Question for Christians who believe in Evolution

[Hank77]

Science cannot confirm or disconfirm supernatural phenomena. Creationists don’t like that as they think that scientists should just grandfather in stories from the Bible just because they are stories from the Bible. They might have done that in the 1700s but that won’t work now . A scientist nowadays will ask for confirming evidence before they’ll accept phenomena as real

I'm reading The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth.
I've been surprised at the diversity of ideas from very early Christian beliefs forward.

 

[Brightmoon]

Trade between Europeans, Middle-Easterns and Africans of goods and people had been going on for centuries before the one to the US. I was not saying it was all based on the belief that one race was superior or on religious grounds. In most cases, it was Africans who sold Africans, so it wasn't being done for either of those reasons but probably purely for money. As in most situations, there are multiple sides to it.

The theory of one race being more evolved was around long before Darwin, Darwin's father wrote on it as well. Often the two views of both science and religion were entwined. Each one bolstered the other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e6aef0-5aeb-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

Darwin simply made it popular
Darwin, race and gender
"he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy."

He also wrote flattering things about women too.
"the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” Darwin 1871
It gave people a reason to keep slavery or mistreatment of other races as well as women going for 'real reasons', scientific ones.

Darwin was an abolitionist and he thought the intellectual differences between the so called races was due to education and culture . A typical of 19th century man of his social class would have thought lower class people weren’t worth listening to . Darwin learned from any one who would teach him . The man who taught him taxidermy was Black. His 19th century classist upbringing showed as he never named him in any of his writings but he did mention him.

 

[SaintCody777]

"Science" automatically rejects any accounts of supernatural events in the Bible from the outset. That is the philosophy which naturalistic science is founded and built upon.

It seems to me that Christian/Theistic evolutionists tend to reject a supernatural worldview in general. It's not so much a persuasion of evidence, as a general alignment with the modern metaphysical worldview of naturalism.

Just because the Bible never mentions certain things, does not mean it's unbiblical. Everybody believes in some kind of "science." Science literally means knowledge. With that being said, science that does not conflict with Scripture is profitable. In fact, the Bible IS itself, a scientific book. Take for example, the marine biology, which I study in college. The Bible does say that large sea creature like dolphins and whales, including the one that ate Jonah, and maybe colossal squid, and other large creatures or species of the sea that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, were all created on the 5th day of creation. But the idea of man evolving from an ape in and of itself contradicts scripture and makes the nature of man and even Jesus connected to slime amoebas.
Therefore, the idea that sea creature have evolved into humans is out of the picture. God created man Genesis 1:26 out of the ground. And in Genesis One, the Earth was created in 6 literal days with each day concluding with "And there was evening, and there was morning, the X day." Exodus 20:11 also confirms that 6 days were 6, literal, 24 hour days. There was, a Christian marine biologist, called Philip Henry Goose, who was part of the Plymouth Brethren and invented the aquarium. He wrote a book called Omplahos in an attempt to compromise the 6 day literal creation with evolution.
Philip Henry Gosse | Plymouth Brethren Archive
But back then, it got terrible press among the scientific community.
I also believe that even today, certain Christians can still speak in tongues and have certain gifts of the Holy Spirit, depending on His discretion on whom to give a gift to and what kind of gift is it (1 Corinthians 12-14; Mark 16:9-20).
The supernatural stories of the Bible, like Jesus raising a girl and Lazarus from the dead also give me hope and peace tat God is in control of this world all the time, though common sense may say otherwise.

 

[coffee4u]

Darwin was an abolitionist and he thought the intellectual differences between the so called races was due to education and culture . A typical of 19th century man of his social class would have thought lower class people weren’t worth listening to . Darwin learned from any one who would teach him . The man who taught him taxidermy was Black. His 19th century classist upbringing showed as he never named him in any of his writings but he did mention him.

He may have been an abolitionist, but nowhere is the difference said to be because of education and culture. He thought black people were less evolved and that women were less intelligent than men. Why you would want to defend him I don't know. Did you read that link? Darwin, race and gender

He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.
Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man”

 

[Brightmoon]

I don’t trust creationist sources for info I can look up myself as they have a serious reputation for lying and omitting important details

 

[lifepsyop]

YEC as a scientific reality failed in the mid 1700s when geology started to become more understandable .

This is pretty funny because 1700's 'old-earth' Geology was fundamentally wrong about earth history. Even today's mainstream geologists will admit that Uniformitarianism is nonsense. And that pseudoscience was being pushed by evolutionists right up into the mid-20th century.. (see the Missoula Flood controversy)

This is where someone will chime in about the virtues of SCIENCE(tm), in that it is always correcting itself with new evidence. What they don't understand is that the corrections must only be considered if they ultimately conform to the greater metaphysical narrative of natural causes producing the earth and everything in it. That is the way it has always been.

It is no different then the idea of YEC's constantly arguing and debating the causes and mechanisms associated with the global flood of Genesis. They are proceeding exactly the same as Evolutionists, only the YEC's philosophical "box" is a plain reading of Genesis, while the Evolutionists philosophical box is an Earth produced by natural processes. Neither ideological camp is capable of thinking outside of their boxes.

The difference is that YEC's have no problem admitting their metaphysical biases, while Evolutionists will only reluctantly admit their own, and only when you've backed them into a corner on it. However to an unwitting public, Evolution is only presented as an unimpeachable data-driven truth of reality, (which is a total falsehood)

 

[coffee4u]

I don’t trust creationist sources for info I can look up myself as they have a serious reputation for lying and omitting important details

I didn't look up creationist resources, I knew this stuff was out there and simply Googled for Darwin +evoltion +race.
If it is creationist then maybe that's my pc remembering because I didn't check, I had assumed it was a secular resource.

'The European Molecular Biology Organization' does not sound like a 'creationist resource' to me.

 

[coffee4u]

This is pretty funny because 1700's 'old-earth' Geology was fundamentally wrong about earth history. Even today's mainstream geologists will admit that Uniformitarianism is nonsense. And that pseudoscience was being pushed by evolutionists right up into the mid-20th century.. (see the Missoula Flood controversy)

This is where someone will chime in about the virtues of SCIENCE(tm), in that it is always correcting itself with new evidence. What they don't understand is that the corrections must only be considered if they ultimately conform to the greater metaphysical narrative of natural causes producing the earth and everything in it. That is the way it has always been.

It is no different then the idea of YEC's constantly arguing and debating the causes and mechanisms associated with the global flood of Genesis. They are proceeding exactly the same as Evolutionists, only the YEC's philosophical "box" is a plain reading of Genesis, while the Evolutionists philosophical box is an Earth produced by natural processes. Neither ideological camp is capable of thinking outside of their boxes.

The difference is that YEC's have no problem admitting their metaphysical biases, while Evolutionists will only reluctantly admit their own, and only when you've backed them into a corner on it. However to an unwitting public, Evolution is only presented as an unimpeachable data-driven truth of reality, (which is a total falsehood)

Very true.

Everyone has a bias, only most won't admit it!

We happily admit our bias is God's word.

 

[Brightmoon]

The modern idea in geology is of uniformitarianism . That processes that happened in the past also happen in the present. We do understand that catastrophes happen occasionally since we see evidence of this . You complain about science but you still haven’t come up with verifiable evidence for creationist claims

 

[Brightmoon]

specificallythe idea of man evolving from an ape in and of itself contradicts scripture and makes the nature of man and even Jesus connected to slime amoebas.
Therefore, the idea that sea creature have evolved into humans is out of the picture. (snip)
.

The incorrect creationist version of evolution to a Tee. Sea creatures didn’t evolve into humans . No mainstream biologists will ever tell you that . He’d the real lineage

An extinct lineage of lobefins evolved into fishopods . Some of those fishopod lineages evolved into amphibians . An amphibian lineage evolved into the Reptilomorphan lineage. One of the reptilomorphs lineages ( the synapsida ) evolved into mammals . And mammals evolved into several lineages including Primates. Humans evolved from the great ape lineage. And just like humans are still reptilomorphs, synapsids, mammals and primates, we are still great apes in family Hominidae .

before our lobefinned fish great great ..... great grand parents , we were chordates. Long before we we chordates ( I’m skipping some steps as I’ve got a few things to do) we were unicellular eucaryotes . Related to other eucaryotes like plants and fungi . The bacterial ancestors were archaean bacteria aided by eubacterial symbionts that eventually became mitochondria and in plants chloroplasts .

 

[Job 33:6]

This is pretty funny because 1700's 'old-earth' Geology was fundamentally wrong about earth history. Even today's mainstream geologists will admit that Uniformitarianism is nonsense. And that pseudoscience was being pushed by evolutionists right up into the mid-20th century.. (see the Missoula Flood controversy)

I'm a mainstream geologist. Not I, nor geologists I've known, studied with, or worked with have ever considered uniformitarianism to be false.

What you're saying is simply untrue.

 

[coffee4u]

An extinct lineage of lobefins evolved into fishopods . Some of those fishopod lineages evolved into amphibians . An amphibian lineage evolved into the Reptilomorphan lineage. One of the reptilomorphs lineages ( the synapsida ) evolved into mammals . And mammals evolved into several lineages including Primates. Humans evolved from the great ape lineage.

Which ^ is exactly what we mean when we say "evolutionists believe man evolved from seas creatures." Just because we don't use the whole tree, you know very well what we mean.

Evolutionist "lobefins>fishopods>amphibians>Reptilomorphan>mammals>Primates>human Creationist: "Fish>humans" We aren't saying that you said we came directly from fish, we are saying you believe they were one thing in the line.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin was an abolitionist and he thought the intellectual differences between the so called races was due to education and culture . A typical of 19th century man of his social class would have thought lower class people weren’t worth listening to . Darwin learned from any one who would teach him . The man who taught him taxidermy was Black. His 19th century classist upbringing showed as he never named him in any of his writings but he did mention him.

Yes, it's no coincidence that creationism is strongest in those states where slavery and segregation were the rule. As late as 1992, the head of the Institute for Creation Research was still blathering about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of blacks.

This is one of the major differences between evolution and creationism. Not that all creastionists are racists; most of them are not. But racism is the logical conclusion for those who accept YE creationism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which ^ is exactly what we mean when we say "evolutionists believe man evolved from seas creatures." Just because we don't use the whole tree, you know very well what we mean.

If so, it's kinda hard to see why it upsets creationists when scientists point out that humans evolved from other primates, not any sea creature.

We get it; by pointing out the fact, it derails the narrative of sudden jump from sea creature to human.

 

[Brightmoon]

Very true.

Everyone has a bias, only most won't admit it!

We happily admit our bias is God's word.

you know that languages evolve too. What darwin meant by race we would probably call a subspecies. I happily admit that if creationists, flat earthers and geocentists had any evidence for their claims then I would change my mind

 

[inquiring mind]

Again mainstream scientists will tell you that they cannot confirm or disconfirm supernatural phenomena. It is out of the realm of science.

Yet, they base everything on a foundational belief themselves... that being science confirms/disconfirms everything.

 

[Brightmoon]

When it comes to natural phenomena science works to figure out what’s going on . Bronze Age holy books , don’t work so well

 

[The Barbarian]

Yet, they base everything on a foundational belief themselves... that being science confirms/disconfirms everything.

No, that's common superstition people have about scientists, but it's very false. Scientists will be the first to tell you that science is limited to learning about the physical universe, and cannot even consider the supernatural, either to affirm or deny.

And of course they will tell you that nature is a terrible place to get morals or ethical information.

It's perfectly O.K. to be unscientific when that's called for. I am often unscientific myself.

 

[inquiring mind]

When it comes to natural phenomena science works to figure out what’s going on . Bronze Age holy books , don’t work so well

Science needs to remain within the limits of its expertise then, and not criticize that which it can't comprehend.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, that's common superstition people have about scientists, but it's very false. Scientists will be the first to tell you that science is limited to learning about the physical universe, and cannot even consider the supernatural, either to affirm or deny.

I didn't say anything about the supernatural. I said that science's foundational belief is that science confirms and disconfirms everything. But, that can't be proved, so what's the difference in that and belief in the supernatural foundational belief?