and again...
     
  17. Supreme

    Supreme Moderator Staff Member Moderator Staff on LOA

    Messages:
    11,678
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Protestant
    A combination of biological study and playing Pokemon has led me to believe evolution exists. And it makes sense really. Life starts off simple, and develops. It's like everything in the world.
     
    Wiccan_Child likes this.
  18. sandwiches

    sandwiches Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

    Messages:
    6,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    All that and you still didn't explain how those people he mentioned were being materialistic.
     
  19. Hespera

    Hespera Junior Member

    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Buddhist


    Rejecting the teaching of el crappo pseudoscience is not placing materialism over god. If anything it is showing respect by carefully and thoughtfully studying the reality around us.

    Teaching modern science is what successful countries are doing. Teaching just the old book is what the Talibans want. You decide which is the more responsible action.

    I am unaware of any 'secular rationalisms" being 'expressed religiously".

    Please give an example. i sure was not talking about that. I dont think it exists.


    I dont know where you are going with this..."opinions (no matter how expert sounding) are opinions were experimentation cannot achieve the very same results again and again.."

    Science is based on observations and testing of those observations.

    Obviously experimental results that cannot be duplicated are of no value in science; one of the reasons we reject claims of the miraculous.
    Such claims can never be repeated under controlled conditions, nor shown to ever have happened in the first place, and are of no value except, that is, if one values opinions for its own sake.

    Finally, if a 'biblical model" based on someone's fallible interpretation of the bible is found to be at variance with what can be empirically demonstrated, then it is not appropriate for the public schools to endorse one particular take on the bible and say that is correct, and the data is wrong.
     
  20. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    Messages:
    14,588
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Methodist
    1. It sounds like you mistake evolution for atheism. Evolution is not atheism. It's how God created.

    2. That "consideration of a Biblical model" seems that you place more emphasis on the Bible than God. God has two books, remember.

    1. You have a mistaken notion of science. One fostered by creationists. It's a misrepresentation of Bacon (who concluded creationism is a heresy). All science requires is intersubjective evidence. That is, evidence that can be studied by everyone. BTW, notice that creationists don't follow the model you stated, because they say they can "scientifically" study a one-time event: the Noachian Flood. No experimentation there.

    2. Your knowledge of language is a tool to read scripture. Science is a tool to read God's other book. See the first quote in my signature for the Christian relationship of our reading of scripture to science.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2010