just a quick question

[Molal]

You know, that is a good point. I have found that TE's are likely to have a stronger faith foundation and are less likely to have that faith undermined. I have seen a number of creationists lose their faith as a result of their inability to adjust to a different view of Scripture once they realize that the scientific evidence is so solid.

I guess it is the willow v. brittle reed.

Actually, you made me think of it!!!

But good point about the willow and the brittle reed.

 

[juvenissun]

Second, the Christians who accept evolution are in the majority, not the minority.

This could be interesting. Any body has any data on this question? I think only those "smarter" Christians are in TE. The majority of dumber ones are creationists.

Yes, those smarter TEers are trying to overwhelm people in this forum (by number). Unfortunately, occasionally, they hit a rock like me.

 

[Vance]

This could be interesting. Any body has any data on this question? I think only those "smarter" Christians are in TE. The majority of dumber ones are creationists.

Yes, those smarter TEers are trying to overwhelm people in this forum (by number). Unfortunately, occasionally, they hit a rock like me.

Well, worldwide, the majority of Christians seem to have no problem whatsoever with evolution. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that there is nothing inherently wrong with evolution. The Presbyterians, Methodist, Episcopalians, and other mainstream denominations don't really have a problem with it either. Overall, you would have to conclude that the majority of the Christians worldwide are NOT young earth creationists.

While here in the US, young earth creationism has grown in recent years (last few decades), the rest of the world is fairly immune to it. In England, over 90% of the clergy do not accept a literal Adam and Eve, for example.

 

[juvenissun]

I have seen a number of creationists lose their faith as a result of their inability to adjust to a different view of Scripture once they realize that the scientific evidence is so solid.

Did they convert to TE? or they strayed away their faith? I don't see any reason for the latter to happen.

 

[Molal]

This could be interesting. Any body has any data on this question? I think only those "smarter" Christians are in TE. The majority of dumber ones are creationists.

Yes, those smarter TEers are trying to overwhelm people in this forum (by number). Unfortunately, occasionally, they hit a rock like me.

Firstly, it has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. Why did you write smarter in parentheses'? Are you insinuating that TE's are not actually smart?

Plus, can we keep this cordial and on topic?

I have no data on the acceptance of evolution as a majority thought in christianity (since it depends on your definition of christianity), but I would generalise that this assumption is valid and true.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, worldwide, the majority of Christians seem to have no problem whatsoever with evolution. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that there is nothing inherently wrong with evolution. The Presbyterians, Methodist, Episcopalians, and other mainstream denominations don't really have a problem with it either. Overall, you would have to conclude that the majority of the Christians worldwide are NOT young earth creationists.

I have hard time to believe what you said is true. I think it is just the opposite. You got to give me a survey or something to look at.

 

[Vance]

Did they convert to TE? or they strayed away their faith? I don't see any reason for the latter to happen.

I once compiled a long list of testimonies from non-believers on this forum alone who cited creationism (and the realization that it was not true) as one of the major reasons they lost their faith, if they had been Christians, or why they would not consider the Christian faith, if they had not.

And, I once asked the creationists here what would happen if they became convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution was true. A distressing number of them responded that they would have to abandon Christianity because, to them, it would mean that the Bible was not trustworthy.

 

[Vance]

I have hard time to believe what you said is true. I think it is just the opposite. You got to give me a survey or something to look at.

Here is something to get started with:

Here are some of the various positions by a wide variety of denominations which either support evolution or are not dogmatically opposed to it:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church:

“The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation.

"Historical criticism" is an understanding that the Bible must be understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written.”

The Presbyterian Church:

In response to recent discussions regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has placed on their web page a 1969 Theological Statement on the issue, indicating that, "Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory...Some form of evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of modern scientists...We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction"

The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), meeting in June 2002 approved a statement that "Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture," and that "a natural explanation of the history of nature is fully compatible with the affirmation of God as Creator."

The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. [now part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)] issued statements in 1982 and 1983 opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation:
Affirms that, despite efforts to establish "creationism" or "creation-science" as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education); Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature -- where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific -- is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.

The Episcopal Church:

A statement by Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold is open to the idea of evolution. The statement concludes, "The divine creativity can be equally proclaimed in both the creation stories and the theory of evolution."

The Catholic Church:

In a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II stated the following:

"Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence...In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points...

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

And here is the Pope again:

“Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.”

United Methodist Church:

In his response to the Draft Report of the Task Force on Science and Theology to the 2004 General Conference, W. Richard Turner states, "Evolution is a scientific fact, not someone's opinion or belief. Why cannot evolution be a part of an intelligent design? Wouldn't evolution be an extremely elegant and subtle way for God to accomplish God's purposes?"

Rev. Phil Wogaman asks, "Did life evolve from one-celled organisms, as most scientists believe? Probably...Do the school children of Kansas and other states need to be spared exposure to the well-founded scientific theory of evolution? That theory is not inconsistent with the religious doctrine of creation. It is not about whether God created the world, but about how." (It is stated that Rev. Wogaman's commentary does not necessarily represent the official view of the United Methodist Church.)

In 1984, the Iowa Annual Conference passed a resolution opposing "efforts to introduce 'Scientific' creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools."

Greek Orthodox:

The Church web page includes an article by Rev. George Mastrantonis. Rev. Mastrantonis states, "The theory of evolution does not contradict the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being. It does not dismiss the existence of God with a Design and Purpose for the Creation. The Judaic-Christian concept of God accepts any truth from any aspect of life without fear of losing its faith in God as a Supreme Intelligent Being" Rev. Mastrantonis does express some concern regarding any concept of evolution which excludes a creator.

Orthodox Church in America:

In answer to a question, Fr. John Matusiak states, "Orthodoxy is not literalist in its understanding of the accounts of creation in Genesis, and I have encountered writings by Orthodox Christians which attempt to balance the creation accounts with a certain ongoing -- evolutionary, if you will -- process which, on the one hand, affirms that while humans may have evolved physically under the direction and guidance and plan of the Creator, their souls could not have evolved any more than the powers of reasoning, speaking, or the ability to act creatively could have simply evolved. In such a scenario the Creator intervened by breathing His Spirit into man and giving him life, as stated in Genesis...Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."

Jewish Theological Seminary:

“The Torah's story of creation is not intended as a scientific treatise, worthy of equal time with Darwin's theory of evolution in the curriculum of our public schools. The notes it strikes in its sparse and majestic narrative offer us an orientation to the Torah's entire religious worldview and value system. Creation is taken up first not because the subject has chronological priority but rather to ground basic religious beliefs in the very nature of things. And I would argue that their power is quite independent of the scientific context in which they were first enunciated.”

Orthodox Judaism:

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations references an article which states, "Belief in science and belief in the Creator are absolutely consistent...In Genesis, the Torah describes a gradual process of creation from simple to more complex organisms: first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This, of course, is the same evolutionary process proposed by science." The article states that the "days" of Genesis represent six epochs or stages of creation, and is very clear that the process of creation was guided by God.


The groups which I have seen come out and take a position directly contrary to evolution are:

The Assemblies of God (the denomination in which my father was a pastor, and which I still attend).
The Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Seventh Day Adventist
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

 

[juvenissun]

And, I once asked the creationists here what would happen if they became convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution was true. A distressing number of them responded that they would have to abandon Christianity because, to them, it would mean that the Bible was not trustworthy.

Yes, someone pushed me to say that too. And I did say that. So far, my faith still holds.

Hmm... why couldn't I convert to TE? Is that a "safer" faith? Well, at this time, the theory of evolution does not convince me at all. On the contrary, I can easily identify many problems in the theory.

So, I am far far away from being converted.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is something to get started with:

Here are some of the various positions by a wide variety of denominations which either support evolution or are not dogmatically opposed to it:
....

The groups which I have seen come out and take a position directly contrary to evolution are:

The Assemblies of God (the denomination in which my father was a pastor, and which I still attend).
The Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Seventh Day Adventist
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Impressive. Thanks for this eye-opening (and quick) post.

Where is the one for Baptist? I am a Baptist and I do not even know what is the stand of my denomination on this issue.

I really wonder how many congregations in the named denominations know this specific stand of their churches.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Impressive. Thanks for this eye-opening (and quick) post.

Where is the one for Baptist? I am a Baptist and I do not even know what is the stand of my denomination on this issue.

I really wonder how many congregations in the named denominations know this specific stand of their churches.

Baptists as a whole (especially Southern Baptists) lean towards a literal inerrant view of scripture. This tends itself to Creationism in various forms. Nowhere in the Baptist Faith & Message does it specifically say what they believe about origins, but it commends itself to Creationism in so many words.

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.


Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

 

[Vance]

If you are a Baptist, you might be interested in this, by that pre-eminant Baptist, Billy Graham:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ..... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." (Quoted in David Frost, 1997, Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, p. 72-74.)

And, really, it is not a matter of whether you "convert" to TE or not, but whether you would lose your faith IF you found out tomorrow that it was, without doubt, true. Would you abandon your faith, because it meant the Bible was not trustworthy, or would you retain your faith, and your belief in Scripture, and just simply accept that it was your interpretation was faulty?

 

[juvenissun]

If you are a Baptist, you might be interested in this, by that pre-eminant Baptist, Billy Graham:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ..... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." (Quoted in David Frost, 1997, Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, p. 72-74.)

And, really, it is not a matter of whether you "convert" to TE or not, but whether you would lose your faith IF you found out tomorrow that it was, without doubt, true. Would you abandon your faith, because it meant the Bible was not trustworthy, or would you retain your faith, and your belief in Scripture, and just simply accept that it was your interpretation was faulty?

Thank you and also Scotishfury09.

Reasonable advice. However, since Bible literalists survived till today, I have confidence that they will continue to do well.

In the mean time, I am going to continue to shoot at the evolution theory in another thread. It is amazing that TE people see so many holes on the theory and still insist that it is "true". I think it is a theory more endangered than Biblical literalism.

 

[Mallon]

In the mean time, I am going to continue to shoot at the evolution theory in another thread. It is amazing that TE people see so many holes on the theory and still insist that it is "true". I think it is a theory more endangered than Biblical literalism.

If you've been reading the replies to the supposed holes you've identified in evolutionary theory, you would realize that the holes stem not from the theory itself, but from your faulty and incomplete understanding of it. This is what people have been trying to get across to you the whole time. Makes me wonder whether it's a complete waste of effort...

 

[Vance]

Thank you and also Scotishfury09.

Reasonable advice. However, since Bible literalists survived till today, I have confidence that they will continue to do well.

In the mean time, I am going to continue to shoot at the evolution theory in another thread. It is amazing that TE people see so many holes on the theory and still insist that it is "true". I think it is a theory more endangered than Biblical literalism.

But that is just it, there are not "so many holes", and nowhere near as many holes as there are in the concept of a strictly literal Genesis 1 and 2.

In fact, if there was a SINGLE "hole" in evolution that could not be explained, that made evolution simply unworkable, it would be considered "falsified" and would have been rejected long ago. Evolution is alive and well because it DOES work, even if we do not understand every aspect of the massive workings of its mechanisms. There is nothing about it that makes it "unworkable" in the least.

What is missing entirely is a creationist model that fits the evidence even remotely. Every single attempt to show how the evidence could support the young earth model has been entirely falsified, unless you want to go with the very dangerous "omphalos" approach, which could allow ANYTHING to be correct, even "last thursdayism".

 

[Vance]

If you've been reading the replies to the supposed holes you've identified in evolutionary theory, you would realize that the holes stem not from the theory itself, but from your faulty and incomplete understanding of it. This is what people have been trying to get across to you the whole time. Makes me wonder whether it's a complete waste of effort...

Exactly. Every time such a "hole" is presented, we explain why it is NOT a hole at all. So, the question of why would continue to believe something that is so full of holes is a bit odd. I see no holes.

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly. Every time such a "hole" is presented, we explain why it is NOT a hole at all. So, the question of why would continue to believe something that is so full of holes is a bit odd. I see no holes.

You guys already lose one round. The question under discussion is the second round. It will continue.

A theory constructed by so many intelligent people in so many careers for such a long time, can still be punched easily by a lay person like me. Shame to the theory.

 

[Scotishfury09]

You guys already lose one round. The question under discussion is the second round. It will continue.

A theory constructed by so many intelligent people in so many careers for such a long time, can still be punched easily by a lay person like me. Shame to the theory.

Juvie, no one can debate with you because half of the time you aren't making sense and the other half you're disregarding anything said and claiming you've won.

 

[Mallon]

Juvie, no one can debate with you because half of the time you aren't making sense and the other half you're disregarding anything said and claiming you've won.

Boy, is that the truth.

 

[Vance]

You guys already lose one round. The question under discussion is the second round. It will continue.

A theory constructed by so many intelligent people in so many careers for such a long time, can still be punched easily by a lay person like me. Shame to the theory.

Huh? So far, you have not come up with a single thing to put any doubt in evolution, and you definitely have not provided any supporting evidence at all of young earth creationism.

Using your own standards, why would you cling to a model of how God did things that has no compelling evidence to support it whatsoever, other than a particular (and incorrect) reading of Scripture? Creation science is nothing but one big hole.