Any Christian takes an "agnostic" view on this issue?

[ThaiDuykhang]

I've seen agnostics having an agnostic view on this issue. (aka, don't know, can't be proven)
any Christian has similar views? why?

 

[S Walch]

Well, until i get confirmation that it's been refuted, everything in Darwins black Box by Michael behe proves how evolution is wrong (seeing as though Michael Behe's an Agnostic, it's not just creationists that believe evolution to be wrong )

 

[Donkeytron]

Well, until i get confirmation that it's been refuted, everything in Darwins black Box by Michael behe proves how evolution is wrong (seeing as though Michael Behe's an Agnostic, it's not just creationists that believe evolution to be wrong )

DBB has been thoroughly debunked. Behe just refuses to acknowledge how what he claims are irreducably complex systems are, in fact, evolvable. As far as I know, american protestants are pretty much the only group of young-earthers around.

 

[S Walch]

DBB has been thoroughly debunked. Behe just refuses to acknowledge how what he claims are irreducably complex systems are, in fact, evolvable. As far as I know, american protestants are pretty much the only group of young-earthers around.

Am I American?
Am I Protestant?

Please, don't be so stereotypical.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I'm not an American and I'm a Cathoic and a YEC.

 

[Donkeytron]

Am I American?
Am I Protestant?

Please, don't be so stereotypical.

I wasn't being so stereotypical.

 

[S Walch]

You most certainly were.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I've seen agnostics having an agnostic view on this issue. (aka, don't know, can't be proven)

any Christian has similar views? why?

I take the agnostic view as much as science does. I have no faith in evolution and will gladly throw it out the window tomorrow, as soon as someone comes up with a better and stronger theory. So far the competition from the non-evolution camp has been disappointing to say the least. YEC has not come out with any real science in 100 to 200 years and the ID movement has not even tried to get a decent hypothesis on paper yet, just some fictional books and a few lawsuits.


Same goes for any other theory in science.

 

[notto]

I take the agnostic view as much as science does. I have no faith in evolution and will gladly throw it out the window tomorrow, as soon as someone comes up with a better and stronger theory. So far the competition from the non-evolution camp has been disappointing to say the least. YEC has not come out with any real science in 100 to 200 years and the ID movement has not even tried to get a decent hypothesis on paper yet, just some fictional books and a few lawsuits.


Same goes for any other theory in science.

I would concur with this.

If a better theory comes along that can better describe creation and how it works, I would accept it. I have no religious motivation to accept evolution other than I accept it as the best explanation of the reality of the creation before it and I am motivated to understand it as much as possible.

 

[chaoschristian]

I would concur with this.

If a better theory comes along that can better describe creation and how it works, I would accept it. I have no religious motivation to accept evolution other than I accept it as the best explanation of the reality of the creation before it and I am motivated to understand it as much as possible.

Very well said! Nothing more that I could add to this and what LewisWildermuth posted.

 

[shernren]

If any Christians were "reverently agnostic" (my friend's phrase. lovely phrase.) about this issue, do you think they'd be here in the first place? XD

It's ironic that many people who come here to argue others out of a certain viewpoint ... are the very people who could never imagine themselves argued out of their own viewpoint in any way whatsoever.

 

[SBG]

Which makes the argument itself in this forum, pointless. Yet, for our own sakes and self indulgence, we argue and hurt each other. Odd way for Christians who have been saved to act towards each other, don't you think?

 

[shernren]

Indeed, SBG. I know it's possible to discuss constructively with Creationists because I've been blessed by such miracles before ... but why, oh why, is it so hard??

 

[Mick116]

Regarding the origin of life in general and of humanity in particular, I think that a high level of agnosticism is really the only honest position to take, because no matter what side of the debate one takes (i.e. evolutionist, TE, YEC, ID etc.), there is such an overwhelming amount of information that we do not know and cannot know.

Science has yet to provide any sort of explanation for the origin of the first living cell from non-living matter (this has got to be a miracle if ever there was one). The theory that all the diversity of life has arisen through many billions of years of mutation and selection looks good on paper, but as to what actually happened (i.e. what caused specific mutations to arise, and what biological and environmental factors allowed the mutations to survive and proliferate in a population), this cannot be adequately known. Then there is the question of the development of consciousness - that life should arise from non-living matter, and then become aware of itself - again, a miracle according to anyone's definition.

Likewise, fundamentalist creationism cites the scriptures as authoritative on the question of origins, but fails to be able to adequately explain the process and mechanics of divine inspiration. Similarly, one question that arises from the theory that God created the universe, is how did God create the universe? Obviously these types of questions cannot be answered, and so a certain amount of agnosticism is in order.

What we cannot know is far greater than what we can know - hence, agnosticism. Perhaps we should humbly acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge, and begin referring to our position not as "creationist", but as "agnostic creationist", and not as "evolutionist", but as "agnostic evolutionist". I personally consider myself an agnostic Christian, not just in matters of origins, but in much of theology.

Ultimately, when one considers how much we don't really know, there leaves little difference between even the most learned scientific scholar, and the most ignorant fool.

Kind of puts things in perspective - evolutionist, TE, YEC, ID - we're all in the same boat, I think, and closer in our knowledge of the universe than we like to admit.

 

[Grunt]

Personally I don't give a flip how the world was created- it's a completely irrelevant issue. Some of the scientific theories surrounding the origins of the universe are very interesting, but they're not my field and I don't pay all that much attention to them.

My only "dog" in this fight is my interest in opposing those who wish to throw out science and replace it with theology, or attempt to twist the definition of science in order to slip religious beliefs in.