Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[tonychanyt]

No, I don't think we're going to achieve anything in a long and drawn-out debate.

I am not looking for a long and drawn-out debate. You accused me of twisting the meanings of words without even telling me which words I have twisted. I prefer to debate people who can provide support for their claims.

Can you quote my words and then explain logically how I twisted their meanings? This is the third and last time I have asked.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I don't think we're going to achieve anything in a long and drawn-out debate. I feel that you have already made up your mind about the subject and I don't believe you would approach it with a view to discover anything new.

I find people who have been given a piece of paper by the college or university, close their minds towards anything that challenges them or threatens their theory.

Thanks for the reply anyway

Actually, not all of them do. In fact, some of them were given a piece of paper by a university well AFTER they had already engaged everything that challenges modern science and/or threatens (evolutionary) theory.

Maybe don't just assume that every evolutionist out there perfectly fits the cookie-cutter stereotype that you envision (or have only heretofore encountered).

 

[olgamc]

When I say random, I mean that it is random to us because it's too complex for us to model.

If I take a handful of dice and I throw them into the air, I would consider it random, whatever numbers they fall on. However, in reality, physics is at play and there really isn't anything random about it. Unless we get into quantum physics.

We just use random to describe things that we have trouble modeling because they're too complex. But they still have limits. Dice only have so many sides so they aren't truly random at the end of the day.

And randomness does not equate to sloppiness. There is nothing sloppy about the lottery despite the numbers being random. It's actually well planned out and organized.

And I'm not sure that cats can be "evil". Satan is evil. But cats are just cats.

"Not at all. Satan's fall had to do with the realm of the angels, which is not physical."

Well, Satan was in the garden deceiving Eve. Some theologically view his fall as happening before the human fall. But the point I was making is, your concerns don't actually have to do with evolution so much as they are concerns over things like the problem of evil.

And science and faith only compliment each other if you read the Bible as a science concordist. That's a hermeneutical choice. Many people view these as separate things. For example, with Adam being made of dust, some people think that's about science and chemistry, others would simply say that the authors lived in a pre-scientific time and that it has nothing to do with science.

So to summarize, you believe that God could have created the world through inventing and deliberately guiding the process of evolution. Correct?

And you also believe that God could have interfered at any point in time to do something that we humans would consider out of the ordinary, or not falling in line with the laws of nature. Correct?

And you also believe that Bible contains different books written by different people at different times and for different purposes, right? Bible contains theology, poetry, prophecy, history. You do believe that it contains history, right? Adam and Eve being actual live people. Genealogies recording actual ages of actual people. Jesus being an actual physical baby born from a real live girl Mary who had no intercourse until after Jesus’s birth. Jesus was literally physically crucified and really died and then really physically became alive. Or was all this a purely theological concept and is none of it talking about real physical people, ages, births, and deaths?

Because if you agree with all of the above, then we are in agreement and we don’t have much to debate. Just some differences of what we do with that information when it comes to forming our theology, that’s all.

 

[olgamc]

And science and faith only compliment each other if you read the Bible as a science concordist.

Look, all I am saying is that you can’t study creation without studying the Creator. For example, you are reading this paragraph now. You know that I wrote it because I told you I did and let’s for argument’s sake say that it’s true. But do you know HOW I wrote it? Did I type it up? Did I dictate it into an assistive technology? Did I throw an eraser at the keyboard? Did I spell out letters to my 4 year old? You have no idea until you know something about me. Well fortunately, it turns out that I wrote a whole bunch of books about myself and my relationship with this paragraph.

And you can also learn something about me or my character by studying my writing, my choice of words, my sentence structure. Am I attentive to detail? Am I considerate? Am I thorough? Am I a native English speaker?

See my point?

 

[Dan1988]

I am not looking for a long and drawn-out debate. You accused me of twisting the meanings of words without even telling me which words I have twisted. I prefer to debate people who can provide support for their claims.

Can you quote my words and then explain logically how I twisted their meanings? This is the third and last time I have asked.

I was referring mostly to your original post. Where the title itself drew my attention. You profess to be a Christian, whilst accepting the theory of evolution to be true or valid or whatever way you want to put it.

My point was that a Christian cannot accept Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as being founded on truth or facts or documented evidence.

I know you will say I don't believe that his theory is confirmed by facts, and I'm only using this false theory to create AI programs. I still don't see how you're not contradicting what you profess to believe as a Christian. To say you don't believe in the theory of evolution, then to apply it to your work is a contradiction of terms.

I know the word "evolution" means something different, when we apply it on it's own without connecting it to "Darwin's theory". As a mechanical technician, I've been involved with the evolution of vehicle safety. Motorcars have evolved over the decades to be much safer then they were 50 years ago.

I don't have a problem with the concept evolution, as long as the evolving thing has someone driving the process. I don't believe that anything can change or modify itself without having someone to cause it or drive the changes.
You can take a domestic pig and let it lose in a cold climate and, it will grow longer hair to keep it warm. Some would call that process evolution but I would call it adaptation to it's environment.

I cannot accept that any process or changes can take place without a creator to cause those changes by intelligent design. I could never accept the theory that everything came from nothing by a magical big bang, which was caused by nothing.

 

[Dan1988]

Actually, not all of them do. In fact, some of them were given a piece of paper by a university well AFTER they had already engaged everything that challenges modern science and/or threatens (evolutionary) theory.

Maybe don't just assume that every evolutionist out there perfectly fits the cookie-cutter stereotype that you envision (or have only heretofore encountered).

It's OK to put your case forward, but you will need more than just words to make a valid claim. Every court of law requires evidence, to support one's claims. I would abandon my faith right now, if anyone found a single shred of evidence to support that theory.

I'm quietly confident, that I won't ever be renouncing my faith but I have always put the challenge out there but nobody has been able provide anything other than empty words and fantastic theories. They make for good entertainment, but they nothing more to offer.

I have even offered my house to anyone who finds a single shred of evidence to support their faith in the fantastic theory

 

[olgamc]

I have even offered my house to anyone who finds a single shred of evidence to support their faith in the fantastic theory

Can you please define evolution?

 

[BeyondET]

I would abandon my faith right now, if anyone found a single shred of evidence to support that theory.

Why would you think you have to abandon your faith. Dirt to man certainly isn't spell out. By that alone its anyones guess as to the process in which God used. Presto man or something else. I look at what causes earth's dirt. Even dirt isn't mentioned as being created but its of earth. Personally I think it came from things already mentioned in Genesis.

The different ways life thrives is quite amazing. Take a flat worm for example, you literally can cut it up with a knife into 10 pieces and after awhile each piece will transform into an adult flat worm. The blueprint for a new flat worm is throughout its whole body stored in stem cells. God's processes for life are vast and robust, and so are the stem cell libraries since life on earth.

Passed along like memories of the Monarch butterfly migrating between continents over multiple generations to the exact spot hundreds of miles away then back to the other continent over many generations.

 

[Job 33:6]

So to summarize, you believe that God could have created the world through inventing and deliberately guiding the process of evolution. Correct?

And you also believe that God could have interfered at any point in time to do something that we humans would consider out of the ordinary, or not falling in line with the laws of nature. Correct?

And you also believe that Bible contains different books written by different people at different times and for different purposes, right? Bible contains theology, poetry, prophecy, history. You do believe that it contains history, right? Adam and Eve being actual live people. Genealogies recording actual ages of actual people. Jesus being an actual physical baby born from a real live girl Mary who had no intercourse until after Jesus’s birth. Jesus was literally physically crucified and really died and then really physically became alive. Or was all this a purely theological concept and is none of it talking about real physical people, ages, births, and deaths?

Because if you agree with all of the above, then we are in agreement and we don’t have much to debate. Just some differences of what we do with that information when it comes to forming our theology, that’s all.

God doesn't have to guide evolution no more than He has to guide the lottery. He knows and has dictated the outcome, even if the lottery is random.

He could interfere with the lottery by turning a ball at any given moment, but He doesn't have to.

Those are the areas that I would disagree with. Evolution being a random process, much like the lottery, does not contradict God's control over the matter.

 

[Job 33:6]

Look, all I am saying is that you can’t study creation without studying the Creator. For example, you are reading this paragraph now. You know that I wrote it because I told you I did and let’s for argument’s sake say that it’s true. But do you know HOW I wrote it? Did I type it up? Did I dictate it into an assistive technology? Did I throw an eraser at the keyboard? Did I spell out letters to my 4 year old? You have no idea until you know something about me. Well fortunately, it turns out that I wrote a whole bunch of books about myself and my relationship with this paragraph.

And you can also learn something about me or my character by studying my writing, my choice of words, my sentence structure. Am I attentive to detail? Am I considerate? Am I thorough? Am I a native English speaker?

See my point?

Yes sure. But that doesn't mean that God couldn't have used evolution, as a whole and not just aspects.

 

[Dan1988]

Can you please define evolution?

The word itself is self explanatory, it simply means the process of development of a product over time to improve it. It can also be applied to the adaptation of animals to their changing environment. We can observe the evolution of larger tusks and longer hair on a farm pig, when it escapes and goes feral. .
The pig naturally grows larger tusks to dig for food and longer hair to keep it warm, but you will have to accept the fact that it's still a pig and it hasn't evolved into a different species. You may believe that pigs can fly but I reject that theory because it's never been observed or proven with any evidence.

 

[Dan1988]

Why would you think you have to abandon your faith. Dirt to man certainly isn't spell out. By that alone its anyones guess as to the process in which God used. Presto man or something else. I look at what causes earth's dirt. Even dirt isn't mentioned as being created but its of earth. Personally I think it came from things already mentioned in Genesis.

The different ways life thrives is quite amazing. Take a flat worm for example, you literally can cut it up with a knife into 10 pieces and after awhile each piece will transform into an adult flat worm. The blueprint for a new flat worm is throughout its whole body stored in stem cells. God's processes for life are vast and robust, and so are the stem cell libraries since life on earth.

Passed along like memories of the Monarch butterfly migrating between continents over multiple generations to the exact spot hundreds of miles away then back to the other continent over many generations.

Yes God's creation is amazing, but we have never found any evidence to support this theory of evolution. Adam was the smartest man who ever lived, he was created extremely intelligent and extremely skillful and talented in every area of science and the arts. He was created with a masters degree in every single discipline, and he never spent a single day at university.

Today mankind is the most retarded he has ever been from the time of creation. Each generation has de-evolved into dumber and dumber people. Todays technology can't even answer the most basic questions, a four year old asks. So yeah if your impressed by their wisdom the I don't share your view.

To me, the theory of evolution is most insulting theory to my intelligence. It's on par with the equally insulting big bang job. Why would God leave semi amphibious creatures lying helpless and venerable on the water shore for millions of years, waiting to grow legs. If you believe they wouldn't be snapped up by the first hungry condor, then I have a harbor bridge to sell you at a bargain price.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes God's creation is amazing, but we have never found any evidence to support this theory of evolution. Adam was the smartest man who ever lived, he was created extremely intelligent and extremely skillful and talented in every area of science and the arts. He was created with a masters degree in every single discipline, and he never spent a single day at university.

Today mankind is the most retarded he has ever been from the time of creation. Each generation has de-evolved into dumber and dumber people. Todays technology can't even answer the most basic questions, a four year old asks. So yeah if your impressed by their wisdom the I don't share your view.

To me, the theory of evolution is most insulting theory to my intelligence. It's on par with the equally insulting big bang job. Why would God leave semi amphibious creatures lying helpless and venerable on the water shore for millions of years, waiting to grow legs. If you believe they wouldn't be snapped up by the first hungry condor, then I have a harbor bridge to sell you at a bargain price.

We've found plenty of evidence for evolution, such as transitional fossils.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's OK to put your case forward, but you will need more than just words to make a valid claim. Every court of law requires evidence, to support one's claims. I would abandon my faith right now, if anyone found a single shred of evidence to support that theory.

Do you have a degree in Law or Philosophy or Forensics?

Also, in regard to the Philosophy of Science, as well as the Theory of Evolution, what have you read so far?

And, by the way, what is your conception and understanding of what constitutes "evidence," or even "scientific evidence"?

I'm quietly confident, that I won't ever be renouncing my faith but I have always put the challenge out there but nobody has been able provide anything other than empty words and fantastic theories. They make for good entertainment, but they nothing more to offer.

That's good. I won't be renouncing my faith in Christ either, even though I think evolution is true. As far as I'm concerned, it is a separate consideration, somewhat apart from the texts of the Bible.

However, I'm also of the mind that if other fellow Christians feel that a literal reading of Genesis 1, 2 & 3 is most appropriate in their understanding and in their view of Christian Faith, then I have very little compulsion to want make them think otherwise. And I'm MORE than willing to just let things ride between their literal view and my more existential and academically inclined view, just as long as they're respectful in return and don't turn their Bible into a political, Theonomic platform.

I have even offered my house to anyone who finds a single shred of evidence to support their faith in the fantastic theory

No one wants your house, so that's a silly thing to say.

 

[olgamc]

God doesn't have to guide evolution no more than He has to guide the lottery. He knows and has dictated the outcome, even if the lottery is random.

He could interfere with the lottery by turning a ball at any given moment, but He doesn't have to.

Those are the areas that I would disagree with. Evolution being a random process, much like the lottery, does not contradict God's control over the matter.

Notice my choice of words. Could have. Not did. God doesn’t have to do anything - He is God, He can do whatever He wants. That’s why I say could have, because I am not God, I was not there to see it, and He didn’t spell it out for us. Therefore He could have done something, but He could have done something else, and what He actually did remains largely unknown. Agree? Job 38 and 1 Corinthians 8:2

 

[olgamc]

The word itself is self explanatory, it simply means the process of development of a product over time to improve it. It can also be applied to the adaptation of animals to their changing environment. We can observe the evolution of larger tusks and longer hair on a farm pig, when it escapes and goes feral. .
The pig naturally grows larger tusks to dig for food and longer hair to keep it warm, but you will have to accept the fact that it's still a pig and it hasn't evolved into a different species. You may believe that pigs can fly but I reject that theory because it's never been observed or proven with any evidence.

Exactly. And that is why it remains a theory.

Now, in terms of product development. As an engineer, would you be able to take a cart with wheels and make small modifications to it until it’s an airplane? Of course you could, because you are very smart and a brilliant engineer. So if you can take something that rolls on the ground and make it fly through the air, why do you think that God couldn’t? Or wouldn’t? Or didn’t? Note my choice of words - those are 3 different questions.

 

[Job 33:6]

Notice my choice of words. Could have. Not did. God doesn’t have to do anything - He is God, He can do whatever He wants. That’s why I say could have, because I am not God, I was not there to see it, and He didn’t spell it out for us. Therefore He could have done something, but He could have done something else, and what He actually did remains largely unknown. Agree? Job 38 and 1 Corinthians 8:2

Ok, so in terms of the question at hand, could God have used a natural process, The theory of evolution in full? The answer is "yes". Indeed it is compatible with Christianity.

 

[olgamc]

Yes sure. But that doesn't mean that God couldn't have used evolution, as a whole and not just aspects.

In that I would actually disagree to an extent. I mean of course He could, but the way Genesis is written indicates that He didn’t. Again, that’s just how I read it and interpret it, and I might be wrong. But I do not believe that He set up a process, pushed a button, and sat back to watch it run. Genesis 1 tells us that every day of creation (regardless of how day is defined) God interfered. How exactly He interfered - I don’t know. But He did stop at the end of every day, evaluated all that He had made so far, declared it good, and finished for the day. And the next day He decided what to make next. And even within days it describes a progression - first He made this, then He made that. Why is that in the Bible? Somehow it’s important. My son thinks that God just set up 4 basic laws of physics and then left the world to create itself as a natural playing out of those laws. But that’s not how I read the book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible. If you believe all of the Bible, then you know that at certain points of history God interferes, and often miraculously. I read Genesis in context of the whole Scripture, and I try not to add or subtract.

 

[olgamc]

Ok, so in terms of the question at hand, could God have used a natural process, The theory of evolution in full? The answer is "yes". Indeed it is compatible with Christianity.

There are aspects that I do not see compatible as I tried to explain before. Namely, my questions that you did not answer about Adam’s grandma.

 

[olgamc]

There are aspects that I do not see compatible as I tried to explain before. Namely, my questions that you did not answer about Adam’s grandma.

But I wonder, do you see Adam being created not through evolution but by God’s divine interference - do you see that as being incompatible with something?