Do You Accept Evolution?

[Zoness]

I find calvinism FAR more logical and reasonable than any other Christian school of thought and have never seen it lose in a debate. Although, hyper-calvinism is crazy...

I was referring to connecting natural selection and calvinism, not the school of thought termed calvinism. I agree that hyper-calvinism is crazy though, I don't even subscribe to regular calvinism let alone something with the prefix hyper.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

I find calvinism FAR more logical and reasonable than any other Christian school of thought and have never seen it lose in a debate. Although, hyper-calvinism is crazy...

I've always hated that term. If it is not in keeping with Calvin's teaching, it's not Calvinism. Although, I have a problem with the distinction of Calvinist or Armenianist, anyways, since we should be identifying ourselves with Christ rather than some dead preacher, lol. But that's a different point, and within the context of a group of Christians I suppose it's okay because it makes it easier for us to distinguish what we believe and gives us all a place to start from in our conversation.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

I was referring to connecting natural selection and calvinism, not the school of thought termed calvinism. I agree that hyper-calvinism is crazy though, I don't even subscribe to regular calvinism let alone something with the prefix hyper.

Ok. Again, I wasn't saying Sovereign Election and Natural Selection are exact, but they do have some interesting parallels.

 

[ArcticFox]

Howso? I see no absolute contradiction.

There are many.

The largest being that death did not enter into the world until Adam sinned. Death came through Adam, but Macro Evolution teaches that death produced Adam.

As I said before, this is true for a proper an semi-proper reading. In order to reconcile Evolution, a Christian must begin to go back to their reading of the passage and change it in a variety of ways.

There is absolutely no way to ever arrive at anything even remotely resembling Evolution from the passage in Genesis. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Adam is created from the clay of the earth, and life is breathed into him. It is never even remotely suggested that he is the product of countless genetic mutations that eventually turned lower primates into humans.

Furthermore, it is both a terribly inefficient and sloppy process, and a very ugly process. If you believe that God chose to create man by endlessly producing genetic mutations that are selectively maintained through death, you are far from any remotely reasonable reading of Genesis.

The strata littered with corpses of genetically mutated creatures... it is the result of sin, not the creation mechanism of a holy god.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

There are many.

The largest being that death did not enter into the world until Adam sinned. Death came through Adam, but Macro Evolution teaches that death produced Adam.

As I said before, this is true for a proper an semi-proper reading. In order to reconcile Evolution, a Christian must begin to go back to their reading of the passage and change it in a variety of ways.

There is absolutely no way to ever arrive at anything even remotely resembling Evolution from the passage in Genesis. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Adam is created from the clay of the earth, and life is breathed into him. It is never even remotely suggested that he is the product of countless genetic mutations that eventually turned lower primates into humans.

Furthermore, it is both a terribly inefficient and sloppy process, and a very ugly process. If you believe that God chose to create man by endlessly producing genetic mutations that are selectively maintained through death, you are far from any remotely reasonable reading of Genesis.

The strata littered with corpses of genetically mutated creatures... it is the result of sin, not the creation mechanism of a holy god.

Paul said that by one man came death, but I take that as for humans, as humans were different than animals once God breathed a spirit into those first two humaniod like beings.

And why would God threaten Adam and Eve with death if they didn't witness death? I think they had an idea of what death was. And either way, man is still made from the molecules (dust) of the earth.

And why wouldn't God use death in natural selection? Who says He can't and that He's evil in doing so? If God was so opposed to death, then I don't think He would have made beings He knew would sin, reject, and perish. I don't think God sees death like we do, especially in the animal kingdom. If it wasn't a sin for Jesus to eat fish, or for us to eat animals now, then it was never a sin or wrong for animals to eat other animals.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I accept the theory of evoluion just as I accept Calivinism- as plausible theories lacking suffcient evidence and observation of a priori conditions to constitute "proof."

That being said, I reject both on the basis of my observation of the evidence.

I accept other explanations (Creation ex nihilo and the EO view on theology) as more plausible and palatable.

Specifically, the lack of transitional species and sufficient metaphysic in evolution, and contrary biblical evidence against all five points of TULIP.

These are my views.

 

[Musa80]

Very well put, Iakovos.


I will say one thing for this thread. Previously I thought Calvinism was just a bad idea. Now I'm positive it's both a bad idea and dangerous to say the least.

 

[sunlover1]

I believe God evolved humanoid like beings until they could house enough intelligence for God to breathe a spirit into them.

Why do you believe that ?

 

[chestertonrules]

Why do you believe that ?

Genesis 2:

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

[Sphinx777]

<<< EDIT >>>

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Of course I believe in evolution.

 

[ArcticFox]

Paul said that by one man came death, but I take that as for humans, as humans were different than animals once God breathed a spirit into those first two humaniod like beings.

And why would God threaten Adam and Eve with death if they didn't witness death? I think they had an idea of what death was. And either way, man is still made from the molecules (dust) of the earth.

And why wouldn't God use death in natural selection? Who says He can't and that He's evil in doing so? If God was so opposed to death, then I don't think He would have made beings He knew would sin, reject, and perish. I don't think God sees death like we do, especially in the animal kingdom. If it wasn't a sin for Jesus to eat fish, or for us to eat animals now, then it was never a sin or wrong for animals to eat other animals.

I believe you are speaking primarily from speculation and opinion.

I'm taking the face value of what the Bible teaches on the matter and going with that. Ultimately, you have to admit that you must construct a variety of methods to "avoid" the face-value of Genesis in order to believe in Macro Evolution.

 

[ArcticFox]

Very well put, Iakovos.


I will say one thing for this thread. Previously I thought Calvinism was just a bad idea. Now I'm positive it's both a bad idea and dangerous to say the least.

This thread is about Evolution. Please stop discussing Calvinism because it is a derailment of the thread.

There are plenty of other threads to discuss that topic. Don't debate off-topic in the Evolution thread.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

This thread is about Evolution. Please stop discussing Calvinism because it is a derailment of the thread.

There are plenty of other threads to discuss that topic. Don't debate off-topic in the Evolution thread.

On the contrary- Calvinism was in the OP, and has been the subject of much of the thread. We all have a right to our opinions, and this forum is designated as a place to share them.

 

[Christian Sojourner]

Why do you believe that ?

The genome shows a history of our evolution.

A few reasons why I accept evolution are:

1.) The phylogenetics trees of comparative anatomy, embryology, and genetics in comparison to one another.

2.) Endogenous retroviruses and their place in the genome in relation to other primates, such as the chimp.

3.) Atavisms in the genome and their being turned back on, as observed in some whales, snakes, birds, etc..

4.) Human chromosome 2, the fusion, in relation to chimp chromosomes 12 and 13.

5.) Feathered dinosuars.

Why do they find feathered dinosuars low in the strata but NEVER find a modern eagle or bird? Because they didn't live together.

And why do modern eagles have three fingers under their wings like these feathered raptor dinosuars, and why do they have the same *scaled*feet?

Why are some birds born with teeth? If made from scratch why do they have a gene for teeth that is now dysfunctional? If humans were made from scratch why are they sometimes born with a functional tail? Why even have that gene that can sometimes be turned on to make a tail?

I could go on and on.

 

[ArcticFox]

On the contrary- Calvinism was in the OP, and has been the subject of much of the thread. We all have a right to our opinions, and this forum is designated as a place to share them.

Calvinism was not in the OP. The OP merely mentioned he's a Calvinist, and that's all.

The subject is Evolution. Stop debating Calvinism, it's a derailment and a failure to stay on topic.

 

[Zoness]

Maybe he is trying to relate Calvinist views to Evolutionism/Creationism. I mean, why else would you mention that if it wasn't relevant. Like if I said: "Hi I'm Zoness, I'm a former Roman Catholic turn semi-Anglican free will seeker and I was wondering..." I would be meaning I want you to take my background into consideration.

Just a thought.

 

[Caoimhe]

I accept Evolution only at a face value, meaning it can be entertaining enough for me to consider the possibilities it has to offer. However, I'm no believer of it and voted "No".

 

[Assyrian]

While historically Christianity has allowed for some degree of allegory in this passage (indeed some older theologians argued that it had to be allegorical, because it wouldn't take God six whole days to create the world), there are limits to how far you can take allegory. In Christianity, death is an Adamic, Hamartiological condition. To deny this is to veer dangerously into Pelagianism.

Hmm not sure that follows. Just because Augustine used Adam to argue against Pelagius doesn't mean Pelagianism is right if we find Augustine's argument was flawed. Pelagius was wrong regardless of how good Augustine's particular argument about Adam was.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, but there is a big difference between the parables of Christ (which he stated to be parables)

Actually, he very often didn't say he was spreaking in parables. What we have again and again in the gospels is the evangelist writing and telling us that Jesus was speaking a parable. For the people listening to Jesus, he just launghed straight into the metaphor or story without any explanation. That is why Nicodemus was so confused. That is why people thought he really meant tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days, or that he was really advocating cannibalism.

So we find out a passage in scripture we thought literal really isn't? We are in good company. Jesus' disciples often had the same problem. It comes with being his disciples. Of course we can then look back in church history and find people realised long ago Genesis 1 wasn't literal. We had just forgotten.

and calling an historical account a parable. Just as there is a big difference between metaphors in a book of prophecy or poetry, which implicitly use metaphor, and a book of history. The two simply are not the same.

The problem here is that you are assuming the creation accounts are literal history and that because some of the book is history it all has to be.