Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[throughfiierytrial]

I personally don't see evolution as a threat to our faith.

Does the facts that we are a creation loved by God with a soul and a unique connection to him, that we fell and commit sin every day, that God loves us even though we sin, that he sent Jesus to save us from our depravity so we could have eternal life with him.........

All become nonsense if the ToE correct?

Nope

God's existence, his love towards us, and our sinfulness does not go away if evolution is true.

Sure the ToE would make some things nonsense, such as a view of the Bible that believes the books have to be perfect and historically accurate all the time. But that view is not a core part of our faith. Christianity can survive without it.

Not core?
John 17:17:
Sanctify them by Thy Truth; Thy Word is Truth.
and...
Matthew 4:4:
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

quite core indeed!

 

[ken777]

Hello Ken.

I looked up, 'harmonizing the resurrection', on the web and found this.

Professor George Eldon Ladd did not recommend a harmonization of the four different resurrection
accounts. Though Ladd did offer, 'for my own amusement', the following attempt at harmonization
of the four resurrection accounts. (Jesus.walk.com)

Here are the first three points in order.

1 The earthquake and removal of stone occurs before dawn.

2 A group of four women come early to the tomb, wondering who will move the stone.
As they approach, they are amazed to see that the stone has been rolled away.

3 Mary rushes off to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus has been stolen (John 20:2).

We will stop at point three of this harmonization.

I will now quote from Matthew's Gospel, the resurrection account.

Matthew 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and
rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as
snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do
not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has
risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has
risen from the dead.

So we note specifically the harmonization proposed by Ladd, i.e., point three above.

3 Mary rushes off to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus has been stolen. (John 20:2)

Matthew's account clearly states that the women were told by the angel.

7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead.

Matthew's account is in conflict with Ladd's account, that Mary rushes to tell Peter that the body of Jesus
has been stolen?

Ladd's third point is in direct conflict with Matthew's account. Any further examination of this attempted
and amusing harmonization by Ladd, is a waste of time.

I need a reasonable harmonization of the resurrection accounts, Ken. Professor Ladd
made no recommendation on the harmony.

You must post the web address of the harmony.

A group of women visited the tomb, not all are named by all the Gospels. Matthew names only two of the group. You are assuming that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" were the only women there.

If you are interested in debating this subject I suggest you start a new thread.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Nonsense. Hindu fundamentalist reject human evolution more fiercly than YECers!

You can call evolution " a religion" as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so. It is the theory best supported by scientific evidence, which makes it a science. Sorry.

I Timothy 6:20-21:
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

You name the word science as though things discovered by it are facts cast in stone...fact is the sciences waver back and forth on their beliefs...come back home to the Word which never wavers!

 

[klutedavid]

I agree. However if there are any differences at all, it indicates that inerrancy of the Chicago variety is not possible. Accepting that various Gospel writers differed in some respects is much closer to a mainline view, which is that God acted in history, and Scripture was written by humans in response to that, and thus is limited by the accuracy of witnesses and errors in transmission of information.

Hello Hedrick.

Exactly, the resurrection accounts are conflicting.

 

[Indent]

This should prove useful:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

It's amazing that decades later this article is till relevant today. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.

 

[ken777]

The insistence of fundamentalists on scripture alone as a source of data from which to argue is always an interesting thing to see. One has to ask . . . . what logic and/or evidence led them to understand they should place the bible in such a high place - one where no other evidence is allowed to tread?

Many times such a thinker will merely quote a bible verse to back this idea up, and that of course is the error of circular reasoning.

But a few will attempt to cite evidence in favor of this idea from outside of the Bible, as they should. Historical confirmation of Bible statements, God using scriptures to change lives, personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit to trust the Bible . . . I invite readers to add to this list.

This is the only logical thing one can possibly do to assign the Bible such a high place in settling arguments. But notice this - it means, inevitably, irrevocably, that evidence from other places besides the Bible also counts. Because if evidence outside the Bible does NOT matter, you cannot establish that the BIBLE matters. And that evidence includes the findings of science, they cannot be excluded when considering evidence.

The evidence for the inerrancy of the Bible is internal. You either believe the testimony of Jesus (Matthew 5:18) and Paul (2 Timothy 3:16) and Peter (2 Peter 3:15) or you don't.

I find it interesting that those who believe in evolution have made no attempt to reconcile their ideas with the Scriptural record in the OT & NT. In fact they have only made attempts to discredit the Bible as unreliable.

 

[ken777]

Exactly, the resurrection accounts are conflicting.

Not conflicting - just confusing until you study it closely.

 

[ken777]

This should prove useful:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

It's amazing that decades later this article is till relevant today. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.

Gould's comments demonstrate the very attitude that David Berlinski debunks.

 

[Indent]

Gould's comments demonstrate the very attitude that David Berlinski debunks.

I find that hard to believe.

and the Discovery Institute has no credibility.

 

[KWCrazy]

You either believe the testimony of Jesus (Matthew 5:18) and Paul (2 Timothy 3:16) and Peter (2 Peter 3:15) or you don't.

They do not.
They subjugate the word of God to the theories of man and each creates his own religion based on the passages of Scripture he selectively accepts or rejects. Having their own private interpretation of God they aren't much different from the godless who reject the Lord altogether.
The first three chapters of Genesis are referred to over 200 times in the New Testament alone. It's foundational doctrine. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
The wicked reject what the Lord teaches and teach their own doctrine.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hello Paul.

Science is about hard evidence, not imagined associations between groups in the
evolutionary tree. Science is empiricism, observable evidence.

Fossils are observed evidence. DNA similarities are observed evidence. Shared retroviral inserts are observed evidence. Shared genetic defects are observed evidence. Useless left over vestiges are observed evidence. And news flash . . . lots of those fossils are hard.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Lol im arguing both sides now, just playing devils advocate here.
But isnt it possible, since other gospel accounts say there were more women than mary and mary magdalene (which, by the way, isnt a contradiction, matthew is just leaving the other women out because he felt no need to give an exhaustive list, and likewise the number of angels), that Mary ran and told the disciples the body was stolen before seeing the angel, and then the angels appeared to the other women and said that to them?
I dont really have an opinion either way, just keeping an open mind.
When I read the four accounts, I found them confusing in places but not incompatible or contradictory.

Look, in detail, one MUST OVERLOOK those little contradictions. They aren't significant, as you say, but they are there. They are not really reason to call the resurrection of Jesus into question, merely total biblical inerrancy. There are other examples.

 

[sparow]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

I have only read the first post and I am somewhat naïve regarding the theory; I remember as an eight year old there was half a page in our geography text book on evolution and this was taught in one 40 minute class; it wasn't taught as being right or true but only that Darwin and the theory existed and to some simple extent what it was.

Before Darwin the Latin based word had an infinite set of real applications; Darwin's theory was a theoretical application not even one of the infinite practical set. My original concept of the theory learnt at school was man evolved from a monkey. Darwin's theoretical evolution is also a different concept as though Darwin didn't understand the previous concept. When you say "simply overwhelming evidence", evidence of what?

Genesis contains a layman's explanation containing no technical information regarding method or process; the theory of evolution is the opposite, Darwin's theory attempts to give precise information about the unknown and unprovable.

 

[Armoured]

I Timothy 6:20-21:
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

You name the word science as though things discovered by it are facts cast in stone...fact is the sciences waver back and forth on their beliefs...come back home to the Word which never wavers!

Yeah yeah. Said over the internet.

Sure, science makes errors, then corrects them. That doesn't change the fact that evolution is a science, supported by scientific evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

A group of women visited the tomb, not all are named by all the Gospels. Matthew names only two of the group. You are assuming that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" were the only women there.

If you are interested in debating this subject I suggest you start a new thread.

Hello Ken.

Did you read the post?

 

[klutedavid]

Not conflicting - just confusing until you study it closely.

Hello Ken.

I have read the four accounts. They are different accounts of the same event.

 

[klutedavid]

Fossils are observed evidence. DNA similarities are observed evidence. Shared retroviral inserts are observed evidence. Shared genetic defects are observed evidence. Useless left over vestiges are observed evidence. And news flash . . . lots of those fossils are hard.

Hello Paul.

There are fossils, genetics, e.t.c.

The problem is that the fossil record is not a perfect, sequential ordering.

Genetics studies conflict with one another.

Mice and whales are mammals, very difficult to see that they have a common
ancestor.

They show skeletons of Pakicetus for some reason, the legs of Pakicetus become
fins via evolution. What about the whales dorsal fin, where does that come from?

There are giant leaps in connecting different species, that evolutionary theory allows.
Without having the hard observable evidence at hand. Do you realize that Pakicetus
may have nothing to do with whales.

 

[klutedavid]

This should prove useful:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

It's amazing that decades later this article is till relevant today. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.

Hello Indent.

Fact is something that is proven. A natural science relies on observational data,
hence, the conclusions found in the natural sciences. Cannot ever be proven,
can never be considered as fact. A fact is not something that is highly probable.
Stephen J Gould needs to read the dictionary definitions.

The further you travel back in time, the more difficult the task becomes for
evolutionary theory.

If science cannot really come to any conclusion about the origin of the dog.
Which was a recent event, 10 000 to 30 000 years, how can we trust science
to go beyond 30 000 years for any other species.

You must be kidding yourself, the evidence is observable, science cannot even
understand the ancestry of dogs.

 

[Anguspure]

Fossils are observed evidence.

Fossils are observed evidence that fossilised things existed a long time ago and perhaps that they arrived in a sequence of events. But evidence for Darwinian pan-adaptionism as a creative law? Not even close.

DNA similarities are observed evidence.

Do you observe similarities between the Model T Ford and the Ford Ranger? Are they are related? Do you think they evolved by a process of natural selection?, or do you think perhaps that there might have been a development process that involved intelligent people?
It amuses me somewhat that I hear talk of the evolution of the motorcar quite regularly, so strong is the desire to deny intelligence in design development.

Shared retroviral inserts are observed evidence.

Again, these supply evidence of past events but no new invention ever came about from shared retrovirals and therefore shared retrovirals do not supply any evidence of accidental invention of anything.

Shared genetic defects are observed evidence.

Same again, but also, any defect is a retrograde step from an earlier more complete form.

Useless left over vestiges are observed evidence.

Vestiges supply evidence of degredation from an earlier more complete form and therefore provide evidence of top down design that subsequently becomes subject to general entropic law, such as is observed in cases of design, development and invention.
News flash...Functional coherence makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible (Douglas Axe), but then we always new that, didn't we?

 

[klutedavid]

Yeah yeah. Said over the internet.

Sure, science makes errors, then corrects them. That doesn't change the fact that evolution is a science, supported by scientific evidence.

Hello Armoured.

Science makes errors and profound errors at times.

Science is an ideology, if the premises and assumptions that science is
founded on, are sound. Then science may proceed to gather evidence
and knowledge. The only problem that occurs eventually, is science reaches
limitations in what can be known and understood.

By the application of the empirical methodology, there always exists the
possibility that forces exist beyond the comprehension of science. For
example, astrophysics needed to invent dark energy to explain a universe
that is expanding at an accelerating rate. The standard model that astro
physics uses is incomplete.

Currently quantum physics, is reaching areas of study that appear beyond
our understanding. We may be reaching these points of limitation, upper
and lower bounds of intellectual endeavor.