Teaching Evolution in the Church?

[Impaler]

What do creationists think of teaching evolution in their local church? I mean apparently we have to show both sides of the issue so it's only fair, right?

 

[coyoteBR]

on second thought, nevermind

 

[theFijian]

Churches should stick to teaching doctrin not 'science'.

 

[Raydon]

I don't think they should teach it, even if the church has awoken from the dark ages and fully accepts it. It's just not part of church doctrine. Science is science, religion is religion.

On the other hand, I think they should leave creationism off the menu.

 

[Nitron]

I completely agree with the first poster. Churches must teach evolution, geology, relativity, Newton's laws of motion, quantum physics, quantum optics, atomic theory, particle theory, astronomy, astrophysics, and pastafarianism.

 

[Upisoft]

I completely agree with the first poster. Churches must teach evolution, geology, relativity, Newton's laws of motion, quantum physics, quantum optics, atomic theory, particle theory, astronomy, astrophysics, and pastafarianism.

and swahili.

 

[Dal M.]

On a more serious note, it's interesting to speculate about what'd happen to creationists' "teach both sides" rhetoric if they did manage to force their beliefs into science classes. I imagine their desire for "fairness" would vanish faster than a bag of Fritos at a Phish concert.

 

[DrkSdBls]

As long as it's in the context of "This is what we Know and This is what we believe."

Otherwise, what do you mean by "Teaching Evolution"?

 

[stumpjumper]

My Church had a Bible study on origins.

It did not cover Evolution or YEC but simply focused on what the Bible actually says in regards to linguistics.

Most young earth creationsists would not be happy to know what the Bible actually says in this regards...

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

Personally I believe that evolution is not a science. I think evolution is a faith. Considering the lack of scientific evidence to prove that evolution is true, I have come to believe that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God, if not more. People say time and time again that there is proof we evolved from little groups of cells. I say, "What proof?" All the "proof" that we've been shown is either too bizarre to actually be able to accept and hold up under scrutiny (ex. the theory that a life form, say a dog, could give birth to a different life form, say a cat) or....the "proof" turns out to be bogus. (ex. so-called "transitional forms" in human evolution that are really just random bones scientists put together to give off the appearance of an "ape-man". that has not only happened once, but many times!) The only place you can find the entire geological column intact is in a book in the library. It doesn't exist! If you can't see it and you can't hear it and you can't touch it, then it takes faith to believe in it.

Therefore, evolution should not be taught as a science. It is not. It is a faith. It is a modern religion put out there to look like science so that millions will be deceived into believing there is no God.

That said, it should not be taught as fact in churches because the person teaching it would actually be teaching another religion. However, I do think that it should be taught in churches as something to be wary of. Pastors/reverends/priests etc. have a responsibility to their congregation to warn them of any concepts/religions that might lead them astray. Evolution definitely falls under that category. Just my opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone and feel free to disagree with me, but that's what I think.

 

[Upisoft]

Personally I believe that evolution is not a science. I think evolution is a faith.

Yes, of course. It is very secret faith. Let dinosours, that died for you to live, bless you.

Considering the lack of scientific evidence to prove that evolution is true,

Well, science is doing well witout having to consider your lack of knowledge about the evidence and the science.

I have come to believe that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God, if not more.

It's easier to believe in God. To believe in Evolution one must study it first.

People say time and time again that there is proof we evolved from little groups of cells.

Who said that? There is no proof. There is theory. Scientific theory to be precise.

I say, "What proof?" All the "proof" that we've been shown is either too bizarre to actually be able to accept and hold up under scrutiny (ex. the theory that a life form, say a dog, could give birth to a different life form, say a cat) or

That is definately too bizzare. The theory of Evolution does not say such things. Well, some Creationists lie people like you on their seminars.

....the "proof" turns out to be bogus. (ex. so-called "transitional forms" in human evolution that are really just random bones scientists put together to give off the appearance of an "ape-man". that has not only happened once, but many times!)

How many times?

If you can't see it and you can't hear it and you can't touch it, then it takes faith to believe in it.

So, that means you have faith in atoms, electrons and all other subatomic particles. Where is the chirch of neutrinos?

Therefore, evolution should not be taught as a science.

Nether quantum mechanics nor mathematics.

It is not. It is a faith. It is a modern religion put out there to look like science so that millions will be deceived into believing there is no God.

Strange idea. I didn't know that God is mentioned anywhere in any science book, especially as denial of existance. Can you give me a reference for that claim?

However, I do think that it should be taught in churches as something to be wary of. Pastors/reverends/priests etc. have a responsibility to their congregation to warn them of any concepts/religions that might lead them astray. Evolution definitely falls under that category.

Quantum mechanics and mathematics too.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

I have studied evolution, and having studied it, I don't know how people can actually believe it. I may not have a degree on the subject but I know the difference between truth and fantasy. And evolution is nothing but lies. But obviously my views aren't acceptable here so I will refrain from writing in this thread or any others on evolution. I don't mind people disagreeing. But I do mind it when people are rude.

 

[Upisoft]

I have studied evolution, and having studied it, I don't know how people can actually believe it. I may not have a degree on the subject but I know the difference between truth and fantasy. And evolution is nothing but lies. But obviously my views aren't acceptable here so I will refrain from writing in this thread or any others on evolution. I don't mind people disagreeing. But I do mind it when people are rude.

What was more rude? Showing your lies about evolution or showing that you actually don't know what you're talking about?

 

[Ryal Kane]

I have studied evolution, and having studied it, I don't know how people can actually believe it. I may not have a degree on the subject but I know the difference between truth and fantasy. And evolution is nothing but lies. But obviously my views aren't acceptable here so I will refrain from writing in this thread or any others on evolution. I don't mind people disagreeing. But I do mind it when people are rude.

It can be rough for newcomers to this board,especially since many of us are probably quite jaded by drive by posters and rhetoric. If oyu give people the benefit of the doubt, then it should be reciprocated. (That's not just addressed to you Gam3rG1rl4Chr1s)

You say that you've studied evolution so could you give a brief description of the theory of evolution as you understand it.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to give my personal opinion. I didn't expect to be attacked and insulted on a Christian website, especially by a senior member. If I offended anyone I apologize. But I will not continue this discussion because it's obvious that whatever I say from here on out will be misconstrued and picked apart in a sarcastic way. I wasn't looking to make enemies. I thought the Creationist 7-day view would be something that most of us Christians would have agreed on. I could give you many examples of why the current theory of evolution is wrong, but because that would only lead to more argumentative posts, I don't think it's in any of our best interests for me to do so.

If this is how people are going to respond to controversial subjects and opinions, I think I'll just stay out of any controversial threads.

Please forgive me if I made any of you mad, but I think I'm going to leave this conversation alone. As I said, I didn't come here to make enemies. Peace!

 

[Morcova]

I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to give my personal opinion. I didn't expect to be attacked and insulted on a Christian website, especially by a senior member. If I offended anyone I apologize. But I will not continue this discussion because it's obvious that whatever I say from here on out will be misconstrued and picked apart in a sarcastic way. I wasn't looking to make enemies. I thought the Creationist 7-day view would be something that most of us Christians would have agreed on. I could give you many examples of why the current theory of evolution is wrong, but because that would only lead to more argumentative posts, I don't think it's in any of our best interests for me to do so.

If this is how people are going to respond to controversial subjects and opinions, I think I'll just stay out of any controversial threads.

Please forgive me if I made any of you mad, but I think I'm going to leave this conversation alone. As I said, I didn't come here to make enemies. Peace!

Honey which thread are you reading?

You were not attacked and nobody was rude to you.

The fellow explained why he disagreed with you.

This is a debate forum and disagreement is apart of debate.

Sheesh.

 

[Impaler]

Geez, so many people taking me seriously.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

What do creationists think of teaching evolution in their local church? I mean apparently we have to show both sides of the issue so it's only fair, right?

nah we got to keep it related so perhaps teach other religions in the church.

 

[Dal M.]

...feel free to disagree with me, but that's what I think.

[disagrees with you]

I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to give my personal opinion. I didn't expect to be attacked and insulted on a Christian website...

Huh. So much for that, then.

Gamergirl, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. That's not your fault; you've probably been misled by creationist "scholars" like Kent Hovind, who make their livings by spreading lies. But you will not be taken seriously if you try to tell anyone on this board that the theory of evolution is about dogs giving birth to cats, or that hominid fossils are "random bones" tacked together by scientists with the express intent to deceive.

If you can't see it and you can't hear it and you can't touch it, then it takes faith to believe in it.

Do you need faith to believe in atoms? Or in China, assuming you've never been there?

Using the word "faith" so casually does a disservice to Christian doctrine.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

Well, science is doing well witout having to consider your lack of knowledge about the evidence and the science.

What was more rude? Showing your lies about evolution or showing that you actually don't know what you're talking about?

Gamergirl, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. That's not your fault; you've probably been misled by creationist "scholars" like Kent Hovind, who make their livings by spreading lies. But you will not be taken seriously if you try to tell anyone on this board that the theory of evolution is about dogs giving birth to cats, or that hominid fossils are "random bones" tacked together by scientists with the express intent to deceive.

You can't tell me that those quotes I just gave you were not personal attacks on my intelligence.

So, I feel the need to defend myself so that you all don't make me out to be some crazy idiot. Cuz I do know what I'm talking about.

To back myself up, here are some things that I know:

Let's start with science. To put forth a theory, a scientist must do three things: have a theoretical speculation, make an accurate observation, and use precise experimentation. Famous scientists such as Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, and Galileo used these three things to determine if their theories were correct. Scientists must test their theories. According to these scientists, if the testing of their theories fails to confirm that theory.....then the theory must be discarded. This ensures that scientific theories that contain errors are eliminated. Because no one can go back to the beginning of time, the theory of evolution must remain a theory. According to evolutionists themselves, evolution is not repeatable. And even if it is occurring today, it's at such an extremely slow pace that you can't observe it. A scientist and evolutionist by the name of G. A. Kerkut says "...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified.......whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature" (from Implications of Evolution Oxford: Pergomon Press, 1960) That is where I draw my conclusion that evolution is not a science. Even evolutionists agree with me.

Transitional forms could not exist because they would not live long enough to be able to procreate. As an example: bats. Evolutionists have claimed that bats evolved from a small, rodentlike mammal similar to modern shrews. However, if that were true, then that mammal's forepaws would gradually stretch long enough to become a bat's wing. The process would make the animal's forepaws useless for running or grasping things LONG before they could ever have learned to fly with them. And that's just one example of a transitional form that could not survive long enough to spawn a new species.

There was a comment made that nowhere did evolution claim that species could randomly spawn other species. Now I'll admit that my example of a dog spawning a cat was overstated. But evolutionists DID suggest that some such thing could happen. Because of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, scientists turned to other alternatives for how things evolved. One of the theories was the "punctuated equilibrium hypothesis" or the "hopeful monster" hypothesis. This process calls for very dramatic rearrangements of the genetic code in order to produce a very different and yet fully functional organism within one generation. That evolution occured in spurts or explosions with a very long period without change. Darwin himself contradicted this theory saying "....To admit all this, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science." (Origin of Species 6th edition.) However it was a real hypothesis for some time.

Some of you wanted me to give you a number of how many times scientists claimed something was a transitional form only to retract their statement when it was proven wrong. I don't have an exact number. However, I do have some examples. Let's start with Java man. A Dutch scientist named Eugene Dubois dug up some bones from a riverbank on an Indonesian Island in 1891. He dated the bones back a half million years and these bones became known as Java man, a transitional character between ape and man. However, if one were to look closely at the evidence, one would see that the only bones that Eugene Dubois dug up were nothing more than a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. He found those bones and from them claimed he had found a missing link. There is no way that a person can construct a whole skeleton from those bones mentioned.

Next comes the "Coelacanth". It was a fish whose fins are attached to the body different from other fish, by fleshy lobes that would allow the fins to rotate easier. The fossils of this fish showed up in the rocks of the Devonian Period. These fish, because of their fins that slightly resembled appendages from which feet could have evolved, were thought by scientists to be a transitional form between sea dwelling creatures and land dwelling creatures. In 1938......a live coelacanth was caught in the Indian Ocean. Since then many live coelacanths have been found. People were surprised to find out that these fish live very very deep in the ocean and only very rarely do they ever come up within 500 feet of the surface! If that's true then it's highly unlikely that these creatures would ever have crawled out onto land. Also, their internal organs are completely fishlike. There is no resemblance to amphibians. And the funny thing is....despite all these facts...some evolutionists still claim that these fish evolved into amphibians.

Let's have another example of a missing link between apes and man. Nebraska man is a good example. Nebraska man was reconstructed from one single tooth found in Nebraska in 1922. How can one build an entire skeleton from a tooth and call it a transitional form? Ubsurd. But that's what happened. For years people accepted Nebraska man as a legitimate "ape-man". But that's not the end of the story. A few years later it was revealed that the tooth didn't even come from a man......it was the tooth of an extinct pig.

These are just a few examples of how scientists misled the public into believing something that wasn't true. I never claimed that these scientists ever meant to mislead, just that they did mislead. And sadly, our schools from elementary school up to college teach these things as scientific facts.

Now I'm assuming that most of you have read Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." That seems like a pretty strong reason to believe that the earth was created and didn't "just happen".

Next is Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

After that is Genesis 1:24-25 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

From the previous verses one must conclude that God not only created all the creatures, but that He made sure they would only produce other creatures after their own kind.

Genesis 1:27 says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Genesis 2:2 says "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

From these two verses, one can only conclude that God made man in His own image. It doesn't say that God made an organism that evolved into an ape that evolved into a man. He said that He created a man in His own image.

If you deny any of these things, then you deny the Bible. One cannot simply take verses from the Bible and decide to believe only those and not the others. The Bible is either God's inerrant Word or it isn't.

God is so specific about so many things in the Bible, down to the pathways of the seas! If He is so correct and specific about these things, then it's safe to conclude that He is being specific when it comes to creation. He said He made it in seven days. He didn't say 50 million years, He didn't say 50 billion years. He said seven days. I, for one, am going to take God at His Word, considering He is God after all.

If you want to argue.....argue with God. Hopefully now you can understand where I'm coming from.