Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Calminian]

Nobody observed God creating the world in six days either, BornAgain. You have the same problem.

Yes, be we have Genesis 1:1-2:4 which is an account of the creation events. If Adam wrote down that account, he is said to have walked with God in the Garden. He spoke directly with God. He would have been a contemporary and friend of One who witnessed those events.

Enoch also, walked with God, and Enoch could have been given the story, which he could have written down, and passed to his descendants, who eventually passed the account onto Moses.

You may not be impressed with this, but it's a whole lot more evidence than the other side has.

 

[Hoghead1]

Because, Berean777, as I said before, the issue is your opinion, your theology, how adequately you understand Scripture. In your theology, in the model of God you created, yes, evolution is a problem. But who says you are right? Who says your model of God has anything to do with the biblical model of God? I realize most Christians think that their model of God, the picture they have in their heads of God as he is in his own nature comes right from Scripture. Sorry, not the case at all. The God of the church fathers and creeds and confessions and Christian dogma comes largely from Hellenic philosophy. The reason is that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. What we have are snapshots that often seemingly contradict one another. It's left to the reader to piece all their together. Hence, the fathers looked to Hellenic metaphysics and were very influenced by schools which emphasized that the temporal-material world, the world of time and change, is inherently evil, a big illusion. The divine, the "really real," is a wholly immaterial simple immutable domain. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. That meant the fathers and major creeds described God as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. Now, if God is wholly immutable, then nothing in creation can change. God doesn't change and so neither does the universe. Everything stays the same. So evolution is out of the question. So it is essentially faith in a wholly immutable God that block many from accepting evolution. But is it really true that God is immutable? Many contemporary theologians, includ8ing myself, have challenged that notion. We view God as a synthesis of both consistency and also change. OK, what about the Bible? It is true that the Bible speaks of God as immutable in many passages. However, what is sometimes overlooked is that there are about 100 passages that do speak of God as changing, i.e., Gen. 6;6, Hosea 11:9. Also, Scripture attributes deep emotion to God. So the high God of classical Christian thought is out the window biblically. Indeed, the biblical god is continually pushing evolution. This God starts with salves and leads them to evolve into a mighty nation. This God is transforming the world, ushering in a Kingdom, of Heaven a far superior world to the one in which we live. So I think evolution goes hand in hand with the biblical God.

 

[Hoghead1]

But Adam definitely did not write down that account. And Adam was supposedly not around until day 6 anyway. And you have no direct observations as to anything that did or did not happen back then.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't the issue, BornAgain. The issue is that we weren't around then to directly observe any of this. Whether you hold it is true or not isn't the point. Again, the point is that you were not around to directly observe any of this. Hence, you are going on as much speculation as the scientist who affirm the Big Bang.

 

[Hoghead1]

The question, BornAgain, is what do you mean by God's word? So, God's word isn't the issue here, your opinion on the matter is. Others may well disagree with your conception, but they have a right to. There is no apparent reason anyone should believe anything YOU have to say. You seem to be of the overinflated opinion that you are speaking for God. Well, you are not. You are simply voicing your own opinions, which are highly questionable. The Bible says that you should judge not, lest you be judged. If you want to sit in judgment on someone, you need to sit in judgment on yourself first.

 

[Berean777]

None of that is accurate, Berean777. Also, where does ancient Greek mysticism speak of evolution? It is true that the term " evolution" was first introduced by Christian mystics in the 19th century, prior to Darwin. As I already mentioned, the DH is till up and running in modern biblical scholarship. And, as I said, I have a list of about 150 scholars who accept the DH, plus a number of academic journals. So, the problem I have with your position is that it is not based on any solid scholarly foundation.

Thanks. The point is that it started as a philosophical idea that required people like Darwin to take it on faith value and to link disjointed real world observations, where they would take them out of context to support their belief. So it started off as a mystic religion that inspired and conscripted followers to add further disjointed observations, in supporting their claim or at least trying to realise it in the real world. Then when they couldn't link or to corroborate their observations with sound mathematical modelling, they invented the concept of repeated cycles in the billions, hoping that no one in their rightful mind would crunch through billions upon billions of iterations. Now days with the advent of computers, billions upon billions of iterations is made possible. But hang on a second, where are the mathematical linear equations that take into account inputs, disturbances by environment conditions and several scenarios that corroborate with one another, by applying the same fundamental linear formulea, with minor additonal equations to take into account the given scenarios conditions.

What I see are people being conscripted by the open ended cheque books being waved before the scientific communitues eyes, to give credence to the growing faith movement. I see people moved by the dangling carrot, to further their careers and their bank balances. By the way, all these scientists are funded by the same religious organisations who advocate evolution, because they must have stuck-up a lucrative deal with Apple, that is why all have Apple laptops hehehe.

 

[Hoghead1]

But that isn't at all accurate, Cal. It's way, way off from how we DH people think. Before you try and interpret our work for us, you should the courtesy to ask wheat we are about and how we think. You are seriously misrepresenting us.

 

[Berean777]

Because, Berean777, as I said before, the issue is your opinion, your theology, how adequately you understand Scripture. In your theology, in the model of God you created, yes, evolution is a problem. But who says you are right? Who says your model of God has anything to do with the biblical model of God? I realize most Christians think that their model of God, the picture they have in their heads of God as he is in his own nature comes right from Scripture. Sorry, not the case at all. The God of the church fathers and creeds and confessions and Christian dogma comes largely from Hellenic philosophy. The reason is that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. What we have are snapshots that often seemingly contradict one another. It's left to the reader to piece all their together. Hence, the fathers looked to Hellenic metaphysics and were very influenced by schools which emphasized that the temporal-material world, the world of time and change, is inherently evil, a big illusion. The divine, the "really real," is a wholly immaterial simple immutable domain. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. That meant the fathers and major creeds described God as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. Now, if God is wholly immutable, then nothing in creation can change. God doesn't change and so neither does the universe. Everything stays the same. So evolution is out of the question. So it is essentially faith in a wholly immutable God that block many from accepting evolution. But is it really true that God is immutable? Many contemporary theologians, includ8ing myself, have challenged that notion. We view God as a synthesis of both consistency and also change. OK, what about the Bible? It is true that the Bible speaks of God as immutable in many passages. However, what is sometimes overlooked is that there are about 100 passages that do speak of God as changing, i.e., Gen. 6;6, Hosea 11:9. Also, Scripture attributes deep emotion to God. So the high God of classical Christian thought is out the window biblically. Indeed, the biblical god is continually pushing evolution. This God starts with salves and leads them to evolve into a mighty nation. This God is transforming the world, ushering in a Kingdom, of Heaven a far superior world to the one in which we live. So I think evolution goes hand in hand with the biblical God.

All this is conjecture on your part. As I stated before billions of people have experienced God in their day to day lives and testify of their experiences. Highlight the word experiences please. Evolution cannot be experienced and is not applicable to our day to day lives. So it is not a question of opinion, rather a question of experience.

How have you experienced God?

How have you experienced Evolution?

Now science is concrete and mathematically modelled, so how have you experienced evolution from a scientific experiential point of view?

Is it not that you only take the words of paid scientists and leave it at that?

You use your mobile phone, you therefore experience technology. Let me ask you again how have you experienced evolution?

Christianity is not merely based on testimony of men or one's opinion, rather it is based on experiences of all of humaity and throughout generations and this is corroborating one factual repeatable experiences that evolution can not do, except that one must revert to using paid opinion that is unsubstantiated biased paid opinion. No thankyou, people are much smarter than that friend.

 

[Hoghead1]

Also, Cal, I did not say that writing began about 1000. I am saying that is probably when they began writing down the biblical accounts. Whether Moses could red and write is a wholly different matter and still up for debate.

 

[Hoghead1]

We do experience evolution every day, Berean 777. In fact, we experience it moment to moment. No thinker thinks twice. Moment to moment we are new persons. We are continually evolving. And that happens because moment to moment, we feel an initial aim coming from God to help us become more beautiful. So moment to moment, everyone also experiences God. In the Christian mystical tradition, evolution goes hand in hand with a mystical experience of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Your response is till inappropriate and insulting. You should play by the rules here. I've already reported you to the mods.

 

[ScottA]

Doesn't work, Scott. If we have genuine freedom, and I believe we do, than it is up to us to decide. God cannot decide for us. Furthermore, God would be the author of all the evil that happened.

That is simply due to your misunderstanding. God did not author evil, but rather "created" everything - key word "created", i.e. made up. What you do not realize...is that you are living within made up existence. Likewise, I am sure it would have come as a great shock to Donald Duck, if Disney had told him it was all a fantasy. Who knew?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Your response is till inappropriate and insulting. You should play by the rules here. I've already reported you to the mods.

And yes I did give you proof positive that "evolution" doesn't fit in the bible as you claim because of the several genealogy's through the bible always mentioning ADAM and EVE. And you've yet to refute that fact.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you quite grasped my point, ScottA. In theologies centering on God's omnipotence, God is seen as the cause of absolutely everything. That's why God is defined as omnipotent. In Calvin, for example, God predestined every detail of creation. This includes all evil acts. Calvin attributes the latter to a secret will of God. Sometimes he seeks to rationalize this by claiming God was right in so doing. For example, he says that murders, larcenists, and other evil doers are the instruments by which God exercises his judgments upon us.

 

[ScottA]

We do experience evolution every day,...

That would be your finite assessment of the matter, and you have simply adopted the term of those who know no better than to assess their small partial slice of the required knowledge. Anyway, until the end result is clear - you have know way of knowing. It's just partial truth and not conclusive.

In reality (because I do know the beginning and the end - all the information), what you have assessed to be evolution, is rather the shades of darkness turning to light. But you wouldn't know about that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't deny something that doesn't exist.

You have no empirical evidence because nobody observed something you claim occurred millions to billions of years ago

Aw c'mon, there's lots of empirical evidence for evolution. Vestiges in your body such as your coccyx, your little toes, your ear wiggling muscles. (There are more).

The observed nested hierarchy of characteristics among species, that is the foundation of species classification and the clear result of inherited variations over millions of years.

Genetic markers that verify common descent, such as the shared exogenous retroviral inserts.

Fossils that show the rise and extinction of forms of life consistent with the theoretical tree of life.

Again no one from the ToE ever observed something you claim happened in the past

Its a specious argument to claim that only if we watch something can we have evidence that it happened. Thousands of criminals, convicted on mere physical evidence, would love to have had you hang the jury and claim they were innocent due to lack of witnesses. But physical evidence DOES work.

Nature is objective whether we want to believe it or not. Science is a methodology applied to nature by fallible, prejudiced humans.

Which is why we repeat the observations. Go back and look for, find, new species. Go back and recheck the genetic analysis, verify by alternate laboratories that the retroviral inserts exist and show common descent. Analyze more bodies, confirm that hey, people really do have those vestigial ear wiggling muscles.

 

[KWCrazy]

Also, Cal, I did not say that writing began about 1000. I am saying that is probably when they began writing down the biblical accounts. Whether Moses could red and write is a wholly different matter and still up for debate.

Is there anything in the Bible with which you agree?
Acts 7:22. Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.
Jesus said in John 5: 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

So now you don't believe Jesus either?

 

[Hoghead1]

It's not that simple, Hier. Moses is tied up with a loose federation of tribes. Now, tribal systems generally do not produce much writing. One reason being that they would have to lug all this written material around. Ever try and pick up the Bible on scrolls? The other reason is that there is controversy ass to how literate the tribes were. If they were slaves, then they may have been unable to read and write. Incidentally, it was illegal in the Old South to teach slaves to read and write. Anyhow, no one is quite sure about the situation with Moses. Also, many literate cultures have strong oral traditions. So best bet is that key parts of the Bible were probably initially transmitted via oral tradition. 10000Bc is when scholars feel they began to write down biblical accounts, but that doesn't mean that's when writing started.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

I don't think you quite grasped my point, ScottA. In theologies centering on God's omnipotence, God is seen as the cause of absolutely everything. That's why God is defined as omnipotent. In Calvin, for example, God predestined every detail of creation. This includes all evil acts. Calvin attributes the latter to a secret will of God. Sometimes he seeks to rationalize this by claiming God was right in so doing. For example, he says that murders, larcenists, and other evil doers are the instruments by which God exercises his judgments upon us.

Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33)—and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That would be your finite assessment of the matter, and you have simply adopted the term of those who know no better than to assess their small partial slice of the required knowledge. Anyway, until the end result is clear - you have know way of knowing. It's just partial truth and not conclusive.

In reality (because I do know the beginning and the end - all the information), what you have assessed to be evolution, is rather the shades of darkness turning to light. But you would know about that.

Your doctor will advise you, when prescribing antibiotics, to finish the whole course. Why? Because of evolution. The bacteria in your body may evolve resistance, if not completely killed off in your body, and make the antibiotics useless. It is something that is happening on a larger scale as well, and this evolution of bacteria is evolution in action TODAY effecting us TODAY in our daily lives.