Christianity and Evolution???

[Mirror]

I Mirror Believe that as christians you can't say "i belive in christ" and then say "i believe in Evolution". it just dosn't work that way.

 

[Blackguard_]

Mirror,

I agree,
A random evolution process would deny that God has a plan for the Universe.
Do you think you could say God guided the "evolution" process? I for one am a Creationist, the gap in the fossil record(there's no transitional species) clearly does not support evolution.

Are you Old or Young Earth creationist? And if Young Earth, how would you explain the Dinosaur fossils? The only thing I could come up with is that maybe the fossils of Dinosaurs and other creatures are the remnants of Eden.

 

[Heartman]

I do not know how God built this place with us on it, but I know that if the facts of the Biblical account were lined up with the actual scientific account they would agree. There are many ways to read the Biblical account while believing it 100% and different Christians differ on what it means.

What I do know is that He could have done it a number of ways and it would all agree. I do not believe in evolution, and I think at some time scientists will give up trying to prove it.

Since there are countless ways to deny God, when evolution proves impossible, they will come up with another theory that will ultimately fail as well. It's the end of the species they should be concerned with, for it may be a lot sooner than they think.

 

[lucaspa]

I Mirror Believe that as christians you can't say "i belive in christ" and then say "i believe in Evolution". it just dosn't work that way.

Look at the quotes in my signature. Also, for Christian denominations that do say "I believe in Christ" and also say "I accept evolution", see
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp

Why are you making evolution a salvation issue?

 

[lucaspa]

A random evolution process would deny that God has a plan for the Universe.

Since when is evolution "random"? It's not. Selection is the exact opposite of "random"; it is pure determinism.

Now, evolution is "contingent". That is, accidental events have a profound effect on the future. But hey, we already accept that history is a contingent process and think God can use history for His purposes. So what's the problem?

Do you think you could say God guided the "evolution" process?

Do you? I can think of at least 2 ways God can do this and no be "caught" by science.

I for one am a Creationist, the gap in the fossil record(there's no transitional species) clearly does not support evolution.

Sorry, but you are wrong about the fossil record. There are lots of transitional species. But even worse for you, there are transitional individuals linking one species to another, and even series linking species to species across higher taxa, even to linking Casses (birds and mammals are examples of Classes). I've put together a partial list:
http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I Mirror Believe that as christians you can't say "i belive in christ" and then say "i believe in Evolution". it just dosn't work that way.

Tough.

I believe in Christ

I accept evolution.

Deal with it. You're wrong.

 

[Blackguard_]

'Sorry, but you are wrong about the fossil record. There are lots of transitional species. But even worse for you, there are transitional individuals linking one species to another, and even series linking species to species across higher taxa, even to linking Casses (birds and mammals are examples of Classes). I've put together a partial list:"

I stand corrected

"Since when is evolution "random"? It's not. Selection is the exact opposite of "random"; it is pure determinism.

doesn't "selection" just refer to whether or not a current species is succesful or survives? Which i agree is almost pure determinism. but isn't how a species gets new charecteristics random? I always thought evolution was based on whether or not a genetic mutant of a species could survive.

Now, evolution is "contingent". That is, accidental events have a profound effect on the future. But hey, we already accept that history is a contingent process and think God can use history for His purposes. So what's the problem?"

But in the case of history, God being all knowing, knows how to work around these accidents, and to God these wouldn't be accidents as he wold have foreknowledge of them, and so could work them into his plan.

If you're saying God made the Universe and said "let's see what sort of creature evolves" it would go against God having a plan for the universe. But if you say God set up the Universe so that Man would evolve, taking into account all the "accidents" that would happen, that would be consistent with with God having a plan. The second one was what I meant by God "guiding" evolution.

So yes, you could be a Christian and accept evolution if you add that God deliberately set up the Universe so that Man would evolve.

Edit: your sig said it best "Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."

 

[Bushido216]

I Mirror Believe that as christians you can't say "i belive in christ" and then say "i believe in Evolution". it just dosn't work that way.

Thanks for your opinion. I will now completely disgard it.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

"Since when is evolution "random"? It's not. Selection is the exact opposite of "random"; it is pure determinism.

doesn't "selection" just refer to whether or not a current species is succesful or survives? Which i agree is almost pure determinism. but isn't how a species gets new charecteristics random? I always thought evolution was based on whether or not a genetic mutant of a species could survive.

Evolution has two parts: Mutation and Selection.

Mutation is somewhat random, there are constant "copy errors" when ever a cell divides. These copy errors happen quite often. Mutations happening is not random but predetermined by chemestry it is just when and where they happen that is random.

Sellection is pure determinism, it acts as a filter to screen out bad mutations so only good or neutral ones are dominant.

The act of sellection turns what would be a random process into a highly ordered one.

But in the case of history, God being all knowing, knows how to work around these accidents, and to God these wouldn't be accidents as he wold have foreknowledge of them, and so could work them into his plan.

If you're saying God made the Universe and said "let's see what sort of creature evolves" it would go against God having a plan for the universe. But if you say God set up the Universe so that Man would evolve, taking into account all the "accidents" that would happen, that would be consistent with with God having a plan. The second one was what I meant by God "guiding" evolution.

The Bible says nothing on what God's plan for the universe is. Humans have long speculated on the plan, but God has not revieled it.

I will go on to say that evolution and the way science says the universe works is IMO absoulutly neccasary for free will. If there is no free will than we are nothing more than God playing with dolls, making them do and say bad things then burning them for doing the things He made them do.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I Mirror Believe that as christians you can't say "i belive in christ" and then say "i believe in Evolution". it just dosn't work that way.

My beliefs do not require that you believe.

 

[Larry]

I Mirror Believe that as christians you can't say "i belive in christ" and then say "i believe in Evolution". it just dosn't work that way.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Mirror]

My beliefs do not require that you believe.

THATS VERY CONTRADICTORY.

Tough.

I believe in Christ

I accept evolution.

Deal with it. You're wrong.

HEY KARL TO BELIEVE(WAIT, BELIEVE IS THE WRONG WORD..."TO HAVE FAITH" IS WHAT IM LOOKING FOR),TO HAVE FAITH IN CHRIST YOU MUST BELIEVE IN THE SCRIPTURES AND TO BELEVE IN THE SCRIPTURES IS TO ACCEPT THEM. IN THAT CASE YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT YOU BELIVE IN THEM AND THEN SAY THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG AND THAT MAN EVOLVED. IT JUST DOSNT WORK.

ANYWAY THIS THREAD IS TO TRY AND SHOW THAT CHRISTIANS WHO SAY "I BELIEVE IN CHRIST" AND THEN SAY "I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION" ARE JUST WRONG. WE ARE NOT HERE TO PROVE EVOLUTION. "GET IT? GOT IT? DOUBT IT."

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

THATS VERY CONTRADICTORY.
HEY KARL TO BELIEVE(WAIT, BELIEVE IS THE WRONG WORD..."TO HAVE FAITH" IS WHAT IM LOOKING FOR),TO HAVE FAITH IN CHRIST YOU MUST BELIEVE IN THE SCRIPTURES

1. Stop shouting.

2. This is a non-sequitur. Why do I have to believe in the Scriptures to believe in Christ?

AND TO BELEVE IN THE SCRIPTURES IS TO ACCEPT THEM.

But as it happens I do. I do not accept them as scientific accounts of the creation of the world, but I do accept them as God inspired and profitable for the purposes for which they were written, as described in 2 Tim 3:16 (or wherever the classic proof text is)

IN THAT CASE YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT YOU BELIVE IN THEM AND THEN SAY THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG AND THAT MAN EVOLVED. IT JUST DOSNT WORK.

I do not believe the Scriptures contradict the idea that man evolved. They say that God created man, but they do not add the rider "and He didn't do it by evolution" - that's your addition.

ANYWAY THIS THREAD IS TO TRY AND SHOW THAT CHRISTIANS WHO SAY "I BELIEVE IN CHRIST" AND THEN SAY "I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION" ARE JUST WRONG. WE ARE NOT HERE TO PROVE EVOLUTION. "GET IT? GOT IT? DOUBT IT."

Well, this thread is monumentally failing in its task, given that most scientifically literate Christians do accept evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

,TO HAVE FAITH IN CHRIST YOU MUST BELIEVE IN THE SCRIPTURES

That is not necessary. After all, Paul didn't have the scriptures and believed in Christ thru personal experience.

AND TO BELEVE IN THE SCRIPTURES IS TO ACCEPT THEM. IN THAT CASE YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT YOU BELIVE IN THEM AND THEN SAY THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG AND THAT MAN EVOLVED. IT JUST DOSNT WORK.

No one is saying that the Scriptures are wrong. We are saying a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is the wrong INTERPRETATION. There is a difference, Mirror. Genesis 1-3 are correct in the theological truths they portray. And those are the important truths, and they retain their truth even when set in wrong science. The OT is set in the best science of the day -- Babylonian science. That science is wrong. But the truths are just as true in modern science as they were in Babylonian science.

ANYWAY THIS THREAD IS TO TRY AND SHOW THAT CHRISTIANS WHO SAY "I BELIEVE IN CHRIST" AND THEN SAY "I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION" ARE JUST WRONG.

Instead of shouting, get on with showing it. So far you have done nothing but assert. There has been no "showing". In contrast, I have shown numerous Christians who accept evolution. The two can and do go together.

 

[lucaspa]

_]"Since when is evolution "random"? It's not. Selection is the exact opposite of "random"; it is pure determinism[/i].

doesn't "selection" just refer to whether or not a current species is succesful or survives? Which i agree is almost pure determinism. but isn't how a species gets new charecteristics random? I always thought evolution was based on whether or not a genetic mutant of a species could survive.

We are dealing with two different things here: individuals and populations (species). An individual gets its characteristics "randomly" either by sexual recombination or mutation. By "random" we mean "random with respect to the needs of the individual or population." That is, in a climate that is growing colder, just as many individual deer with shorter fur will be born as deer with longer fur. The population gets its characteristics by the non-random process of selection. The shorter-furred deer will freeze in the cold winters and only the longer-furred deer will be selected. Thus the genes for longer fur will be preserved and the characteristic of the population will change over time.

The key here is remembering that variations happen to individuals but that evolution happens to populations. Does that make it clearer?

Now, evolution is "contingent". That is, accidental events have a profound effect on the future. But hey, we already accept that history is a contingent process and think God can use history for His purposes. So what's the problem?"

But in the case of history, God being all knowing, knows how to work around these accidents, and to God these wouldn't be accidents as he wold have foreknowledge of them, and so could work them into his plan.

And why couldn't God work the accidents of variation into His plan?
1. By your logic the accidents of variation would also be known to God ahead of time.
2. If accidents are still accidents and God doesn't know them -- either in history or in variations in individuals -- God can still work with them to accomplish His plan.

Either way, evolution offers no more problems for God than does human history.

If you're saying God made the Universe and said "let's see what sort of creature evolves" it would go against God having a plan for the universe.

Why? God is not a physical creature. What does it matter to God what physical form we have? Evolution is going to explore the Library of Mendel (all possible genomes) and it will eventually get to that part of the Library that has genomes that make creatures capable of communicating with God. So God can just wait and then intervene in history after those creatures are designed by evolution.

But if you say God set up the Universe so that Man would evolve, taking into account all the "accidents" that would happen, that would be consistent with with God having a plan. The second one was what I meant by God "guiding" evolution.

Now you are saying that God wanted a modified ape for the physical form. I don't see why this is so, but God could still have guided the process by 1) providing some of the variations along the way and/or 2) engaging in a little artificial selection. Neither would be detectable by science.

So yes, you could be a Christian and accept evolution if you add that God deliberately set up the Universe so that Man would evolve.

I think you can back off that "so that Man would evolve". That, IMO, is human pride speaking. It makes humans special for something inherent in us. Instead, I suggest that humans are special only because God chooses to regard humans as special. Just like the Hebrews were the Chosen People not for anything in them but because God chose to make them the Chosen People.

Edit: your sig said it best "Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."

Thank you.

 

[ur32212451]

Hello Lucaspa

Since when is evolution "random"? It's not. Selection is the exact opposite of "random"; it is pure determinism.

But "Selection", i.e. natural selection, can not be the cause of evolution simply because selection can only select existing allele's. What Evolution requires is the accumulation of new alleles, something which selection can not provide.

Natural Selection is a Creationists idea! Even before Darwin creationists described 'natural selection' as a conservative force for preserving each created 'kind', i.e. a baramin. It does this in two ways: the first by allowng adaptation to different and varying environments (via change in allele frequency) and by eliminating many genetic defects caused by mutations, thus causing lineages to maintain their fitness.

Natural selection works with an organisms ability to change, within genetic limits, so that plants and animals can multiply and fill many diverse areas of the earth with variations on a theme perfectly suited for each area.

Sorry, but you are wrong about the fossil record. There are lots of transitional species. But even worse for you, there are transitional individuals linking one species to another, and even series linking species to species across higher taxa, even to linking Casses (birds and mammals are examples of Classes). I've put together a partial list:
http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

To help me out, could you define the word "species".

Meanwhile. I will take a look at the url you provided. These examples, if they hold up, would go a long way to establishing Evolution as a fact.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

THATS VERY CONTRADICTORY.

Why should my beliefs depend on what you think?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Mutation can produce new alleles.

 

[Mirror]

No one is saying that the Scriptures are wrong. We are saying a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is the wrong INTERPRETATION. There is a difference, Mirror. Genesis 1-3 are correct in the theological truths they portray. And those are the important truths, and they retain their truth even when set in wrong science. The OT is set in the best science of the day -- Babylonian science. That science is wrong. But the truths are just as true in modern science as they were in Babylonian science.

how can you misinterpret those chapters. It specifficly says night and day which means it was a 24hr period, not billions of years.

you can not say that you are christian and accept evolution cuase it complettly contradicts christian belief that we were created. The christian also believes the 2300 day prophecy in the book of Daniel. therfore if you believe in evolution(which takes billions of years) you dont believe in the above 2 things.

and i wasnt shouting. i just had the caps lock on.

 

[Mirror]

Why should my beliefs depend on what you think?

Hey no ones telling you have to. Im just showing you your mistake.