Theological of Evolution

[Paul365]

It's also a fallacy.

The fact is that many good Christians have lost their faith because they've been erroneously trained to believe that they must choose between their God-given minds and a Sunday-school interpretation of the Bible; that attempts to reconcile science and faith are pandering to the world if we don't fully subject the former to a simplistic understanding of the latter. Thus, many budding Christians are forced to either abandon their faith, or to reject every good sense and entertain the most ludicrous ideas about science and the Bible (this forums is rich with examples).

Of course, the way around this is to do a better job of teaching the strengths and limitations of science early on in school. Ditto the Bible in Sunday school.

Ok, you have a point with the fallacy. Still, I think Christians who abandon their faith when paleontologists find one fossil or astronomers discover a supernova have not the right understanding of Christianity. The belief in Jesus is not dependent on discoveries of fossils or Big Bang theory.

 

[Assyrian]

I have never talked to a Christian that believed in evolution. I Think you brought up some good points. Im intrested though how this has effected your belief as a whole, if at all. Heres a few questions:

Resurection of Christ: bodily or spiritual

Physical body transformed into a spiritual one, like ours will be. Not a spirit, but Body 2.0

Israel seperate entity from the church or the Church replaced Israel.

Church was grafted onto Israel. Waiting for the original branches to be grafted back.

The second coming of Christ. An event in the future visable to the world or other

I really don't know. I lean towards post trib and see the tribulation as going on since the first century. However Jesus surprised everyone the first time he came, in spite of them having an Old Testament full of prophecies describing his coming. I am dubious of preachers and book writers who thinks they have it all figured out before the event. We will find out more once we have done our job and preached the Gospel to every tribe and nation.

Christ the way to God or one of many

The only way.

You dont have to answer, but it would be intresting to see how you answer.

No problem. Welcome to OT by the way.

 

[shernren]

Was away for a while.

Probably best for a new thread, but do you ( as well as Shernren) feel that fields like neuropsych, physics, and anthropology are on their way to explaining away God?

No, I don't feel that way at all. But I would if I were a creationist observing the latest developments in the field. Modern, scientific creationism doesn't attempt to challenge the assumptions by which vocal atheists use evolutionism to denounce God. The same assumptions, therefore, are available should atheists wise up (as some are doing, though not so popularly as via evolutionism) to the "potential" of other areas of science. And then the popular Christian response will again be a stopgap denial of science - not questioning the assumptions of the playing field effectively, but directly rejecting the particular theory in question and constructing some kind of populist Christian alternative science.

On the other hand, I in my TE stand believe that the same assumptions which don't allow evolution to shake my faith will also prevent any other scientific theory from doing so.

 

[Jase]

Was away for a while.



No, I don't feel that way at all. But I would if I were a creationist observing the latest developments in the field. Modern, scientific creationism doesn't attempt to challenge the assumptions by which vocal atheists use evolutionism to denounce God. The same assumptions, therefore, are available should atheists wise up (as some are doing, though not so popularly as via evolutionism) to the "potential" of other areas of science. And then the popular Christian response will again be a stopgap denial of science - not questioning the assumptions of the playing field effectively, but directly rejecting the particular theory in question and constructing some kind of populist Christian alternative science.

On the other hand, I in my TE stand believe that the same assumptions which don't allow evolution to shake my faith will also prevent any other scientific theory from doing so.

I think one of the more difficult scientific issues if and when it happens is going to be finding life ( especially intelligent life) elsewhere in the universe. I think the theological questions and ramifications on that will be a challenge, especially for creationists. The odds of that happening in our lifetime are probably pretty slim, but nonetheless a potential issue.

 

[juvenissun]

Where are the verses that tell us about atomic theory or the double helix of DNA? Literalists don't have any problem with these.

There is no problem because there is no Bible verse which can be used to argue about them one way or another. (There could be some discovered in the future.)

Literalist don't even have a problem with heliocentrism, which does not have any verses that teach it, only verses where the literal geocentric meaning has to be explained away.

Explained away or not, there IS (ARE) verses in Bible which cause this controversy.

The issue is not verses that teach evolution, but verses that literalists think contradict it.

Creationism by YEC does have many "supports" from Bible verses, regardless people accept the interpretation or not. My question to you is where is the (single) verse which could induce the debate of evolution? I believe there is none.

It is the evolutionist who picks literalist on Bible verses that seemingly suggest creation. Literalist is not capable to do the same because there is no Bible verse which even remotely imply evolution.

 

[The Lady Kate]

There is no problem because there is no Bible verse which can be used to argue about them one way or another. (There could be some discovered in the future.)

Discovered from where? The Bible is complete... theologically speaking, it's said all it's going to say.

Explained away or not, there IS (ARE) verses in Bible which cause this controversy.

And in hindsight, we see how utterly ridiculous that controversey was.

Creationism by YEC does have many "supports" from Bible verses, regardless people accept the interpretation or not. My question to you is where is the (single) verse which could induce the debate of evolution? I believe there is none.

So instead we look to God's own Creation, and see what He left for us to find.

It is the evolutionist who picks literalist on Bible verses that seemingly suggest creation. Literalist is not capable to do the same because there is no Bible verse which even remotely imply evolution.

So, if we want to get to the bottom of this, we'll have to use more than the Bible.

 

[Maranatha27]

assyrian
Just wondering

 

[Assyrian]

There is no problem because there is no Bible verse which can be used to argue about them one way or another. (There could be some discovered in the future.)

If the six day, made of clay, interpretation is wrong, then there is no verse that argues against evolution either.

Explained away or not, there IS (ARE) verses in Bible which cause this controversy.

Sure there are verses that lead people to think the sun rushes around the earth and there are verses that lead people to think the earth was created in in six days and man was molded like pottery.

There are no verses which teach that the earth rotates, that it orbits the sun and that the motion of the earth moon and planets is governed by the inverse square law of gravitation. Why should the bible have to explicitly teach heliocentrism, gravitation, or evolution before we accept them?

If the earth was created in six days, and men and animals made from clay, then evolution could not have happened. If these are misinterpretations of common biblical metaphors, figurative days and God as a potter, then there is no reason why evolution should have to be based on scripture verses rather than simply being science.

God apparently felt no need to provide scriptural lessons teaching heliocentrism and the inverse square law of gravitation, just because people believed a literal interpretation of the bible was teaching them geocentrism. Why should he provide the mechanism of evolution if people misread Genesis?

Creationism by YEC does have many "supports" from Bible verses, regardless people accept the interpretation or not. My question to you is where is the (single) verse which could induce the debate of evolution? I believe there is none.

If the interpretation is wrong then there is no biblical problem with evolution.

The biblical basis is simply the teaching God created all things. If evolution is scientific, then it is the way God made the world.

It is the evolutionist who picks literalist on Bible verses that seemingly suggest creation. Literalist is not capable to do the same because there is no Bible verse which even remotely imply evolution.

And no verses that contradicts it if your interpretation is wrong.

If there are two possible way to interpret scripture, and one interpretation is flatly contradicted by all the science, why stick to the wrong interpetation?

Or if you are going to stick to a literal interpretation in spite of all the scientific evidence, why not become a geocentrist too? At least with geocentrism there was no other interpretation of those passages before the science came along, while figurative interpretations of Genesis have been around since the early church.

 

[juvenissun]

If there are two possible way to interpret scripture, and one interpretation is flatly contradicted by all the science, why stick to the wrong interpetation?

No. There is only one way to interpret scripture, which is the creationism. If it were flatly wrong, then there will be NO way to interpret scripture.

Evolution or not, it is NOT related to the scripture (even it were true).

That is the single point of argument. No one can diffuse this point away by any other arguments. The challenge is still there: Give one scripture verse which implies evolution !

 

[gluadys]

No. There is only one way to interpret scripture, which is the creationism. If it were flatly wrong, then there will be NO way to interpret scripture.

That is pretty dogmatic. What is the basis for this claim?

 

[The Lady Kate]

No. There is only one way to interpret scripture, which is the creationism. If it were flatly wrong, then there will be NO way to interpret scripture.

Then there would be NO way to interpret Scripture. Are you positive that creationism is where you want to draw a line in the sand?

Evolution or not, it is NOT related to the scripture (even it were true).

Fine by me... we can add evolution to the near-infinite list of things Scripure doesn't address.

That is the single point of argument. No one can diffuse this point away by any other arguments. The challenge is still there: Give one scripture verse which implies evolution !

The challenge is now this: Give one reason it makes a difference.

 

[Scotishfury09]

No. There is only one way to interpret scripture, which is the creationism. If it were flatly wrong, then there will be NO way to interpret scripture.

Any scripture, or just the ones you think pertain to creationism?

Evolution or not, it is NOT related to the scripture (even it were true).

That is the single point of argument. No one can diffuse this point away by any other arguments. The challenge is still there: Give one scripture verse which implies evolution !

Give me a verse that implies heliocentrism while I pile on you verses for a flat earth and geocentrism.

Heb 1:10 In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Psalm 93:1b The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

1 Samuel 2:8b For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world.

Psalm 75:3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.

Isaiah 11:12 And He will lift up a standard for the nations; And assemble the banished ones of Israel; And will gather the dispersed of Judah; From the four corners of the earth.

If you have no problem accepting creationism as fact in light of it's scientific inaccuracies, why can't you accept a flat earth that rests on pillars?

 

[Assyrian]

If there are two possible way to interpret scripture, and one interpretation is flatly contradicted by all the science, why stick to the wrong interpetation?

No. There is only one way to interpret scripture,

The only true interpetation of scripture is the way God intended it. That said, his ways are higher than our ways and we can find different interpretations, some, or all, of which miss the point God is saying.

However we have learned in the past that interpretations which contradict the evidence can be discounted. However plausible the exegesis seems, if they are shown to be wrong, they are not what God was telling us. We have seen that with the flat earth interpretation of Cosmas Indicopleutes, the geocentric interpretations of, well, everyone before Copernicus came along, the prophetic interpetations that said Christ was coming back in the first century, around 1000, 1666, 1844. However reasonable the interpetation seemed at the time, once the evidence came in and contradicted them, we know that that was not what God was saying.

which is the creationism. If it were flatly wrong, then there will be NO way to interpret scripture.

Why not geocentrism? People held that as the literal truth of scripture as fervently as you hold YEC. Why not say if geocentrism is flatly wrong, then there will be NO way to interpret scripture?

What you are saying is if your interpretation of Genesis is wrong, you are not willing to consider the possibility that the problem lies in your limited human ability to understand understand scripture, instead you would dismiss the whole bible.

Evolution or not, it is NOT related to the scripture (even it were true).

That is what we have been saying all along.

Of course if you accept evolution, given you track record, I am sure you could read evolution into scriptures the way you read electromagnetism into Job.

That is the single point of argument. No one can diffuse this point away by any other arguments. The challenge is still there: Give one scripture verse which implies evolution !

Why should the bible tell us about evolution when it say nothing about the double helix of DNA, the inverse square law of gravitation, heliocentrism, the movement of the earth, moon and planets through space under the influence of gravity. You whole claim is baseless.

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

Evolution is real, so are atoms, the DNA double helix, the heliocentric motion of the solar system and the law of gravity. God who created all things created created all those too.

 

[Mallon]

No. There is only one way to interpret scripture, which is the creationism.

Whose version of it? The Baptists? The Lutherans? The Catholics? The Seventh Day Adventists?

 

[Calminian]

Let's assume for the sake of argument evolution is one day proven right. What are the theological ramifications, if any, of this proof? What is lost from the Christian faith?

EDIT: Blegh. Messed up the title.

I'm a bit late to this one, but this is a subject that I've been wondering about. I actually don't think, that even if evolution was proven—that mutations could create new information (whatever that means)—this would be a problem for young earth creationism. What life can evolve into in the future says nothing about its starting point. God could have made the various kinds of animals and gave to each of them the ability to evolve in accordance with the challenges of their environment, even somehow created new information. So even if a cat can evolve into a dog one day in the future, this doesn't mean it started out as a one cell organism. The Bible speaks of a supernatural creation of the various kinds of animals. It still started out as a cat!

On the other hand, if evolutions is falsified, this is a huge problem for evolutionists. They'd have to just rely on bind faith (which I'm sure they would).

 

[Mallon]

On the other hand, if evolutions is falsified, this is a huge problem for evolutionists. They'd have to just rely on bind faith (which I'm sure they would).

Why do you say that?

 

[OldChurchGuy]

No. There is only one way to interpret scripture, which is the creationism. If it were flatly wrong, then there will be NO way to interpret scripture.

Evolution or not, it is NOT related to the scripture (even it were true).

That is the single point of argument. No one can diffuse this point away by any other arguments. The challenge is still there: Give one scripture verse which implies evolution !

At the risk of sounding disrespectful, is creationism a matter of faith or a matter of fact?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[JAL]

Scotishfury, You cited several verses intended to disprove literalism.

Psalm 75:3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.

This translation disagrees with some versions that I would consider pretty reliable such as the KJV. The Hebrew is probably unclear. Further, my approach is that we should generally strive to take literally books that appear to be history (e.g. the Pentateuch and the gospels) or systematic theology (the epistles). The Psalms need not be 100% literal, although I do strive for literalism as much as possible, the reason being that the Bible loses much of its didactic value if the whole thing is metaphor, since metaphorical texts are harder to interpret reliably than literal texts.

Heb 1:10 In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Psalm 93:1b The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

1 Samuel 2:8b For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world.

I believe that God as physical Presence/Atmosphere is the cause of gravity. Thus the claim in Genesis that He anchored the stars in a solid sky/firmament is literally true. The earth rests, therefore, on a solid foundation – God’s own substance. In fact I reject intangible/immaterial realities. All souls – divine, human, and angelic – are tangible in my view (as the church father Tertullian held).

Now as to whether the earth can be moved, this can probably be understood in relative terms. For example suppose I am riding on a yacht with a table affixed to the floor. My wife says to me, “Honey, would you slide that table closer to the bed please?” I reply, “The table cannot be moved, it is anchored to the floor.” This should not be taken to mean that the table is not moving – it moves with the yacht. Clearly the reference here is relative, not absolute. The earth has an “anchored place” in the universe in the sense that, as long as God so wills, it cannot be tossed to and fro like paper in the wind. In other words the world has stability by divine decree – that’s the point of the verse, so let’s not read too much into it.

Isaiah 11:12 And He will lift up a standard for the nations; And assemble the banished ones of Israel; And will gather the dispersed of Judah; From the four corners of the earth.

Based on Genesis as confirmed by Peter, classical scholars held that God shaped the earth from waters as His raw material. We frankly don’t know precisely what previous shapes were transitioned by Him into present globularity. There is no way to rule out the possibility that the earth transitioned – in His hands – from a flat rectangle into its present form. Indeed He may have done this solely for the purpose of being able to use a terminology (“four corners”) suited to primitive cosmology.

Hope this helps.

 

[juvenissun]

At the risk of sounding disrespectful, is creationism a matter of faith or a matter of fact?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Sorry, I was arguing from the perspective of TE.

To me, Creastionism is both faith and fact. The fact part lies on two two threads: 1) Positive: Bible is absolutely scientifically accurate. I am illustrating this in my Science in Bible series. 2) Negative: It can not be disproved by biological evolution. I am challenging TE (in this thread) on a one tiny instance. The faith part also has two aspects: 1) God's power. 2) Future understanding of science: which could solves problems on the disputed parts of Genesis. In fact, we ARE seeing some lights on that. To me, I am focusing on the model of Noah's Flood. It is, indeed, a very very very deep issue involves the origin of the earth.

A brief answer. But hope to alleviate some of your concerns.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course if you accept evolution, given you track record, I am sure you could read evolution into scriptures the way you read electromagnetism into Job.

In fact, that is exactly what I am hoping to do. I am asking you to give me ONE Bible verse to see if I can see evolution in it. So far, I don't have any to "imagine" on.

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

The "mystery" referred in EPH:3 has >95% probability to refer to the fact of gospel and salvation (see verse 6). Only <5% chance for other uncertain features such as evolution, creation, etc. etc.

And, you have to reveal to me why do you quote COL:1:16. I don't see anything in it related to evolution.