Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[tonychanyt]

But when it transitions from descriptions to explanations

E.g.?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

Sure, but you don't have to. You can assume evolution without believing in it. Let's talk about the utility of the theory of Evolution.

I am a Christian and worked evolution. I used the evolution model to implement AI programs. They are called evolutionary algorithms. You don't have to believe in evolution to work with it. If you search US patents in the last ten years, you will find many applications of evolution models. The theory of evolution has practical values. The US economy benefits from it. You cannot deny its utility.

Unlike other branches of hard sciences, there is not as much mathematical justification for Evolution. Nevertheless, it is a useful paradigm.

The Cheating Cell: How Evolution Helps Us Understand and Treat Cancer

If the theory works in daily practical life, there is no need to reject it. There is no need to believe in it either in the sense of spiritual faith.

See also

• Adam, Eve, and evolution
• How old is the earth?.

You believe either the Bible or evolution. You can't believe both because evolution opposes the Biblical description of the origins of the world and mankind.

 

[The Barbarian]

You believe either the Bible or evolution.

The Bible is God's word. Evolution is a phenomenon which is observed everywhere. Evolution is part of God's creation. God and truth cannot be at odds. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

 

[The Barbarian]

You can't believe both because evolution opposes the Biblical description of the origins of the world and mankind.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the world. This is why you're so confused about the issue. And of course, human populations are always evolving. Would you like me to show you some interesting examples?

Accept it God's way, not your way.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Bible is God's word. Evolution is a phenomenon which is observed everywhere. Evolution is part of God's creation. God and truth cannot be at odds. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

You are giving me questions to which you already know and believe the answer.

If Evolution is part of God's creation, the Bible would have clearly said so. What the Bible shows us is that God spoke creation into being. He said it, and it happened on the spot. There is no mention of creation evolving gradually over millions of years. Also, the world was created before the rest of the universe. That is not consistent with the evolution theory.

Environmental adaptation is not evolution. Although a species may change in appearance, it remains the same species. It does not change from one species to another, as suggested by Darwin's Origin of the Species. A dog remains a dog regardless of the different breeds. It doesn't become a cat.

Believing in evolution opposes the foundation doctrine of Biblical salvation, because our salvation depends on what the Bible says about Genesis 1-11.

 

[tonychanyt]

You believe either the Bible or evolution. You can't believe both because evolution opposes the Biblical description of the origins of the world and mankind.

Can you present the two opposing propositions?

 

[BeyondET]

You are giving me questions to which you already know and believe the answer.

If Evolution is part of God's creation, the Bible would have clearly said so. What the Bible shows us is that God spoke creation into being. He said it, and it happened on the spot. There is no mention of creation evolving gradually over millions of years. Also, the world was created before the rest of the universe. That is not consistent with the evolution theory.

God formed man from all the things that constitutes dirt. He formed not with just words.

Environmental adaptation is not evolution. Although a species may change in appearance, it remains the same species. It does not change from one species to another, as suggested by Darwin's Origin of the Species. A dog remains a dog regardless of the different breeds. It doesn't become a cat.

Primates are Primates all in the range of 99% identical DNA. may change in appearance and intelligence. Certainly isn't by chance it's that much shared DNA in human and ape Primates.

Believing in evolution opposes the foundation doctrine of Biblical salvation, because our salvation depends on what the Bible says about Genesis 1-11.

No that's you just wanting to pounce

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Can you present the two opposing propositions?

No. Because I do not participate in a questionaire.

 

[Fervent]

Depends on how deep the explanations run. For example, the Constructal law explains how rivers, crowds, evolution, trees, etc form and change. No philosophical or theological explanations needed. But if you ask "why are the physical laws of this universe established in such a way as to make all this wonder and complexity happen by natural processes?", then one must look to theological explanations.

Darwin explained how populations of living things change over time, in a simple and mechanistic way. And it works very well. But again, the deeper question as to why the world is so organized to produce these wonders, that's beyond science.

I'm not familiar with the constructal law, but any attempt to explain rather than simply describe is going to run into philosophical issues at its basest level. When we start working with nouns and verbs, rather than adjectives and adverbs, we introduce implicit ontologies and epistemic considerations. And ontology is at its heart a theological question, at least so long as we're considering gods that are ontological foundations. It's part of why there's no bridging the gap between hardline atheists and reasonable theists, because the atheist begins with an ontology that sees the universe as self-sufficient while the theist sees a universe that cannot be self-sufficient. There's an unbridgeable gap between phenomena and ontology, but without engaging with an ontology the descriptions aren't of very much use. But the theological and philosophical questions tend to be ignored rather than addressed in the name of pragmatism, because the our descriptive models are so good at promulgating themselves and anyone who dares to question them for any reason is labelled an anti-intellectual.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

God formed man from all the things that constitutes dirt. He formed not with just words.

Primates are Primates all in the range of 99% identical DNA. may change in appearance and intelligence. Certainly isn't by chance it's that much shared DNA in human and ape Primates.

No that's you just wanting to pounce

It is quite true that God did not just speak man into being in the same way he did with all other life. The reason why He formed man the way He did was to breathe the breath of life into him, giving man an immortal soul; something He did not do for all other life. Man was the only of God's creation that He breathed the breath of life into. Jesus did basically the same for His disciples, causing them to be born again of the Holy Spirit.

You need to check your facts about Primates have 99% identical DNA. However, regardless of that, God did not breathe the breath of life into any Primate. And, Primates were spoken into being, while, as you pointed out, man was formed from the dust of the earth and had life breathed into him by God.

Therefore Darwin's Ascent of Man is total fiction and contrary to how the Bible describes the creation of man.

 

[Fervent]

E.g.?

When we step away from the various mathematical models, pretty much. As soon as we begin to claim to know what "is" we've entered into the world of ontology, which is thoroughly informed by how we answer certain theological questions.

 

[tonychanyt]

No. Because I do not participate in a questionaire.

I prefer to argue with people who can think propositional and write logical propositions.

 

[tonychanyt]

When we step away from the various mathematical models, pretty much. As soon as we begin to claim to know what "is" we've entered into the world of ontology, which is thoroughly informed by how we answer certain theological questions.

Can you give a specific example? I prefer to argue with people who can think specifically and write precisely.

 

[Fervent]

Can you give a specific example? I prefer to argue with people who can think specifically and write precisely.

I'm not interested in arguing, so no.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not familiar with the constructal law, but any attempt to explain rather than simply describe is going to run into philosophical issues at its basest level.

Well, let's take a look at that. The Constructal Law says that for a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that
it provides easier access to the imposed (global) currents that flow through it.

So it explains why an optimum movement system in an airport requires that your time on a subway in the airport should be equal to the walking time from the subway to the airline gate. It explains why river valleys, trees, root systems, vascular and respiratory systems all look alike. It even accurately predicts why certain people are better swimmers, while others are better runners. Nature tends to follow paths that minimize the work needed for flows in any system.

It's on the level of thermodynamic laws; fundamental things that just are. Nowhere in the law, do you have to make any philosophical or theological assumptions, any more than a geologist needs to make such assumptions to explain the distribution of elements in the Earth.

The question of "why is nature like this?" is where the philosophical/theological assumptions come in. But science can't answer such questions, nor does it propose to do so.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's part of why there's no bridging the gap between hardline atheists and reasonable theists, because the atheist begins with an ontology that sees the universe as self-sufficient while the theist sees a universe that cannot be self-sufficient.

The thing is, we can do science without either of those assumptions. Science can't support either assumption, or resolve such a question.
But scientists can.

But the theological and philosophical questions tend to be ignored rather than addressed in the name of pragmatism, because the our descriptive models are so good at promulgating themselves and anyone who dares to question them for any reason is labelled an anti-intellectual.

Truth is, if using one or the other of those assumptions worked, scientists would do it regardless of who objected. But they don't work, so theists, atheists, and agnostics all use the same methodology of science.

Because it works.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have and it was quite intriguing but lacking when it came to proving evolution from a Biblical or scientific prespective. Like I said and everybody might agree with me, if Evolution matched up with scripture this would never be an issue of debate but because evolution contradicts what divine Revelation Moses was given by God Christiand will ALWAYS debate this topic and neither can be fully proven because we werent there when God created
everything. Similar to debating the existence of Jesus because there is only as much evidence for Jesus as there are for any other figure of history. Don't get me wrong, Jesus DID exist and every Christian should and has to believe this but they cant be fully proven because all we have is accounts from people who ljved during that era.

We believe in these figures from history because of the written evidence and firsthand accounts from people who WERE there.

Like I said, DNA im on board and every other replicatable and proven method of science that also aligns with the Bible I 100% agree is proven fact. But this? Not so much. But Christians will always debate about this topic and neither side will probably never be fully proven until Jesus returns. Until then we should all admit that God created the universe whether through the big bang or through the creationist view, it was God who caused it to happen. If you deny this I can't see how you can carry the legitimate label of Christian.

The Bible doesn't have any verses about DNA. But you believe it exists?

For topics of science that aren't in the Bible, maybe it just comes down to how well people can be informed.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Bible is God's word. Evolution is a phenomenon which is observed everywhere. Evolution is part of God's creation. God and truth cannot be at odds. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

You are giving me questions to which you already know and believe the answer.

You just confirmed for us that you don't know. You'd be more effective fighting it, if you knew something about it.

If Evolution is part of God's creation, the Bible would have clearly said so.

Hmmm... "If DNA is part of God's creation, the Bible would have clearly said so." You honestly think that God gave us a complete list of every thing in His creation? That's just an amazingly weird belief.

There is no mention of creation evolving gradually over millions of years.

There's no mention of atoms, either. C'mon.

Also, the world was created before the rest of the universe.

That's not what the Bible says. Maybe you should read it a bit and then come back and tell us about what you learned.

That is not consistent with the evolution theory.

Actually, if God just poofed everything into existence, evolution would work exactly the same way we see it working now. Remember, if you want to fight evolution, it would be useful to find out what it actually is.

Environmental adaptation is not evolution.

Actually, you're still confused about this. Let me try to make it simpler:

• Getting a suntan is adaptation, but not evolution.
• A mutation that does little or nothing is evolution, but not adaptation.
• A mutation that increases the likelihood of an organism living long enough to reproduce is adaptation and evolution.

And (you need to write all this down so you don't forget) biological evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

You see why this turned out so badly for you? Think about it, read your Bible a little more carefully, and come back and we'll talk.

Believing in evolution opposes the foundation doctrine of Biblical salvation, because our salvation depends on what the Bible says about Genesis 1-11.

You got that wrong, too. God doesn't care if you approve of evolution or the way He made the world. That's not how your salvation will be determined. If you'd read the Bible a little more carefully, I bet you could find where Jesus is very explicit about this. You really want to do that; your eternal home depends on it.

Good luck.

 

[The Barbarian]

You need to check your facts about Primates have 99% identical DNA.

There are different ways to measure it. But whatever measure you use, it turn out apes, including humans, are more closely related to each other than any of them are related to anything else. And humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to anything else. No matter which system you use.

And we know this works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

However, regardless of that, God did not breathe the breath of life into any Primate.

We are the descendants of the only primate to which God gave an immortal soul. Far as we know, anyway. He didn't mention any others.

And, Primates were spoken into being,

Actually, they were brought forth from the Earth, too. If you can trust God's word.

 

[Fervent]

The thing is, we can do science without either of those assumptions. Science can't support either assumption, or resolve such a question.
But scientists can.

In theory, sure. But the bounds of what is and isn't "science" is murky at best, and there are always assumptions in the works even when they are not explicitly stated. More often than not, "science" is about beginning with a notion that everything in the universe can be explained by a set of simple irrational laws. Which is a practical way to go about research, but within that practice it is easy to forget that there is a prior assumption of the explanatory nature of the universe via irrational laws.

Truth is, if using one or the other of those assumptions worked, scientists would do it regardless of who objected. But they don't work, so theists, atheists, and agnostics all use the same methodology of science.

Because it works.

"Works" is a murky proposition. But what does it mean for something to "work"? Underwrites research? Develops technology? What precisely are we talking about as far as something "working"? And while much of the methodology crosses over across faith-lines, its quite clear that many atheists and agnostics presume that the assumptions of science are necessarily atheistic, because separating the metaphysics of naturalism from the naturalistic methodology is only possible in the abstract. So science as a discipline silently makes theological assumptions and such assumptions tend to be adopted uncritically. It is only if we stick to pure descriptions of phenomena(both historic and predictive) that it is possible to avoid sneaking in philosophical and theological baggage, which would be entirely impractical.