Bottom line: Can a Christian believe in evolution and still be saved?

[Astrid]

I’m not sure this is true. But it’s hard to imagine one publishing articles that describe how many millions of years old various rock strata are.

One what?

Id guess you have not thought very hard about it.
Work on it a bit and then try again.

 

[Astrid]

There are many options. So what is the fundamental basis of the one you choose?

The one what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or that none of the countless gods daemons and
spirits are real.

Happy Easter!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure. Or it could be that God, who has always been primarily concerned with the condition of the heart throughout scripture, is just being consistent here.

A very distinct possibility -- and one that would relegate the acceptance of evolution as the origin of life to be a trivial matter... but good luck convincing a creationist of that possibility.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I get that there may not be all that many ultra-scientific Christian scholars, but surely you know there are some.

What exactly is an "ultra-scientific Christian scholar"? What combinations of expertise are we speaking of?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What exactly is an "ultra-scientific Christian scholar"? What combinations of expertise are we speaking of?

The kind who can demonstrate and/or explain the existence of "extraordinary" evidences for "extraordinary" claims. (i.e. the kind that I don't believe exists, but somehow atheists expect...)

Don't worry, Hans, I wasn't intending to be sarcastic and disparage Estrid in her character. My intent was to insinuate to her that just because we can all see that there are too many half-baked academic type Christian Apologists who don't offer much in the way of any solid evidence which would lend itself to substantive conclusions doesn't mean that are absolutely 'no' scholars out there who don't have some kind of respectable qualifications or perspectives, even where science is concerned.

No, typically, even if not always, Christian scholars who do have relevant qualifications get ignored.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The kind who can demonstrate and/or explain the existence of "extraordinary" evidences for "extraordinary" claims. (i.e. the kind that I don't believe exists, but somehow atheists expect...)

Don't worry, Hans, I wasn't intending to be sarcastic and disparage Estrid in her character. My intent was to insinuate to her that just because we can all see that there are too many half-baked academic type Christian Apologists who don't offer much in the way of any solid evidence which would lend itself to substantive conclusions doesn't mean that are absolutely 'no' scholars out there who don't have some kind of respectable qualifications or perspectives, even where science is concerned.

No, typically, even if not always, Christian scholars who do have relevant qualifications get ignored.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't explain what you meant.

"ultra-scientific Christian scholar":

Are these scholars Christians or scholars of Christianity?

How are they "ultra-scientific"?

Are you talking of scientists who are Christians?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't explain what you meant.

"ultra-scientific Christian scholar":

Are these scholars Christians or scholars of Christianity?

How are they "ultra-scientific"?

Are you talking of scientists who are Christians?

It's hyperbole, Hans. Hyperbole. My apologies if my use of this sort of language offends the senses ...

But yes, I am talking about various Christians from different backgrounds in science, many of whom are not made from the William Lane Craig, Henry Morris, Ken Ham brand templates.

If we want to keep things in simple, direct language, then...I am referring to scientists or scholars in various fields who are Christians, and it seems that Estrid isn't aware of their existence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's hyperbole, Hans. Hyperbole. My apologies if my use of this sort of language offends the senses ...

The biggest impediment we have to understanding your posts is your tendency to jargonize things, including in this case where you are (after clarification, clearly generating your own jargon.

But yes, I am talking about various Christians from different backgrounds in science, many of whom are not made from the William Lane Craig, Henry Morris, Ken Ham brand templates.

Three peas in a pod.

If we want to keep things in simple, direct language, then...I am referring to scientists or scholars in various fields who are Christians, and it seems that Estrid isn't aware of their existence.

I don't think that's quite the case, but Christians aren't that common in Hong Kong. Several times she has commented about her first encounters with some Christian thing while away from home.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The biggest impediment we have to understanding your posts is your tendency to jargonize things, including in this case where you are (after clarification, clearly generating your own jargon.



Three peas in a pod.



I don't think that's quite the case, but Christians aren't that common in Hong Kong. Several times she has commented about her first encounters with some Christian thing while away from home.

Ok. So your gripe with me here essentially equates to a request for me to use more direct language.

How boring!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok. So your gripe with me here essentially equates to a request for me to use more direct language.

How boring!

Do you want to be understood or "look impressive"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Three peas in a pod.

Not exactly. They're each from different schools of thought, however erroneous they may be respectively.

Moreover, I think you know that these three don't represent the only options out there that a Christian might work from. All too often, though, the "well, they're three peas in a pod" type designations work out as an across the board dismissal of all Christian scholars everywhere. And if that isn't the case, well then, you atheists need to stop using language with your own semantic twists that make it 'sound' that way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you want to be understood or "look impressive"?

I'm not concerned about either all that much, really. You see, in my existentialist outlook, I'm also a firm skeptic that anyone out there really gives a darn about what or 'how' I think, except where political issues are concerned. So, when I choose to get on a public forum like this one we're on now, I don't type words in e-spaces to be impressive, and I don't usually expect to be understood.

The ironic thing, here, is that I notice others want me to---no, they often demand that--- I care about what they think and how they think about it...or run the risk of being ostracized and thought of as a complete idiot.

And here's another irony in all of this, at least where I'm concerned: I'd love to be proven wrong about how I perceive the previous irony.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not exactly. They're each from different schools of thought, however erroneous they may be respectively.

Moreover, I think you know that these three don't represent the only options out there that a Christian might work from. All too often, though, the "well, they're three peas in a pod" type designations work out as an across the board dismissal of all Christian scholars everywhere. And if that isn't the case, well then, you atheists need to stop using language with your own semantic twists that make it 'sound' that way.

I've heard WLC speak many times and he comes across as the others do -- spreading falsehoods about science. He just covers it up better than the others and has a public portfolio that isn't only of that type.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've heard WLC speak many times and he comes across as the others do -- spreading falsehoods about science. He just covers it up better than the others and has a public portfolio that isn't only of that type.

I'm not sure about the claim that WLC is a straight out liar rather than a person who sees things from his own particular philosophical angle, but at the same time I know that both you and I can note that he's not a member of BioLogos, nor is he one of my personal influences where Christianity is concerned.

Then again, I'm not exactly a card carrying member of BioLogos either. I'm just a plain jane evolutionist, but allies are hard to come by these days so I might take a Francis Collins over a WLC if push comes to shove.

 

[disciple Clint]

Regardless of what you choose to make
up about me, I am not a total dimwit.
Of course some bible scholars will refer
to the work of researchers in other fields,
though that wasnt your original claim.

And some not- so scholarly people will
try to support their preconceived ideas by
resort to some shabby fraud like the geologist
you referred to.

in what was is Dr. Andrew Snelling a fraud, provide your evidence for making that inflammatory assertion.

 

[disciple Clint]

Indeed he does. Or at least he used to. But it appears that in his scientific work he believes in an old earth. Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

If their list of articles is representative, it appears that he changed his mind. Since his particular focus as a scientist makes no sense in a young earth context, his young earth views would not be a result of his scientific expertise, but an abandonment of it. Of course it’s perfectly ok to changes your mind, and even to decide that what you have been doing is based on a mistake.

My point was to establish that experts in various disciplines work along with bible scholars to come to conclusions, Not to express any opinion on the validity of work of Dr. Snelling.

 

[Astrid]

in what was is Dr. Andrew Snelling a fraud, provide your evidence for making that inflammatory assertion.

One could go into specifics in but you have no
knowledge of geology ( and of course you " know"
he is right) so i will just compare him to another
of his sorry ilke- a doctor K Wise, PhD, paleontology.
"....even if all the evidence in the universe turns against
Yec, I will still be yec, as that is what the bible seems
indicate".

The refined essence of intellectual dishonesty.

You might ask yourself why you would choose to
believe a man such as that, out of the world scientific
community? It cannot be because you are a geologist
and admire his work. No geologist does.
It is impossible for a well informed person to
be a yec and maintain intellectual integrity.

You going to stand by the insulting falsehood you
made up about me?

 

[Astrid]

My point was to establish that experts in various disciplines work along with bible scholars to come to conclusions, Not to express any opinion on the validity of work of Dr. Snelling.

So did the scholars finally conclude Noahs ark
never existed?

 

[disciple Clint]

One could go into specifics in but you have no
knowledge of geology ( and of course you " know"
he is right) so i will just compare him to another
of his sorry ilke- a doctor K Wise, PhD, paleontology.
"....even if all the evidence in the universe turns against
Yec, I will still be yec, as that is what the bible seems
indicate".

The refined essence of intellectual dishonesty.

You might ask yourself why you would choose to
believe a man such as that, out of the world scientific
community? It cannot be because you are a geologist
and admire his work. No geologist does.
It is impossible for a well informed person to
be a yec and maintain intellectual integrity.

You going to stand by the insulting falsehood you
made up about me?

So I see you have no evidence for your assertion, and your tactic of pretending that you have been unjustly offended is not valid either.